kainjow
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:35 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 10:53 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
munkery
May 2, 01:02 PM
As with all malware that doesn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation, this will not be very widespread or successful.
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:05 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:18 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
ryme4reson
Oct 10, 02:59 AM
Well I tested my G4 933, and I have CHUD tools installed so I can disable my L2 and L3 cache. I also could not get the java to work so I compiled with C++, its the same stuff, but I used time() with gave me seconds, so * 1000 to get the adjusted scores
Here are my scores
933 256L2 2MBL3 79 seconds or 79000
933 NO L2 or L3 124 seconds or 124000
933 L2 only 79 seconds
933 L3 only 79 seconds
Judging by these scores I have to think that CHUD is not working and it only worked with completely disabled. as the diff of 45 seconds.
And you can get CHUD from apple ftp.apple.com
Needless to say it takes me 79 seconds when a PV is completing this in 5-10 seconds, something is wrong!! (the the G4)
Lastly, I have not seen BACKTOTHEMAC telling us how great the G4 is lately, must be installing Win 2K under VPC with a stopwatch in 1 hand, an apple in the other, and a smile on his face...
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
Here are my scores
933 256L2 2MBL3 79 seconds or 79000
933 NO L2 or L3 124 seconds or 124000
933 L2 only 79 seconds
933 L3 only 79 seconds
Judging by these scores I have to think that CHUD is not working and it only worked with completely disabled. as the diff of 45 seconds.
And you can get CHUD from apple ftp.apple.com
Needless to say it takes me 79 seconds when a PV is completing this in 5-10 seconds, something is wrong!! (the the G4)
Lastly, I have not seen BACKTOTHEMAC telling us how great the G4 is lately, must be installing Win 2K under VPC with a stopwatch in 1 hand, an apple in the other, and a smile on his face...
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
citizenzen
Mar 16, 11:57 AM
First...
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
Second...
Third...
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
*ouch*
Rolled my eyes so far I think I pulled something.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:57 PM
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
tristan
Jul 12, 06:46 AM
Spooky - I predicted this. Me and everyone else except a couple naysayers. I only buy laptops though, so I'm not really the target market. But I think this will be on every graphic designers desk by Xmas. Go Apple and Intel!
Huntn
Apr 26, 10:49 AM
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:52 PM
It may be his favourite question, but very valid.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
orak
Oct 6, 09:50 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?
The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?
The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)
Multimedia
Oct 24, 11:53 PM
Damn multimedia, you are making me want that Dell! I just went to the Apple store to check out the 30" (pulled a stool up to the machine from the genius bar and tried to see if I could handle all that real estate). I am usually a sucker for Apple stuff and having matching componentry...but that dell is so CHEAP!
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
skunk
Apr 24, 11:36 AM
What part of
...
did you not compute?Oh, I computed it all right. You took one possibility out of four in order to make your argument appear stronger.
...
did you not compute?Oh, I computed it all right. You took one possibility out of four in order to make your argument appear stronger.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 01:56 PM
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
gugy
Sep 20, 01:38 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
yeah, that looks cool.
I am seriously considering buying one. Plus get an external antena and get HDTV. sweet.:D
But I would still keeping my dishnetwork DVR. I think it will take time to completely get rid off any cable/dvr package.
The fact that the computer has to be on everytime I want to watch or record a show is somewhat a hassle.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
yeah, that looks cool.
I am seriously considering buying one. Plus get an external antena and get HDTV. sweet.:D
But I would still keeping my dishnetwork DVR. I think it will take time to completely get rid off any cable/dvr package.
The fact that the computer has to be on everytime I want to watch or record a show is somewhat a hassle.
mikethebigo
Apr 8, 10:46 PM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
sinisterdesign
Jul 11, 11:06 PM
from my source, i can confirm that they will indeed have 2 dual cores.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:16 PM
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
All true... I still don't think that it's anything to jump up and down about.
One sad side-effect of the iTV however will probably to kill off any other 3rd party streaming boxes (either out today or in the pipeline). Elgato already has practically burried the EyeHome on their site... :-(
All true... I still don't think that it's anything to jump up and down about.
One sad side-effect of the iTV however will probably to kill off any other 3rd party streaming boxes (either out today or in the pipeline). Elgato already has practically burried the EyeHome on their site... :-(
