Lord Blackadder
Mar 11, 05:34 PM
Fivepoint? Hello? You posted the rhetoric from the gentleman from Kentucky, but haven't actually described how and what you did on the little budget game.
Looks like he pulled a fivepoint again. Start thread, argue a bit, run away, repeat.
Looks like he pulled a fivepoint again. Start thread, argue a bit, run away, repeat.
Lesser Evets
May 5, 05:32 AM
This rumor is 100% automatic BS.
You can come back and throw verbal stones at me if wrong, but this low-end computing pad is going to get that kind of unseen technology out the gate? First, the price of the device would be $900+, killing its market, unless there is some amazingly convenient reason for the 3D screens to be made as cheap as the regular ones used now. The iPad 3 + 3D making it iPad 3D seems just a tad too convenient for a dumb rumor to start. Sounds more like a joke said in a bar and spread as fact to see how far the fanboys would run.
Heck, they couldn't even bring out a retina-resolution screen yet on the iPad. Or OLED. ...and you think they'll implement 3D: the most useless innovation sparked by a Hollywood carnival barker?
You can come back and throw verbal stones at me if wrong, but this low-end computing pad is going to get that kind of unseen technology out the gate? First, the price of the device would be $900+, killing its market, unless there is some amazingly convenient reason for the 3D screens to be made as cheap as the regular ones used now. The iPad 3 + 3D making it iPad 3D seems just a tad too convenient for a dumb rumor to start. Sounds more like a joke said in a bar and spread as fact to see how far the fanboys would run.
Heck, they couldn't even bring out a retina-resolution screen yet on the iPad. Or OLED. ...and you think they'll implement 3D: the most useless innovation sparked by a Hollywood carnival barker?
gameface
Mar 4, 04:04 PM
No worries man :) lucky you did, such a nice shot.. I might just have to ask for a high res version for a wallpaper :D it really is a stunning shot man.. the light cast across the benches, the city lights in the background.. it almost looks so isolated, just the bench and the city.. you can image someone sat there alone staring out into nothing with just their thoughts.. really is a fantastic photo :)
I know a photos good when it makes me think all sorts like that!
again, you dont fail to impress :D looks alot like a wallpaper I have! Again, beautiful shot man :)
Thanks for the kind words! I've only been really shooting for a year so I've been trying to get out and shoot as much as possible. I try to post a bunch and get as much criticism as possible to help me improve. It's nice when someone really likes a shot!
mine for today.. my beautiful little half sister :) loved the lighting here.. basically no PP at all
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5497970602_9d95eb3489_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5497970602/)
Sis (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5497970602/) by TheSVD (http://www.flickr.com/people/svdphotography/), on Flickr
That shot is fantastic. outstanding light, nice bokeh, beautiful subject!
Mine for today.
Shot this for a contest a week or so ago. The contest subject was "the end". Saw this walking and thought it fit for the end of an era. No one uses payphones anymore. Got a lot of flack for not removing the can on the ledge but it didn't bother me as I was documenting the scene.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5479752456_a6677631b9_b.jpg
I know a photos good when it makes me think all sorts like that!
again, you dont fail to impress :D looks alot like a wallpaper I have! Again, beautiful shot man :)
Thanks for the kind words! I've only been really shooting for a year so I've been trying to get out and shoot as much as possible. I try to post a bunch and get as much criticism as possible to help me improve. It's nice when someone really likes a shot!
mine for today.. my beautiful little half sister :) loved the lighting here.. basically no PP at all
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5497970602_9d95eb3489_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5497970602/)
Sis (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5497970602/) by TheSVD (http://www.flickr.com/people/svdphotography/), on Flickr
That shot is fantastic. outstanding light, nice bokeh, beautiful subject!
Mine for today.
Shot this for a contest a week or so ago. The contest subject was "the end". Saw this walking and thought it fit for the end of an era. No one uses payphones anymore. Got a lot of flack for not removing the can on the ledge but it didn't bother me as I was documenting the scene.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5479752456_a6677631b9_b.jpg
mfr1340
Mar 28, 04:03 PM
So Walmart is full of obese hillbillies?
I bought my iPad 2 at Walmart: 7 folks in line, 15 iPad 2's. Everyone was very nice. Im a 24yr old 6'2'', 190lb Systems engineer(with all my teeth)...and I shop there all the time. Dont hate...
I went to walmart on launch day at 4pm I was #5 in line and they had 6. Best Buy had 40 in line. I was out of there by 5:05 with my 64 gig wifi. I ordered one for my wife on line I got a 5 week date. They sent my cover right away, and took full payment from my debit card. Thats why they should send the ordered ones before they open to another chain.
I bought my iPad 2 at Walmart: 7 folks in line, 15 iPad 2's. Everyone was very nice. Im a 24yr old 6'2'', 190lb Systems engineer(with all my teeth)...and I shop there all the time. Dont hate...
I went to walmart on launch day at 4pm I was #5 in line and they had 6. Best Buy had 40 in line. I was out of there by 5:05 with my 64 gig wifi. I ordered one for my wife on line I got a 5 week date. They sent my cover right away, and took full payment from my debit card. Thats why they should send the ordered ones before they open to another chain.
Blue Velvet
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Tapped digs up the transcript from the second presidential debate:
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
dernhelm
Aug 4, 01:47 PM
??
I think he's referring to "scrolls like butter".
I think he's referring to "scrolls like butter".
womble2k2
Mar 19, 01:41 PM
The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch. The ClickWheel "interface" of the classic is a royal pain in the back when you have to navigate through thousands of titles.
If you use a classic for a long time, you get very used to the click wheel and find navigation easy.
My soon to be sister-in-law has had a classic since the third generation (currently uses a 5th gen and an iPhone). She has got so used to the click wheel, she can move around her library (which maxes out her 80 Gig drive) in seconds. It's amazing to watch!
I guess it is like some people do not like touchscreen phones and would prefer to have a fiddly little keyboard to type messages than a virtual keyboard.
My guess is that the classic will remain, but may get a touch interface, maybe even a virtual click wheel using a little bit of vibration to give some feedback.
There is a chance that the next iPod Touch will have a 128 Gig option, but it will be at a high price. I always think there is a need for a cost effective hard drive based iPod. Even looking at the Keynote where the iPod was announced, SJ compared the price per song and at the time, dividing the purchase price of devices by the number of tracks they held (a bit meaningless, but does prove a point), Flash was at $10 / track and Hard Drive was at $0.30 per track.
Doing those calculations of the various models of Touch and the Classic you get;
(Based on 256 Kbps AAC)
8GB Touch = $0.31 per track
32 GB Touch = $0.08 per track
64 GB Touch = $0.05 per track
Classic = $0.01 per track
So the classic is currently the king of affordable personal music storage, however flash memory prices have fallen faster than super compact hard drive prices so should Apple double the capacity and keep the same price points on the next refresh, you could see Touches at around $0.02 to $0.03, so not much in it!
My last point is that no matter how much storage a device has, there will always be people who will want more. I know people who have music libraries that fill a 2 TB external drive! They have however encoded their old CD's at 512 Kbps, so can use the option to re-encode to 128 Kbps when they Sync. The solution here could be cloud based storage, but you would need a constant connection to the internet which would firstly require every device has more than just WiFi. Probably need the Kindle 3G type of solution. Secondly, it is not always possible to be connected (i.e. on flights, underground metro systems, etc) and thirdly, you'd be draining your battery!
Phil
If you use a classic for a long time, you get very used to the click wheel and find navigation easy.
My soon to be sister-in-law has had a classic since the third generation (currently uses a 5th gen and an iPhone). She has got so used to the click wheel, she can move around her library (which maxes out her 80 Gig drive) in seconds. It's amazing to watch!
I guess it is like some people do not like touchscreen phones and would prefer to have a fiddly little keyboard to type messages than a virtual keyboard.
My guess is that the classic will remain, but may get a touch interface, maybe even a virtual click wheel using a little bit of vibration to give some feedback.
There is a chance that the next iPod Touch will have a 128 Gig option, but it will be at a high price. I always think there is a need for a cost effective hard drive based iPod. Even looking at the Keynote where the iPod was announced, SJ compared the price per song and at the time, dividing the purchase price of devices by the number of tracks they held (a bit meaningless, but does prove a point), Flash was at $10 / track and Hard Drive was at $0.30 per track.
Doing those calculations of the various models of Touch and the Classic you get;
(Based on 256 Kbps AAC)
8GB Touch = $0.31 per track
32 GB Touch = $0.08 per track
64 GB Touch = $0.05 per track
Classic = $0.01 per track
So the classic is currently the king of affordable personal music storage, however flash memory prices have fallen faster than super compact hard drive prices so should Apple double the capacity and keep the same price points on the next refresh, you could see Touches at around $0.02 to $0.03, so not much in it!
My last point is that no matter how much storage a device has, there will always be people who will want more. I know people who have music libraries that fill a 2 TB external drive! They have however encoded their old CD's at 512 Kbps, so can use the option to re-encode to 128 Kbps when they Sync. The solution here could be cloud based storage, but you would need a constant connection to the internet which would firstly require every device has more than just WiFi. Probably need the Kindle 3G type of solution. Secondly, it is not always possible to be connected (i.e. on flights, underground metro systems, etc) and thirdly, you'd be draining your battery!
Phil
guzhogi
Nov 8, 09:06 AM
Anyone tell me what good is a 64-bit processor other than being able to address more RAM. I know a 64-bit address bus alone doesn't make a 64-bit processor.
I also heard these are not "true" 64-bit processors, just the same old x86 processors w/ 64-bitty goodness added on. Any truth to this?
I also heard these are not "true" 64-bit processors, just the same old x86 processors w/ 64-bitty goodness added on. Any truth to this?
dontmatter
Jul 24, 12:26 AM
a move to text based mediums would be great. It's easy to see that increases in technology should lead to increasingly technically difficult entertainment (hence ipod -> photo -> video), but it's not about the technology. It's about the entertainment of it and it's suitablility to the medium (ipod).
And in the hightech, fast paced world we live in, books, magazines, and newspapers are a welcome change and a fantastic form of entertainment, as they have been for centuries. Combining written text with the technology in the form of screens you want to read on all day long would be an excellent advance. It would be very cool if the ipod got wifi capabilities and you could download print media from ITMS and work RSS into the ipod too.
Imagine- wherever you go, the ipod finds internet access and updates itself automatically, and allows you to purchase books whenever you like. Fit the whole library in your pocket if you like.
The clincher is going to be the screen, though. Particularly because nothing is nicer than reading outside on a sunny day, but LCDs tend to suck at that. Also important would be wireless capabilities- could it use phone networks for internet access? Speeds wouldn't be a problem for text.
mmm, now if only all the rumors come together in one device without it becoming muddled or oversized, this could be spectacular.
And in the hightech, fast paced world we live in, books, magazines, and newspapers are a welcome change and a fantastic form of entertainment, as they have been for centuries. Combining written text with the technology in the form of screens you want to read on all day long would be an excellent advance. It would be very cool if the ipod got wifi capabilities and you could download print media from ITMS and work RSS into the ipod too.
Imagine- wherever you go, the ipod finds internet access and updates itself automatically, and allows you to purchase books whenever you like. Fit the whole library in your pocket if you like.
The clincher is going to be the screen, though. Particularly because nothing is nicer than reading outside on a sunny day, but LCDs tend to suck at that. Also important would be wireless capabilities- could it use phone networks for internet access? Speeds wouldn't be a problem for text.
mmm, now if only all the rumors come together in one device without it becoming muddled or oversized, this could be spectacular.
jknight8907
Mar 12, 06:35 PM
Again, the military is inextricable from the economy. Not only are large sectors heavily dependent on military spending (like the town of 150,000 just west of me, that would utterly collapse if its two bases were closed), but a weaker military would risk tremendous losses in international commerce as foreign nations take back control of their own markets and resources absent the pressure of potential American military action.
If you want to cut the military budget significantly, you had best have a really good plan in place to deal with the consequences. I think it is unlikely that our brand of "capitalism" would last long without a strong Pentagon.
(Which could be a good thing, in the long run, but a treacherous bridge to cross.)
In a free and prosperous market, business exists and is done solely because it is profitable. When it ceases being profitable, it must be stopped. To keep pouring 100 units of money into something for the sake of getting 10 units of money out via payroll can only end in one thing....failure. (I'm using 'units of money' as a general example)
If you want to cut the military budget significantly, you had best have a really good plan in place to deal with the consequences. I think it is unlikely that our brand of "capitalism" would last long without a strong Pentagon.
