Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 12:44 PM
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
Apple OC
Apr 24, 06:27 PM
The text cannot be right on as many scientific reasoning. I've to add that if it was so painful, and the Bible so peaceful, why do some Christians claims that the Quran had copied the Bible? Surely, the Bible would then also be as "warlike"?
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
they left out the interesting parts to keep people guessing
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
they left out the interesting parts to keep people guessing
SPUY767
Sep 26, 09:33 AM
Software makers are the ones holding computing back in this arena. They refuse to accept that CPUs aren't going to get any faster, and that they are going to have to make their applications multi-threaded. This is especially true for games. The time has come, however, and software publishers are going to have to either make their applications massively-multithreaded, or fall to the wayside and be overtaken by an amateur application maker that is already making multi-threaded apps.
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Use BOINC, that will peg all four of your cores.
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Use BOINC, that will peg all four of your cores.
Eidorian
Jul 13, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. Um, it's basically the same chip. Conroe just doesn't meet the thermal requirements to be called "Merom".
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.
Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.
Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.
Redneck1089
Aug 29, 12:30 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 10:14 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
Xibalba
Oct 8, 07:11 AM
The Snapdragon processor is an ARM design similar to the Cortex A9 (two-issue out-of-order) and starts at 1GHz, but uses less power as it includes the baseband processor. There are already handsets shipping using it, not Android ones yet.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
furqan8421
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Why are people being defensive and bringing up a few examples like final fantasy 3? These games are not the norm. Look at the top downloads list in the app store to get a good idea of what most games are.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:34 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
Blipp
Apr 13, 08:11 AM
I can't believe how many of you are writing off this app already after it's debut announcement which only covered new features and a new UI design. We essentially know NOTHING yet beyond it's new tricks, none of us have actually sat down and experienced a workflow with it. I haven't seen a single thing to suggest that features have been removed entirely or that the rest fo studio is now dead. At the absolute least Apple would put the rest of FCS2 onto the app store individually in their current form and from the attitudes I've seen in here most of you would love that they didn't update them in the least.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
I too am suspicious about this release but I'm also optimistic. I don't assume that just because they didn't mention this or that that it must now be dead. We got our 64bit FCP that we've been dying for, we get background rendering and a wider range of native codecs (though we don't know which ones yet), and that all sounds like good news to me so far. I don't know what to expect from the rest of Studio as it'd be hard to imagine them revamping the entire suite unless they are truly being consumed by FCPX. If FCPX is able to switch between "Color" mode and "Motion" mode then so long as those modes remain full featured with a consistent UI across the board (something that has plagued the suite for a long time) then I can only see that as an upgrade. We'll find out more soon enough I'm sure.
If this truly does turn into what everyone is afraid of then oh well, I'm confident in my abilities to be able to adapt to an Avid or Adobe workflow. This isn't going to hold me back or ruin my parade.
mike31mets
Apr 22, 06:34 PM
I was in the same boat as the OP a few years back. My circumstances and motivations in learning OS X were a bit than the OP's. I've learned a good deal about OS X. The things it can and can't do and how it differs from Windows.
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
RichP
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
Dude did you miss the coverage. This thing plays HD. He played Incredibles in HD. Just because the content they are offering now is 480p does not mean that it will be 6 months from now when this is released. Also the HDMI and component connectors would be pointless if it was not HD.
Exactly. In the end, we only had a sneak peak, and dont know much.
I will say that we were shown the back ports, so I doubt there is going to be any other inputs/outputs added.
This IS the iPod of home theater. Just read back in this thread about people who have this unit beat: "Ive got a chipped xBox that does the same" "My xbox 360 and Windows MCE can do this" "All I need is x, y, and z to do this much better" There were MP3 players before the ipod; the ipod made it simple for AVERAGE users; we on here generally dont represent average users.
Buy it, plug it in, it works. No keyboard, no booting up, etc etc. A computer on a TV makes things more complicated.
Exactly. In the end, we only had a sneak peak, and dont know much.
I will say that we were shown the back ports, so I doubt there is going to be any other inputs/outputs added.
This IS the iPod of home theater. Just read back in this thread about people who have this unit beat: "Ive got a chipped xBox that does the same" "My xbox 360 and Windows MCE can do this" "All I need is x, y, and z to do this much better" There were MP3 players before the ipod; the ipod made it simple for AVERAGE users; we on here generally dont represent average users.
Buy it, plug it in, it works. No keyboard, no booting up, etc etc. A computer on a TV makes things more complicated.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:34 PM
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
D4F
Apr 28, 09:06 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
Caharin
Apr 8, 10:14 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
kresh
Oct 26, 02:39 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
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.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:58 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
mdntcallr
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
While this certainly is a nice interface to a entertainment system.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
mhar4
Oct 26, 07:41 AM
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
My point exactly.
My point exactly.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:16 PM
I hope they weren't pulling our leg when they said that movies are going "World-wide" in 2007. Let's hope that means TV shows, and bloody stores too. Cause quite frankly Apple needs to get their act together with this European stuff already!! I thought this was meant to be a global economy? It seems these days, and before these days too, that all Apple cares about market wise, is the UK and the US. I like both of those places myself, and I wish them look with Apple related stuff in the future. I think us Irish, and all other European countires needs a little more than look right now. To be realistic, and personally I can only speak for my country. Ireland needs at least "4" fully fledged FLAGSHIP Apple stores. One in Belfast, one in Dublin, one in Waterford (where I live, the fastest growing city in Ireland), and one in Cork, "HERE" (http://www.landacleary.com/Ireland%20Map.jpg) as of right now with the current economic state of the country and the current populous. They need to start by putting an Apple store in Dublin this year, and roll out the other "3" stores in 2007. The whole situation with Apple and Europe seems at this stage to me to be a joke. It's actually hard to believe that a company on such a rise like Apple seems to be ignoring most European counties...:( It's a disgrace! And is inexcusable IMO. Get your bloody act together Apple. I'm not joking when I say, someone at Apple needs a good kick up the arse!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment