DISQUS

These are also what I consider the coolest features. It's looking like a terrific update.

How to make the upgrade even better? Install Leopard on a new Hitachi Travelstar 7K200, 7200RPM, 200GB notebook hard drive.

These are also what I consider the coolest features. It's looking like a terrific update.

How to make the upgrade even better? Install Leopard on a new Hitachi Travelstar 7K200, 7200RPM, 200GB notebook hard drive.

Thanks, Daniel for the discussion.

Perhaps a profitable direction to take this discussion next would be to ask why expanding one's personal criteria for evidence to include the spiritual experiences would even be necessary or desirable.

I suggest that one reason for doing so would be to find answers to questions that reasoning and science alone cannot address, such as the great questions of the the human condition. Viz., What is the purpose of life, is there a life after death, etc.

Thanks, Daniel for the discussion.

Perhaps a profitable direction to take this discussion next would be to ask why expanding one's personal criteria for evidence to include the spiritual experiences would even be necessary or desirable.

I suggest that one reason for doing so would be to find answers to questions that reasoning and science alone cannot address, such as the great questions of the the human condition. Viz., What is the purpose of life, is there a life after death, etc.

I'm glad you like QuickSilver quick searches. I was pretty confident you would like it if you tried it.

I'm glad you like QuickSilver quick searches. I was pretty confident you would like it if you tried it.

What did you use to set up quick searches in Safari? SafariStand? I use QuickSilver to launch quick searches. To me, it takes the concept of a quick search one step further because I can launch a search from anywhere, not just from within a web browser.

What did you use to set up quick searches in Safari? SafariStand? I use QuickSilver to launch quick searches. To me, it takes the concept of a quick search one step further because I can launch a search from anywhere, not just from within a web browser.

I recognize that as a believer in God, my opinion may not be welcome here, but there is a third, plausible option (if you are willing to accept the existence of God, at least hypothectically for the sake of argument):

3. The Flood occurred before story of Gilgamesh was created. According to the Bible's internal history, the Flood occurred several thousand years before the Book of Genesis was written (remember, Genesis was written as a history of past religious events). Thus, Gilgamesh and other myths are modified accounts of the same world event. In this light, myths of the flood from all of the world (viz. Gilgamesh, Miao Legend) serve to corroborate the biblical account. It's natural that specifics would vary through time and across cultures.

The same reasoning above applies to myths similar to Jesus Christ. What if, like the flood, the knowledge of a savior was general to the world's earliest inhabitants via revelation from God? If this were the case, it would be reasonable that stories of a Christ-figure would propagate throughout the myths of history and share similarities.

My faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. Mormonism) teaches this very thing.

I recognize that as a believer in God, my opinion may not be welcome here, but there is a third, plausible option (if you are willing to accept the existence of God, at least hypothectically for the sake of argument):

3. The Flood occurred before story of Gilgamesh was created. According to the Bible's internal history, the Flood occurred several thousand years before the Book of Genesis was written (remember, Genesis was written as a history of past religious events). Thus, Gilgamesh and other myths are modified accounts of the same world event. In this light, myths of the flood from all of the world (viz. Gilgamesh, Miao Legend) serve to corroborate the biblical account. It's natural that specifics would vary through time and across cultures.

The same reasoning above applies to myths similar to Jesus Christ. What if, like the flood, the knowledge of a savior was general to the world's earliest inhabitants via revelation from God? If this were the case, it would be reasonable that stories of a Christ-figure would propagate throughout the myths of history and share similarities.

My faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. Mormonism) teaches this very thing.

Firefox Quicksearches are great. What makes them even better is QuickSilver. Whereas with Firefox you have to switch to the application and then ctrl/cmd-L, with QuickSilver I can be anywhere in the OS and have access to the QuickSearch. In your example I would key: cmd-space, g, then tab, tab, and then type: /maps sf .

QuickSilver is also great for bookmarks. To me, it never made since to create lots of bookmarks because it takes so long to scroll through them. However, with QuickSilver bookmarks are indexed, so to access your blog I can just type from anywhere, cmd-space, tab, tab, and then : drm .

Firefox Quicksearches are great. What makes them even better is QuickSilver. Whereas with Firefox you have to switch to the application and then ctrl/cmd-L, with QuickSilver I can be anywhere in the OS and have access to the QuickSearch. In your example I would key: cmd-space, g, then tab, tab, and then type: /maps sf .