(Which could be a good thing, in the long run, but a treacherous bridge to cross.)
In a free and prosperous market, business exists and is done solely because it is profitable. When it ceases being profitable, it must be stopped. To keep pouring 100 units of money into something for the sake of getting 10 units of money out via payroll can only end in one thing....failure. (I'm using 'units of money' as a general example)
skunk
Apr 26, 06:58 PM
Boy, am I glad it's my bedtime.
mashinhead
Sep 12, 04:59 PM
i like iTunes 7 but have 2 questions
First i bought some music off itunes which i notices is the Clean version of the album. i didn't mean to buy these its just the clean vs explicity signs are too subtle. Can i get these changed.
And second, What about the shows i already bought, can they be converted to the higher res. cos that would suck otherwise.
First i bought some music off itunes which i notices is the Clean version of the album. i didn't mean to buy these its just the clean vs explicity signs are too subtle. Can i get these changed.
And second, What about the shows i already bought, can they be converted to the higher res. cos that would suck otherwise.
syklee26
Nov 8, 09:00 AM
i don't understand why some people would long for 12 inch ones when macbook is 13 inches. don't tell me 1 inch will make that big of a difference.
and I also don't understand those who bash Apple for not making ultraportable laptops....only Sony makes the true ultraportable (TX series) and it is ultra-expensive. Other so-called ultraportable laptop makers usually lack media drive.
by the way, macbook is the best value of all laptops in the market, period.
finally, to those who would bitch about macbook not having a videocard, Apple is not a charity. They don't give you laptop for free.
and I also don't understand those who bash Apple for not making ultraportable laptops....only Sony makes the true ultraportable (TX series) and it is ultra-expensive. Other so-called ultraportable laptop makers usually lack media drive.
by the way, macbook is the best value of all laptops in the market, period.
finally, to those who would bitch about macbook not having a videocard, Apple is not a charity. They don't give you laptop for free.
X5-452
Mar 18, 01:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Reception to the original iPod launch was mixed. Our own forum responses are interesting to look back on, 10 years later.
At least we're all pretty consistent with our critiques of Apple product launches, hahaha.
Reception to the original iPod launch was mixed. Our own forum responses are interesting to look back on, 10 years later.
At least we're all pretty consistent with our critiques of Apple product launches, hahaha.
einmusiker
Mar 29, 10:47 AM
I would guess that iPhone5 will be duel mode GSM and CMDA... so I would assume the 4G should be able to adapt to either.
isn't LTE a completely different spec than GSM or CDMA?
isn't LTE a completely different spec than GSM or CDMA?
dime21
Mar 31, 12:24 AM
Cite?
Here's a few quick ones.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
Here's a few quick ones.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
PCtoMAC?
Sep 27, 12:00 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way...I want more weapons!!! Or more ammo...
-J.-
I burn through a LOT of ammo too. About 5 minutes into a mission I usually am already down to like 50 assault rifle bullets and that ****** covenant pistol. Although now that im on my second go round with the single player if you look around, which I am doing a lot more of, there are a lot of simi hidden chaches of weapons. I didnt notice a lot of them the first time through as they blend into the surrounding pretty well.
-J.-
I burn through a LOT of ammo too. About 5 minutes into a mission I usually am already down to like 50 assault rifle bullets and that ****** covenant pistol. Although now that im on my second go round with the single player if you look around, which I am doing a lot more of, there are a lot of simi hidden chaches of weapons. I didnt notice a lot of them the first time through as they blend into the surrounding pretty well.
goosnarrggh
Nov 7, 09:08 AM
hmm... but shouldn't they wait until 802.11n becomes more than just a draft of a format?
Other products, including a few from Apple, are using draft-n hardware already.
Maybe they won't be 100% compliant, but unless something earth shattering happens before 802.11n is finalized, I'd expect that many draft-n products could be made compatible with equipment using the the final standard, with little more than a firmware change.
And wasn't 802.11g still in the draft stage when it was introduced in the AirPort Extreme? (Extreme was introduced on January 7, but 802.11g was not ratified until June 2003.)
Other products, including a few from Apple, are using draft-n hardware already.
