common wart images
kmac12
Nov 12, 03:58 PM
BTW - The people saying he did a second rate job or is a crappy developer, obviously are not familiar with iPhone development or the code that he created. The Three20 project was very good. I understand his frustration and am not surprised by his decision.
steadysignal
May 6, 07:05 AM
have fun downloading a 665mb update on verizon's stellar network.
or over at&t...
or over at&t...
bmb012
May 5, 01:03 AM
I don't get the "3D" screen thing???? My regular 1080p TV can play a 3d Movie just fine. The 3D software shared here on MacRumors didn't have any special screen... what the heck would Apple do to make it a 3D screen?
I say "false".
Have you not heard of Nintendo's 3DS...??
Here's why it's really false. The parallax barrier would have to either be vertical or horizontal. Unless there's tech that works both ways, and even if there was, switching orientations would make everything all blurry.
Oh, and putting your fingers on the 3d would mess with it. Smudges show up far worse on a 3D screen, and iPad doesn't have buttons like the 3DS, so it would either be tilt or 3D, not both (kinda like the 3DS is AR or 3D, not both, but there's enough control schemes there that don't mess with the 3D.
I say "false".
Have you not heard of Nintendo's 3DS...??
Here's why it's really false. The parallax barrier would have to either be vertical or horizontal. Unless there's tech that works both ways, and even if there was, switching orientations would make everything all blurry.
Oh, and putting your fingers on the 3d would mess with it. Smudges show up far worse on a 3D screen, and iPad doesn't have buttons like the 3DS, so it would either be tilt or 3D, not both (kinda like the 3DS is AR or 3D, not both, but there's enough control schemes there that don't mess with the 3D.
Maximillian
Mar 28, 09:22 PM
Same here. Guess a trip to Vegas is in order.
Sadly, Vegas will cost you more for a week than SF (if you want to do it "right").
Sadly, Vegas will cost you more for a week than SF (if you want to do it "right").
PCtoMAC?
Oct 4, 05:37 PM
http://i53.tinypic.com/zsu2vo.jpg[/QUOTE]
HA!!!
Never seen that before that is awesome.
HA!!!
Never seen that before that is awesome.
sjo
Mar 29, 10:21 AM
But not widespread at all in the U.S the primary target audience of the first generation iPhone.
It's a pipedream to expect that (LTE) 4G would be widespread in the US even in a year from now. 3G was more widespread at the time of launch of the first Iphone was way more widespread.
It's a pipedream to expect that (LTE) 4G would be widespread in the US even in a year from now. 3G was more widespread at the time of launch of the first Iphone was way more widespread.
Analog Kid
Aug 3, 03:26 AM
any idea who the 3rd party vendor was? perhaps the hate mail should start flying there way!
That's the rub, isn't it. My first instinct was that they should have named the vendor by name so we know not to buy their products and all could see the smoking ruins of their company and heed the warning: write good software.
Then I realized why they didn't release the name... It's the same problem as for OS vendors-- if you release the details of the attack before it's patched then users pay the price.
That's the publicity vs security debate in a nutshell, methinks.
That's the rub, isn't it. My first instinct was that they should have named the vendor by name so we know not to buy their products and all could see the smoking ruins of their company and heed the warning: write good software.
Then I realized why they didn't release the name... It's the same problem as for OS vendors-- if you release the details of the attack before it's patched then users pay the price.
That's the publicity vs security debate in a nutshell, methinks.
Snowy_River
Sep 1, 12:35 AM
it's not all that expensive considering Apple has release three OS upgrades since XP came out at least. If you add those together it is more expensive than Vista. That's how you have to look at it
This is a very hollow argument. For this to be valid, you have to only consider five year old computers. Consider any computer that is about two years old, and you have computers that, on the one hand, shipped with Windows XP and, on the other hand, shipped with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Now, we have the release of Leopard and Vista! Mac users pay... $129! Windows users pay... $399! Which is cheaper?
Okay, maybe you'll insist on considering computers up to three years old. Now we have Macs having shipped with Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, and Windows machines having shipped with Windows XP. So, now we've reached today (or a few months from now, as the case may be), and Mac users who chose to upgrade each time will get up to Leopard for $129+$129=$258! And Windows users who want to try to keep up buy Vista for $399! But, then there are the Mac users who weren't that impressed with Tiger, so they waited for Leopard. They only pay $129!
I could go on, but I won't. Yes, you can present the argument that 4 x $129 = $516 is greater than Vista costing $399, but it is a very tenuous argument, as I've shown above. Realistically, Leopard is primarily aimed at computers that have been built within the past few years. Therefore, the cost of upgrades only hits one or at most two of the upgrade cycles, and is significantly less than the cost of Vista.
This is a very hollow argument. For this to be valid, you have to only consider five year old computers. Consider any computer that is about two years old, and you have computers that, on the one hand, shipped with Windows XP and, on the other hand, shipped with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Now, we have the release of Leopard and Vista! Mac users pay... $129! Windows users pay... $399! Which is cheaper?
Okay, maybe you'll insist on considering computers up to three years old. Now we have Macs having shipped with Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, and Windows machines having shipped with Windows XP. So, now we've reached today (or a few months from now, as the case may be), and Mac users who chose to upgrade each time will get up to Leopard for $129+$129=$258! And Windows users who want to try to keep up buy Vista for $399! But, then there are the Mac users who weren't that impressed with Tiger, so they waited for Leopard. They only pay $129!
I could go on, but I won't. Yes, you can present the argument that 4 x $129 = $516 is greater than Vista costing $399, but it is a very tenuous argument, as I've shown above. Realistically, Leopard is primarily aimed at computers that have been built within the past few years. Therefore, the cost of upgrades only hits one or at most two of the upgrade cycles, and is significantly less than the cost of Vista.
cjpadlock
Aug 3, 02:39 PM
Guys and Girls,
That clearly is not a Black Macbook Pro there, unless there coming out with 13.3 inch Macbook Pro's then it is a Macbook. This could mean that we will be seeing an upgraded Macbook (Pro / Non) introduced monday most likely with the Core 2 Duo mobile. Also, in the picture, it really looks like it has a backlit keyboard. If it does, I will be waiting for that to ship before I buy my Macbook.
That clearly is not a Black Macbook Pro there, unless there coming out with 13.3 inch Macbook Pro's then it is a Macbook. This could mean that we will be seeing an upgraded Macbook (Pro / Non) introduced monday most likely with the Core 2 Duo mobile. Also, in the picture, it really looks like it has a backlit keyboard. If it does, I will be waiting for that to ship before I buy my Macbook.
gameface
Mar 3, 09:46 AM
^where is that skyline from
Boston taken from East Boston sort of near Logan Airport.
Boston taken from East Boston sort of near Logan Airport.
Swarmlord
Nov 27, 09:47 AM
You can do that now. Put in a CD and deselect the check mark to the left for any song you don't want ripped. I do it all the time.
Thanks, I'll try that. I've always had to hit the "burn" button and then select or deselect the songs AFTER the disk was ripped. Of course, I often don't know which song has the scratch until I've tried to rip the whole disk, but at least I'll be able to save the rest of the songs.
Thanks, I'll try that. I've always had to hit the "burn" button and then select or deselect the songs AFTER the disk was ripped. Of course, I often don't know which song has the scratch until I've tried to rip the whole disk, but at least I'll be able to save the rest of the songs.
TennisandMusic
Dec 7, 02:17 AM
Those who design websites with Flash are just lazy and poor web designers. Fortunately, those sites are becoming more and more rare.
It's video (YouTube, et al) that Flash has a stranglehold on.
I want HTML5 video to become standardized too, but the problem is, on what? QuickTime? Windows Media? It could very well end up much worse than Flash.
As someone who has worked with all kinds of websites, this post is nothing but pure foolishness. How is a flash website being lazy, or a result of a poor web designer? It's much more difficult to be a good actionscript coder than it is to throw together some HTML tags with some CSS applied. You've got to be kidding. Also, some of the coolest looking websites I've ever seen were done entirely in flash. Flash allows you to basically create interactive apps in a web browser. It can be a great tool.
On the other hand, most flash sites aren't very good just because of the fact that most websites are not very good. A bad site does not become a good one in flash. So sure, many flash sites can be bad, but the platform itself is neutral. Great Flash programmers make amazing sites. Period.
Also, asking if HTML5 will become standardized on Quicktime or Qindows Media shows a complete lack of understanding on the topic. Quicktime and Windows Media are not codecs and nothing at all would be "standarized" on containers.
Please take care to learn how these things work before talking about them in such a manner. It is frustrating to see.
It's video (YouTube, et al) that Flash has a stranglehold on.
I want HTML5 video to become standardized too, but the problem is, on what? QuickTime? Windows Media? It could very well end up much worse than Flash.
As someone who has worked with all kinds of websites, this post is nothing but pure foolishness. How is a flash website being lazy, or a result of a poor web designer? It's much more difficult to be a good actionscript coder than it is to throw together some HTML tags with some CSS applied. You've got to be kidding. Also, some of the coolest looking websites I've ever seen were done entirely in flash. Flash allows you to basically create interactive apps in a web browser. It can be a great tool.
On the other hand, most flash sites aren't very good just because of the fact that most websites are not very good. A bad site does not become a good one in flash. So sure, many flash sites can be bad, but the platform itself is neutral. Great Flash programmers make amazing sites. Period.
Also, asking if HTML5 will become standardized on Quicktime or Qindows Media shows a complete lack of understanding on the topic. Quicktime and Windows Media are not codecs and nothing at all would be "standarized" on containers.
Please take care to learn how these things work before talking about them in such a manner. It is frustrating to see.
ssteve
Aug 24, 06:16 PM
My battery serial number was in the 3K437 range, but the website accepted my computers serial number, but not the battery...
So i changed the last letter of my battery serial number from an A to a C (B diden't work)
And it went thru.....
:D sweet
Wow, I have already replied to this one above, but below is his brother apparently.
I have a battery that seems to be on the recall list, I have a PB G4 - Model No. A1148 - Serial No. 3K542...A. But it says that the serial number is invalid. I did try to see if I could switch the last part of the number which is an "A" to "B" or "C" and while it did not take "B", it did take "C" as a valid serial number. I have had my battery for 10 months and it has worked fine and charges up to 100% with no problem and I have had no heating issues to date.
Anyway, I don't know what's up with their site. Just thought I'd contribute my two cents.
So even though I have a MBP and not a PB I can probably get a new battery as well by changing the serial numbers despite what is really on my battery.
COOL!!!!!!!!!!
So i changed the last letter of my battery serial number from an A to a C (B diden't work)
And it went thru.....
:D sweet
Wow, I have already replied to this one above, but below is his brother apparently.
I have a battery that seems to be on the recall list, I have a PB G4 - Model No. A1148 - Serial No. 3K542...A. But it says that the serial number is invalid. I did try to see if I could switch the last part of the number which is an "A" to "B" or "C" and while it did not take "B", it did take "C" as a valid serial number. I have had my battery for 10 months and it has worked fine and charges up to 100% with no problem and I have had no heating issues to date.
Anyway, I don't know what's up with their site. Just thought I'd contribute my two cents.
So even though I have a MBP and not a PB I can probably get a new battery as well by changing the serial numbers despite what is really on my battery.
COOL!!!!!!!!!!
Digital Skunk
Apr 15, 08:22 AM
Being a professional myself I remember having those fears a few years ago. In fact we lost a large client because one of the employees thought that her high school son could do the same level of work that we did. If that were true I would say shame on us, in reality the client came back to us a few months later when the kid couldn't actually produce the same level of edit quality and creativity that we do.
This reminds me of one of my early clients. A radio station that asked me to do a promotional video for a certain price. I told them that I couldn't do it. I didn't have the time, the skill, nor the resources to pull it off. I also told them that there weren't too many I knew in the production field that would do it for the lowball price that they were offering.
They saw my work and wanted to hire me for the job, so I just took a chance at accepted it.
It was my first foray into professional video editing . . . it ended in disaster. Thank goodness I had a contract at least. I say though because even as a well versed college student I still recommended the station to go find a professional to do the job. I had classes, projects of my own, a steady job and girlfriend to mind. I didn't even have a car to get around NOR a decent camera to shoot with.
There shouldn't be too many 16 year olds taking real work from real professionals. There aren't too many 25 years old amateur editors or recent college grads taking work from me now . . . and the work they do get I don't want.
This reminds me of one of my early clients. A radio station that asked me to do a promotional video for a certain price. I told them that I couldn't do it. I didn't have the time, the skill, nor the resources to pull it off. I also told them that there weren't too many I knew in the production field that would do it for the lowball price that they were offering.
They saw my work and wanted to hire me for the job, so I just took a chance at accepted it.
It was my first foray into professional video editing . . . it ended in disaster. Thank goodness I had a contract at least. I say though because even as a well versed college student I still recommended the station to go find a professional to do the job. I had classes, projects of my own, a steady job and girlfriend to mind. I didn't even have a car to get around NOR a decent camera to shoot with.
There shouldn't be too many 16 year olds taking real work from real professionals. There aren't too many 25 years old amateur editors or recent college grads taking work from me now . . . and the work they do get I don't want.
skunk
Apr 11, 04:29 PM
God has given you the ability to reject himThis statement makes no sense whatever. I reject the revisionist myth, but I do not need permission from the revisionist myth to reject it. Circularity, thy name is mscriv.
spicyapple
Nov 27, 11:39 AM
What did they ban and why?
They banned songs like Lucy in the Sky and Ticket to Ride... (not to mention Metallica's Seek and Destroy) because the songs reminded people of the event.
They banned songs like Lucy in the Sky and Ticket to Ride... (not to mention Metallica's Seek and Destroy) because the songs reminded people of the event.
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. :)
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.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 12, 04:52 PM
iLounge has a "First Look" article with photos of all models and accessories. They say that the new nanos have the Search and Smart Scroll feature of the new 5G iPod. Hopefully we with the plastic nanos won't miss out on that. I'm expecting an iPod Updater soon.
So you have no intentions of any sleep tonight:D . Or is it already day:rolleyes: ??
So you have no intentions of any sleep tonight:D . Or is it already day:rolleyes: ??
crap freakboy
Sep 6, 08:17 AM
wooohoo first!
er great...anyhoos...if I had the cash I'd get the 20".
Shame you can't upgrade to the GT on the 20".
Beats this aging Sawtooth anyday.
er great...anyhoos...if I had the cash I'd get the 20".
Shame you can't upgrade to the GT on the 20".
Beats this aging Sawtooth anyday.
MacNut
Sep 12, 01:50 PM
I don't like the dark grey sliders.
R94N
Oct 16, 06:10 AM
Number One checking in! Seriously, I started the first "Post Your Mac Setup" thread.
tsmithgolf2000
Aug 24, 12:03 PM
Powerbook G4's and Ibooks. Just announced on CNBC.
thenbagis
Mar 25, 12:39 PM
Seriously. What happened to the support for the VZW iPhone? All this talk of fragmentation. Now we have essentially the same phone, on different software generations. What gives? I guess we really are the red-headed step child.
I think that the Verizon iphone was so secretive that the iOS group didn't even know about it... once the VZW iphone was released, the iOS group now has to incorporate the changes...
I think that the Verizon iphone was so secretive that the iOS group didn't even know about it... once the VZW iphone was released, the iOS group now has to incorporate the changes...
