ComputersaysNo
Mar 18, 01:52 PM
A 24-bit ipod for lossless files in the near future and Apple will turn the spacetimecontinuum once again.
justflie
Nov 7, 12:22 AM
I'm guessing on absoutely know actual knowledge that the new macbooks will appear either today (tuesday) or a week from today. Or the week after that. Or the week after that... :rolleyes:
ezekielrage_99
Aug 3, 02:54 AM
But wait! Doesn't Apple's miniscule market-share mean that hackers won't target Macs because there is nothing to be gained? Better off targeting the 95% of Windows-running machines out there? I think this story proves again that the "security through obscurity" argument is just a myth. :)
I wasn't disputing the fact that Apple doesn't have it's share of problems with security. Everyone is sick of hearing Windows problems so as soon as a problems arises with Apple, Linux, UNIX, etc everyone jumps on it.
I wasn't disputing the fact that Apple doesn't have it's share of problems with security. Everyone is sick of hearing Windows problems so as soon as a problems arises with Apple, Linux, UNIX, etc everyone jumps on it.
eji
Jul 24, 09:16 AM
I like the dictionary idea. But aren't we getting into the realm of the tablet/PDA now?
KeithJenner
Dec 1, 07:49 PM
I don't have the mono set but I listen to lossless CD rips with my iPhone set to mono. In mono I get to hear what George Martin really had in mind. An additional benefit is that mono tends to hide George's horrible guitar playing, attempts at singing songs too difficult for their singing abilities and most of all horrible stereo versions that resulted from down mixing with primitive recording equipment.
In all fairness to The Beatles the modern concept of stereo intended for headphone use with centered voices, duplicated guitars at maximum spread and slightly spread but centered drums hadn't been invented yet. Especially for the earlier albums the mono sound is The Beatles sound.
The Mono mixes are very different to the Stereo ones. It isn't just a case of only having one output but they are different mixes. Songs play at different speeds and, for example, the end of Helter Skelter is totally different (no blisters on the fingers). There are also lots of subtle differences.
In all fairness to The Beatles the modern concept of stereo intended for headphone use with centered voices, duplicated guitars at maximum spread and slightly spread but centered drums hadn't been invented yet. Especially for the earlier albums the mono sound is The Beatles sound.
The Mono mixes are very different to the Stereo ones. It isn't just a case of only having one output but they are different mixes. Songs play at different speeds and, for example, the end of Helter Skelter is totally different (no blisters on the fingers). There are also lots of subtle differences.
paja
Apr 17, 04:19 PM
Toys R' Us?
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
JAT
May 6, 11:13 AM
I read my Verizon TOS. Then I called since I am considering adding a line. Unfortunately they don't grandfather their plans.
You sure about that? Pretty sure my father's plan is grandfathered, it's some older version of family plan. The TOSes always say "may at any time" or some such language, that doesn't mean they actually force changes. And the phone companies generally don't even change prices, unlike the TV companies.
You sure about that? Pretty sure my father's plan is grandfathered, it's some older version of family plan. The TOSes always say "may at any time" or some such language, that doesn't mean they actually force changes. And the phone companies generally don't even change prices, unlike the TV companies.
hvfsl
Apr 13, 04:42 PM
I just wonder if there is any upgrade pricing strategy. No matter what - $299 is A STEAL!
From watching the video, I got the impression that there won't be an upgrade version of Final Cut Pro or an Express version. However they did say they haven't shown the rest of the apps off yet, but what remains to be seen is whether they will just offer each app individually on the app store or package them in a retail box as well. I personally can't see how they can get people to download 40GB odd of content, so I am hopeful they will still offer the full studio package with upgrade pricing.
From watching the video, I got the impression that there won't be an upgrade version of Final Cut Pro or an Express version. However they did say they haven't shown the rest of the apps off yet, but what remains to be seen is whether they will just offer each app individually on the app store or package them in a retail box as well. I personally can't see how they can get people to download 40GB odd of content, so I am hopeful they will still offer the full studio package with upgrade pricing.
drewyboy
Aug 24, 07:58 PM
Tried again now and the battery is recognised as valid for the program BUT i'm not sure i want to send this thing in...it works fine. Do i have to?
simple question... why not?
simple question... why not?
szsiddiq
Nov 8, 09:49 AM
I'm guessing they did that so they could use the same adapters for both. The laptop itself still has a 60W ps.
huh, ur probably right
huh, ur probably right
skunk
Oct 27, 05:55 AM
Seems weird that a hardware problem is being solved by a software fix? :confused:
How can a firmware update stop a wire shorting the circuit?As has been suggested earlier, by instructing the controller to ignore anomalous input from the sensor, or by kicking in the fans earlier to prevent rapid expansion of the heatsink on startup, or both.