Maybe they won't be 100% compliant, but unless something earth shattering happens before 802.11n is finalized, I'd expect that many draft-n products could be made compatible with equipment using the the final standard, with little more than a firmware change.
And wasn't 802.11g still in the draft stage when it was introduced in the AirPort Extreme? (Extreme was introduced on January 7, but 802.11g was not ratified until June 2003.)
Manic Mouse
Sep 6, 09:57 AM
I will leave your personally offensive remarks aside, suggesting instead that you get a transvestite, oops, Dell PC, dude. I am sure you can find a better desktop in their highly confusing webshop. As for Gisele Buendchen, she stays on our side, thanks a lot... :rolleyes:
Just calling a spade a spade, Mr Lawyer. You made a comment that was a lie. The iMac is NOT the "most powerful desktop in the world". Not by a long shot.
If you don't want people to say you're full of crap then don't talk crap. Simple as.
Where else would you sit your iMac?
You know what I mean! :p
What do people buy if they want desktop performance? Apple currently offer NOTHING with desktop performance, it's either mobile or workstation.
Just calling a spade a spade, Mr Lawyer. You made a comment that was a lie. The iMac is NOT the "most powerful desktop in the world". Not by a long shot.
If you don't want people to say you're full of crap then don't talk crap. Simple as.
Where else would you sit your iMac?
You know what I mean! :p
What do people buy if they want desktop performance? Apple currently offer NOTHING with desktop performance, it's either mobile or workstation.
PCtoMAC?
Oct 14, 06:05 PM
DLC looks cool...
I finally made it to the final level on my legendary run. I am still confounded by how much the difficulty level varies so much from battle to battle. Anyway almost done!
I finally made it to the final level on my legendary run. I am still confounded by how much the difficulty level varies so much from battle to battle. Anyway almost done!
hypermog
Mar 11, 02:58 PM
Very well written post that completely recaps the whole situation!
chillywilly
Sep 12, 02:27 PM
Woah, so to get the album artwork it sends my list of songs to apple? what if I have an advance copy of an album from my friends band that I don't want apple to have? What about all those people who download albums, are they gonna get in trouble??
There's a disclaimer when your first open iTunes 7 that basically says the information sent to Apple will not be used for any other purpose other than to get album art.
You can turn off the option under Preferences.
I also like how they've integrated the iPod updates into iTunes without having to do the updates seperately.
Just wondering where the new 1.2 update is. I'm anxious to get it loaded on my 5G and get PacMan downloaded.
There's a disclaimer when your first open iTunes 7 that basically says the information sent to Apple will not be used for any other purpose other than to get album art.
You can turn off the option under Preferences.
I also like how they've integrated the iPod updates into iTunes without having to do the updates seperately.
Just wondering where the new 1.2 update is. I'm anxious to get it loaded on my 5G and get PacMan downloaded.
Sydde
Mar 12, 07:06 PM
In a free and prosperous market, business exists and is done solely because it is profitable. When it ceases being profitable, it must be stopped. To keep pouring 100 units of money into something for the sake of getting 10 units of money out via payroll can only end in one thing....failure. (I'm using 'units of money' as a general example)
And that is fine, but from a practical standpoint, as I said, you must figure out how to deal with localized economic distress caused by cuts in the military. You also have to deal with the fact that the military controls access to some really impressive weaponry. Take these two things together, the prospect of sudden poverty and ghost towns and the prospect of a bunch of rather testosterone-amped cowboys having their guns taken away, to me that looks like a recipe for major disaster and probably the reason the Pentagon's budget is so difficult to rein in.
I certainly have no problem with the idea of wasting a whole lot less money on "defense". I just think the realities of such cuts need to be looked at from the big-picture perspective.
And that is fine, but from a practical standpoint, as I said, you must figure out how to deal with localized economic distress caused by cuts in the military. You also have to deal with the fact that the military controls access to some really impressive weaponry. Take these two things together, the prospect of sudden poverty and ghost towns and the prospect of a bunch of rather testosterone-amped cowboys having their guns taken away, to me that looks like a recipe for major disaster and probably the reason the Pentagon's budget is so difficult to rein in.
I certainly have no problem with the idea of wasting a whole lot less money on "defense". I just think the realities of such cuts need to be looked at from the big-picture perspective.
