![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 21st, 2008
Science in a Polarized Nation...
Mar. 21st, 2008 02:05 amIt looks like science is having to tip toe around religious toes lately. It's all because there is a divide in the US between scientists and religious people. I have to admit at one time I thought such a debate only really happened in movies like "Planet of the Apes"... and couldn't believe that people could really be against science. That's even considering I was raised in a religious family. It looks like they are trying to make it so a person can't present something scientific and present it in a way that it invalidates a religious belief. It's unfortunate that it has come to this.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
Science in a Polarized Nation...
Mar. 21st, 2008 02:05 amIt looks like science is having to tip toe around religious toes lately. It's all because there is a divide in the US between scientists and religious people. I have to admit at one time I thought such a debate only really happened in movies like "Planet of the Apes"... and couldn't believe that people could really be against science. That's even considering I was raised in a religious family. It looks like they are trying to make it so a person can't present something scientific and present it in a way that it invalidates a religious belief. It's unfortunate that it has come to this.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
Science in a Polarized Nation...
Mar. 21st, 2008 02:05 amIt looks like science is having to tip toe around religious toes lately. It's all because there is a divide in the US between scientists and religious people. I have to admit at one time I thought such a debate only really happened in movies like "Planet of the Apes"... and couldn't believe that people could really be against science. That's even considering I was raised in a religious family. It looks like they are trying to make it so a person can't present something scientific and present it in a way that it invalidates a religious belief. It's unfortunate that it has come to this.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
"So long as speakers distinguish their beliefs from the scientific process, nobody should be discouraged from discussing a topic because it conflicts with a public relations agenda."
If you are presenting the facts I don't even see why this should be an issue. I know it may not mean this but it almost sounds like a person would have to say, "This isn't something I personally believe but here is this scientific discovery".
"From her perspective, religious beliefs are about as relevant to scientific data and models as are political leanings and sexual orientation."
I kind of agree with this quote. They may not be as long as their scientific method is good. The only problem would be if those beliefs hold back scientific progress in my opinion.
It also seems like this is directly aimed at people like Jack Dawson who are specifically targeting religion with books, videos and lectures. I think they have lots of good things to say and I don't think they should be censored.
Mac Mini...
Mar. 21st, 2008 06:05 pmRemember how a while back I was talking about how sites kept on predicting that Apple was going to do away with the Mac Mini? Well they now seem to be changing their tunes. Now they are saying that Apple is going to update the Mac Mini:
"Among the improvements destined for the new lineup are 45-nanometer Core 2 Duo mobile chips starting at 2.1GHz with 3MB of shared L2 cache, an 800MHz front-side bus (up from 667MHz), and a step up to the same Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics processor employed by the existing line of 13-inch consumer MacBooks."
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
Mac Mini...
Mar. 21st, 2008 06:05 pmRemember how a while back I was talking about how sites kept on predicting that Apple was going to do away with the Mac Mini? Well they now seem to be changing their tunes. Now they are saying that Apple is going to update the Mac Mini:
"Among the improvements destined for the new lineup are 45-nanometer Core 2 Duo mobile chips starting at 2.1GHz with 3MB of shared L2 cache, an 800MHz front-side bus (up from 667MHz), and a step up to the same Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics processor employed by the existing line of 13-inch consumer MacBooks."
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
Mac Mini...
Mar. 21st, 2008 06:05 pmRemember how a while back I was talking about how sites kept on predicting that Apple was going to do away with the Mac Mini? Well they now seem to be changing their tunes. Now they are saying that Apple is going to update the Mac Mini:
"Among the improvements destined for the new lineup are 45-nanometer Core 2 Duo mobile chips starting at 2.1GHz with 3MB of shared L2 cache, an 800MHz front-side bus (up from 667MHz), and a step up to the same Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics processor employed by the existing line of 13-inch consumer MacBooks."
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
To be honest I'd also like to see them come down in price... but that may be too much to ask. I would like it if they would let me trade in my Mac Mini G4 for one. Apple Insider is eating their words. I probably wont be getting one unless someone offered me one as a gift. I have a soft spot for the Mac Mini since it's cute and it's the first Mac I personally owned.
I do agree heartily with others that say there need to be a good headless mid range Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro... (headless meaning one without a monitor). I also think that they should upgrade the graphics chips in the iMac. Put a more high end graphics card into the Mac Pro (like nvidia's new GeForce 9 series) and put the one that used to be the BTO in that into the iMac... (The 8800GT). Or at least put something that's better than what it currently has.
Speaking of Macs, KITT has an apple wireless bluetooth keyboard. KITT is a Mac? ;)
*Update*
I read about a new intel graphics chip that might be available in time for the new Mac Mini. The Intel GMA X4500. It's specs are:
640MHz, Shader Model 4.0, 10 unified shader processors, 384MB VRAM max, OpenGL 2.0, video (DVD\HD) acceleration.. it's supposed to be 3x faster than the previous chips. That remains to be seen but I think if Apple is going to stick to integrated graphics they should put that one into the new Mac Mini. It probably still wont be a barn burner when it comes to graphics but it'll at least be better than the 950 they have in there now. Of course knowing apple they may just put the X1300 in there like in the non-pro Macbooks.
The Cult of Mac...
Mar. 21st, 2008 10:14 pmRecently the book "The Cult of Mac" was officially released to the torrent sites like The Pirate Bay. I have downloaded it and wanted to make an entry with quotes and a few comments about them.
( Read More Inside.... )
( Read More Inside.... )
The Cult of Mac...
Mar. 21st, 2008 10:14 pmRecently the book "The Cult of Mac" was officially released to the torrent sites like The Pirate Bay. I have downloaded it and wanted to make an entry with quotes and a few comments about them.
( Read More Inside.... )
( Read More Inside.... )
The Cult of Mac...
Mar. 21st, 2008 10:14 pmRecently the book "The Cult of Mac" was officially released to the torrent sites like The Pirate Bay. I have downloaded it and wanted to make an entry with quotes and a few comments about them.
( Read More Inside.... )
( Read More Inside.... )
Interesting Leopard(?) screenshot....
Mar. 21st, 2008 11:31 pmI saw this screenshot at Macthemes.net and I am intrigued. It looks like Anubis has been theming Leopard. I'm guessing he turned off CoreUI (the new theme) and themed the standard extras.rsrc files. Some person at macthemes said it looks more like he customised 10.4 and used LigerDock but there's a hole in that theory. The LigerDock doesn't have the reflection, the crosswalk or the indicators like the real Leopard dock. That's not to say that he couldn't have photoshopped it but it makes it a tad more believeable in my opinion.
Interesting Leopard(?) screenshot....
Mar. 21st, 2008 11:31 pmI saw this screenshot at Macthemes.net and I am intrigued. It looks like Anubis has been theming Leopard. I'm guessing he turned off CoreUI (the new theme) and themed the standard extras.rsrc files. Some person at macthemes said it looks more like he customised 10.4 and used LigerDock but there's a hole in that theory. The LigerDock doesn't have the reflection, the crosswalk or the indicators like the real Leopard dock. That's not to say that he couldn't have photoshopped it but it makes it a tad more believeable in my opinion.
Interesting Leopard(?) screenshot....
Mar. 21st, 2008 11:31 pmI saw this screenshot at Macthemes.net and I am intrigued. It looks like Anubis has been theming Leopard. I'm guessing he turned off CoreUI (the new theme) and themed the standard extras.rsrc files. Some person at macthemes said it looks more like he customised 10.4 and used LigerDock but there's a hole in that theory. The LigerDock doesn't have the reflection, the crosswalk or the indicators like the real Leopard dock. That's not to say that he couldn't have photoshopped it but it makes it a tad more believeable in my opinion.