How can a firmware update stop a wire shorting the circuit?As has been suggested earlier, by instructing the controller to ignore anomalous input from the sensor, or by kicking in the fans earlier to prevent rapid expansion of the heatsink on startup, or both.
lostngone
Mar 29, 03:14 AM
I just found this while looking for info on WWDC schedule info...
http://wwdc2011.com (sorry)
anybody have any idea what it is?? :confused:
Looks and smells like SPAM.
Yes, yes it does.
I signed up with a disposable mail account, it then wanted me to spam 3 other people to "get access".
Total spam cannon!
http://wwdc2011.com (sorry)
anybody have any idea what it is?? :confused:
Looks and smells like SPAM.
Yes, yes it does.
I signed up with a disposable mail account, it then wanted me to spam 3 other people to "get access".
Total spam cannon!
japanime
Oct 28, 02:23 AM
'fixed' for me.
ironically the DAY they released the update.my macbook started shutting down intermittingly..
instaleld it..works fine so far.as for the fans..they still go 'nuts' when i run a few videos on youtube..is THAT normal?
like they get pretty loud ugh
The loud fan ISN'T normal, and it's something I've been fighting about with Apple ever since I bought this POS machine a day after they were released. I'm on my second one now (the first one was replaced because it was broken right out of the box), and this one sounds like a jet airplane getting ready for take off, with the turbines winding up and down.
What particularly makes me upset is that we've got two MacBooks in my family, mine and my wife's, and hers is completely silent. When the fan does kick in on her machine, it makes a nice "whoosh" sound of air being pushed, and nothing else. Mine make this whiney noise coming from the fan itself, so loud you can't even heard the "whoosh" of air being moved.
My MacBook has already been in AppleCare once for a fan replacement, as well as the heat-sink replacement. I had hoped this new firmware would slow the darned fan down, but nope--it's still buzzing away like an electric razor.
I've owned five Apple laptops prior to this one (dating back to a PowerBook 520), and this MacBook is by far the worst one of the bunch. Worse even than my "flaming" PowerBook 5300 (which still works and doesn't make a peep).
ironically the DAY they released the update.my macbook started shutting down intermittingly..
instaleld it..works fine so far.as for the fans..they still go 'nuts' when i run a few videos on youtube..is THAT normal?
like they get pretty loud ugh
The loud fan ISN'T normal, and it's something I've been fighting about with Apple ever since I bought this POS machine a day after they were released. I'm on my second one now (the first one was replaced because it was broken right out of the box), and this one sounds like a jet airplane getting ready for take off, with the turbines winding up and down.
What particularly makes me upset is that we've got two MacBooks in my family, mine and my wife's, and hers is completely silent. When the fan does kick in on her machine, it makes a nice "whoosh" sound of air being pushed, and nothing else. Mine make this whiney noise coming from the fan itself, so loud you can't even heard the "whoosh" of air being moved.
My MacBook has already been in AppleCare once for a fan replacement, as well as the heat-sink replacement. I had hoped this new firmware would slow the darned fan down, but nope--it's still buzzing away like an electric razor.
I've owned five Apple laptops prior to this one (dating back to a PowerBook 520), and this MacBook is by far the worst one of the bunch. Worse even than my "flaming" PowerBook 5300 (which still works and doesn't make a peep).
cyberdogl2
Jan 11, 04:02 PM
Apple leaves clues almost as good as the Riddler's. I can't wait to see what they mean by AIR!
buffsldr
Oct 13, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Source
Oh please!
Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware! If Apple didn't want to compete with PCs, then they wouldn't make so much out of the MGz myth and say that "Apple Mac X will outperform Wintel X, even with two thirds of the processor speed!".
Apple needs to do something fast, beause virtually forcing schools across America to take on Macs and whining that Microsoft are big bullies isn't going to help them.
Sorry, i'm being a bit extreme, but i wish Apple would hurry up and do something.
PCs are the competition and releasing an update of a product every six months, while the competition is constantly updating, isn't going to work for them for much longer.
I am shocked to hear you say that "Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware!" Apple exists to make money, and part of that means competing with pcs. But again, the motivation is the need to make money, not to compete with pcs for the sake of competing with pcs. Not all users want more power, ease of use is more important than some. I merely suggested that this is a complex problem that requires serious marketing, not simple, uni-variable analysis (eg. faster= more market share). WHere do you consider all the factors of buying a computer? This is why you can never say which computer is "best" At work my pc is tons better than a mac, because I can run ProEngineer (a solid modeling program). At home, my mac is best, because of imovie, itunes, the os, and .mac, etc
Why do you want apple to "hurry up and do something"? You can buy a pc if you want to.
Oh please!
Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware! If Apple didn't want to compete with PCs, then they wouldn't make so much out of the MGz myth and say that "Apple Mac X will outperform Wintel X, even with two thirds of the processor speed!".
Apple needs to do something fast, beause virtually forcing schools across America to take on Macs and whining that Microsoft are big bullies isn't going to help them.
Sorry, i'm being a bit extreme, but i wish Apple would hurry up and do something.
PCs are the competition and releasing an update of a product every six months, while the competition is constantly updating, isn't going to work for them for much longer.
I am shocked to hear you say that "Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware!" Apple exists to make money, and part of that means competing with pcs. But again, the motivation is the need to make money, not to compete with pcs for the sake of competing with pcs. Not all users want more power, ease of use is more important than some. I merely suggested that this is a complex problem that requires serious marketing, not simple, uni-variable analysis (eg. faster= more market share). WHere do you consider all the factors of buying a computer? This is why you can never say which computer is "best" At work my pc is tons better than a mac, because I can run ProEngineer (a solid modeling program). At home, my mac is best, because of imovie, itunes, the os, and .mac, etc
Why do you want apple to "hurry up and do something"? You can buy a pc if you want to.
idea_hamster
Sep 6, 08:16 AM
Hmmm... positive, but looking for a MacBook bump...
elppa
Mar 21, 05:16 PM
I know right, a long time ago I took a friend to a grand opening of a mac store and they had door prizes...he won an iMac, he instantly became a PC turned Mac person, now he owns more Apple stuff than I do.
Oh yea, I got a door prize too...accounting software
I laughed at this. Great punch line.
Oh yea, I got a door prize too...accounting software
I laughed at this. Great punch line.
Chundles
Sep 13, 08:10 AM
True, but at the same time there two things to consider. A lot better battery life and brighter screen. Those are the two positives of having OLEDs in the first place. True it might just be a rumor, but I guess we'll find out when we get these new ipods. (OLEDS can do pure black)
They're not using OLED screens. From the iPod nano tech specs:
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8543/picture1ty1.png
It's definitely just a regular LCD screen.
They're not using OLED screens. From the iPod nano tech specs:
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8543/picture1ty1.png
It's definitely just a regular LCD screen.
thisisahughes
Mar 28, 09:40 PM
wow. that's unfortunate.
coder12
Mar 28, 09:30 PM
It all depends what you want to do in Vegas. If you're wanting to go to restaurants, shows, and/or spa then $1500 is plenty for a few nights of that and you'll have some left over for quarter VP/slots. If you're wanting to go to the club and buy 4 bottles every night...then $1500 isn't going to get you very far.
Unless you're rainman ;)
Unless you're rainman ;)
mccldwll
Mar 28, 05:39 PM
Thats why they filled 1/2 the order so they could process the cc order. Now I can sit and play with the cover untill 4/26, and I ordered it 3/18
They didn't. But if you didn't really order anything, you wouldn't know that.
They didn't. But if you didn't really order anything, you wouldn't know that.
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. :)
fynwine350z
Mar 12, 09:32 AM
...they had to bring the store down worldwide?
Sometimes I wonder what Apple hires those smart people for, if it's just the morons running their daily business.
Have you ever been involved in the deployment of a multi-million dollar online store?
Sometimes I wonder what Apple hires those smart people for, if it's just the morons running their daily business.
Have you ever been involved in the deployment of a multi-million dollar online store?
dale223223
May 3, 12:49 PM
If you can't pay for medical care then you should just suffer and die as well.
F ************ oxygen thieves. Survival of the fittest doesn't include the weak & poor.
Hitler knew it best.
Seriously... you all keep doing what you are doing... modern civilization will fall either way. We've been thieving from mother earth pretty heavily over the past 150 years so we'll get our's collectively as a species soon... no need to feel left out. In the meantime... I'll be keeping my $1500. Thanks.
F ************ oxygen thieves. Survival of the fittest doesn't include the weak & poor.
Hitler knew it best.
Seriously... you all keep doing what you are doing... modern civilization will fall either way. We've been thieving from mother earth pretty heavily over the past 150 years so we'll get our's collectively as a species soon... no need to feel left out. In the meantime... I'll be keeping my $1500. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment