Multimedia
Jul 13, 11:18 AM
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
diamornte
Apr 13, 03:46 AM
Is it any coincidence that the "so-called" Pros in this discussion (who have probably never even used FCP) are complaining about the Interface simply because it looks like iMovie, and so therefore must be "cheap/un-professional"?
You can't assume they've never used FCP. FCP is so readily available in the Post Production World, seems that everyone's got a copy of it at home whether it's the student edition or pirated.
You can't assume they've never used FCP. FCP is so readily available in the Post Production World, seems that everyone's got a copy of it at home whether it's the student edition or pirated.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:31 AM
Next quarter you'll see very, very different numbers. Over the next 3-5 years you'll see the decline of the entire PC market and a shift over to tablets and pad devices as they become more capable and powerful.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
skunk
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin. I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
reel2reel
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
That's awesome.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
SMM
Oct 21, 12:52 PM
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
Absolutely agree. It must be exciting to be an EE working on this stuff right now. So many options to explore. How would you design a memory bus which would be dynamic enough to adjust for a doubling of processors? If you had a fixed, known number of processors, the design is straight-forward. But, the new multi-core design is not something they have had to deal with before. I wonder how they will do it?
TripHop
Apr 12, 11:48 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.So if you upgrade to the new Final Cut Studio which includes the new Final Cut Pro 7 for $299 will Final Cut Pro X be a free upgrade or what? :confused:
Never mind. Apple still has a NEW corner on the FCP page and my Zite just posted a 21 month old Apple press release as if it was news. :rolleyes:
Never mind. Apple still has a NEW corner on the FCP page and my Zite just posted a 21 month old Apple press release as if it was news. :rolleyes:
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:37 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks. Dude did you miss the coverage. This thing plays HD. He played Incredibles in HD. Just because the content they are offering now is 480p does not mean that it will be 6 months from now when this is released. Also the HDMI and component connectors would be pointless if it was not HD.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
archipellago
May 2, 04:56 PM
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
nick9191
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
idea_hamster
May 2, 08:56 AM
So what does this do? What's the effect of the payload?
Macky-Mac
Apr 24, 11:15 AM
..... If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
zioxide
Mar 13, 09:03 AM
I'd be willing to bet that our crusades for oil have costs thousands of more lives than nuclear power accidents ever have.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:34 AM
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Povilas
Oct 7, 12:03 PM
Android is a mobile OS. iPhone is a device. Android is and will be used in many devices by many manufacturers. iPhone is only one device, but if you add iPod Touch which runs the same OS I don't think Android can surpass it by 2012.
Prof.
Jun 19, 01:13 PM
Didn't their slogan used to be "The carrier with the fewest dropped calls"? Or something to that effect.
takao
Mar 15, 04:16 AM
Here is the article to which you referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 12:24 AM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no 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?
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no 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?
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:15 PM
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
No comments:
Post a Comment