3826
Living Room / Re: Another cody spotting? CAPTION THIS PICTURE CONTEST
« Last post by Darwin on November 30, 2007, 11:27 AM »I call bull. That's TOO perfect a match. Photoshop anyone? God! I'm a cynical jerk sometimes...
Recent Posts
...Since upgrading to SP3, explorer hasn't crashed once (strange...very strange). I'll give it a couple days and see what happens...
-Nighted (November 29, 2007, 09:09 AM)
I didn't know you could already explore images without mounting them... mea culpaThey need to stop tweaking True Image before they wreck something important, like... I don't know, its ability to reliably make backups and restore them.
For Leopard, the sad bundled app-as-feature is Time Machine. To hear Mac moonies tell it, this is the best thing to happen to backup since the letter b. In reality, however, it sucketh and it sucketh huge.
Okay, the screen looks like Star Wars. That's cool in an I-want-to-stay-a-virgin kind of way. But "easy to use"? Which groupie said that? Try putting a new Apple user in front of this app and see what happens. For one, you can't set up Time Machine from within Time Machine. How is that easy? You'll find some of the settings buried in System Settings and others in Time Machine. And if you want to kick off a manual backup, you've got to know to right-click on the Time Machine icon in the dock. Is Britney Spears moonlighting as Apple's UI designer?
But Apple marketing has the swinging pair of crabapples to actually print "Leopard Just Works" on its Web site.
Before Apple makes any more smug OS-related attacks on Microsoft, it ought to take a good look in the mirror.
)!Widgets got old for me about a year ago. Now I just don't think they provide enough usefulness for the resource usage.-dlagesse1992 (November 28, 2007, 04:12 PM)
I just wanted a faster computer that was more reliable. Instead I was handed the utter mess that is Vista Explorer, and my brand new expensive, superfast computer ran slower with Vista than my 5-year old machine ran XP! And for that fact alone, I call bullshit on Microsoft.
But what if there's a chance it could be proven right? Hypothetically, if Christians are right about their beliefs, eventually Christ will return and everyone would know there is a God, He created the world/universe (disproving the Big Bang theory), He created mankind (disproving the theory of Evolution), etc. I'm not trying to get into a religious debate. I'm honestly just curious about this from a scientific standpoint.
It's an odd situation because it can't ever be disproved, but it could potentially be proved.-Deozaan (November 27, 2007, 06:04 PM)
Aw, c'mon...) because the key criterion is that the explanation must be falsifiable, not proveable. This doesn't invalidate your point of view or make you "wrong" it simply means that at a practical level Christian beliefs cannot be investigated scientifically. Why? Because we have no way of either proving or disproving the existence of something that is absent (ie that is not directly observable). Which is a hamfisted way of saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
