springscansing
Oct 13, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:18 PM
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
takao
Mar 14, 02:42 PM
That remains to be seen. Right now, they are still struggling to keep this disaster from happening. The situation is hardly what I would call stable.
i totally agree that it's still way to early to tell. Now they have to keep those containments intact at all costs since they pretty much have written off the reactors 1-3 anyway by now (i suspect there were at least partial meltdowns in all 3 of them)
if anything this event shows how reactor designs, where emergency power/pumps are required to cool an already shut-off reactor down, simply have to go
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
edit: the french Autorit� de s�ret� nucl�aire (ASN) is expecting that the incident will get rated higher on the INES scale than the current 4. They are estimating that it will get rated as 5 or even 6 after talking to japanese experts. That would put it on the same level or higher than Three Miles island, Sellafield or Lucens
i totally agree that it's still way to early to tell. Now they have to keep those containments intact at all costs since they pretty much have written off the reactors 1-3 anyway by now (i suspect there were at least partial meltdowns in all 3 of them)
if anything this event shows how reactor designs, where emergency power/pumps are required to cool an already shut-off reactor down, simply have to go
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
edit: the french Autorit� de s�ret� nucl�aire (ASN) is expecting that the incident will get rated higher on the INES scale than the current 4. They are estimating that it will get rated as 5 or even 6 after talking to japanese experts. That would put it on the same level or higher than Three Miles island, Sellafield or Lucens
mattroberts
Mar 18, 11:16 AM
This sucks.... its interesting but still sucks.
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
skunk
Apr 23, 04:19 PM
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans.There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real. Every ancient civilisation believed in gods, part ancestor, part mythology, part protector, part threat. We "sad" humans imagined and invented the lot of them. This ancient chief god of yours has not done much, by your own admission, in the past two thousand years at least, so why would his supposed involvement be any more beneficial in the future? The future is up to us humans, whether "god" exists or not. Get used to it.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:49 PM
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:43 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:19 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 09:11 AM
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
Duh, winner, winner Sheen dinner:-)
hahaha
Duh, winner, winner Sheen dinner:-)
Lesser Evets
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
$299 is impressive.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
kuwisdelu
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
I don't claim to know anything at all about professional video editing. I only listened to the live feed. And I can say that the FCP pros at NAB sounded like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
Eaon
Apr 19, 02:12 PM
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
pbh444
Apr 10, 09:04 AM
"MCV reports that Apple has poached two major public relations executives from Nintendo (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43885/Rob-Saunders-heading-to-Apple) and Activision (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/43894/Now-Activisions-Nick-Grange-joins-Apple), respectively."
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
Hoo hah...
This would be a much more important development if Apple had poached head game developers from Nintendo and Activision and not just PR people.
PR people deal with spin and without the quality developers create, spin doesn't mean a thing.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 12:19 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.