QuickSilver is also great for bookmarks. To me, it never made since to create lots of bookmarks because it takes so long to scroll through them. However, with QuickSilver bookmarks are indexed, so to access your blog I can just type from anywhere, cmd-space, tab, tab, and then : drm .

As a devout Christian (I'm a practicing Mormon), I found this article very interesting. Not because it made me see myself in a new way, but because it helps me understand how I am viewed by atheists. Apparently, atheists see my belief in God as rational or as founded as a belief in Santa Claus. For me, such a view misses the mark.

My belief in God is not based on willful delusion, but on empirical (i.e. experiential) evidence. In fact, my acceptance of the religious principles I adhere to are logically built on this evidence. The issue is what you are willing to accept as valid evidence.

As a trained scientific researcher (in the field of information systems), I have strong respect for the scientific method and consider it to be the best means available have for acquiring knowledge. In using the scientific method, scientists make epistemological decisions to only accept as evidence those predictions of phenomena that are measurable, testable, objective, reproducible, and so on.

However, not all phenomena are measurable, etc. However, the fact that a certain phenomenon cannot be assessed using the scientific method does not mean that it isn't real. It simply means it is beyond the scope of what science can validate. To claim otherwise would be an obvious fallacy.

Many human experiences fall into this category. Most personal experiences are not objective or testable. In my case, my acceptance of the existence of God is based on several instances in my life in which I have experienced or "felt" a communication from God. None of these experiences are verifiable using the scientific method, yet they were as real as anything else I have experienced in my life.

Simply put, I have made a decision to accept these experiences as evidence of the existence of God. In other words, I have broadened my epistemological criteria to accept as valid these profound and highly individualistic experiences.

The willingness to accept spiritual experiences as evidence is a great divider of theists and atheists. Knowledge gained through spiritual experiences is obviously not scientific, but millions if not billions of people have accepted such knowledge as the basis for their belief. Such acceptance is not unfounded or thoughtless, but rests on experiences that these people consider very real.

As a devout Christian (I'm a practicing Mormon), I found this article very interesting. Not because it made me see myself in a new way, but because it helps me understand how I am viewed by atheists. Apparently, atheists see my belief in God as rational or as founded as a belief in Santa Claus. For me, such a view misses the mark.

My belief in God is not based on willful delusion, but on empirical (i.e. experiential) evidence. In fact, my acceptance of the religious principles I adhere to are logically built on this evidence. The issue is what you are willing to accept as valid evidence.

As a trained scientific researcher (in the field of information systems), I have strong respect for the scientific method and consider it to be the best means available have for acquiring knowledge. In using the scientific method, scientists make epistemological decisions to only accept as evidence those predictions of phenomena that are measurable, testable, objective, reproducible, and so on.

However, not all phenomena are measurable, etc. However, the fact that a certain phenomenon cannot be assessed using the scientific method does not mean that it isn't real. It simply means it is beyond the scope of what science can validate. To claim otherwise would be an obvious fallacy.

Many human experiences fall into this category. Most personal experiences are not objective or testable. In my case, my acceptance of the existence of God is based on several instances in my life in which I have experienced or "felt" a communication from God. None of these experiences are verifiable using the scientific method, yet they were as real as anything else I have experienced in my life.

Simply put, I have made a decision to accept these experiences as evidence of the existence of God. In other words, I have broadened my epistemological criteria to accept as valid these profound and highly individualistic experiences.

The willingness to accept spiritual experiences as evidence is a great divider of theists and atheists. Knowledge gained through spiritual experiences is obviously not scientific, but millions if not billions of people have accepted such knowledge as the basis for their belief. Such acceptance is not unfounded or thoughtless, but rests on experiences that these people consider very real.

Nu, trrx pelcgb uhzbe. Guvf vf zl xvaq bs oybt. V'z jnvgvat sbe na hafhfcrpgvat gb cbfg n dhrfgvba gb gur pbzzragf!

Ol gur jnl, urer'f bar bs gur srj cebqhpgvivgl-vapernfvat jvqtrgf:

uggc://jjj.nccyr.pbz/qbjaybnqf/qnfuobneq/pnyphyngr_pbaireg/ebg13qryrapbqrjvqtrg.ugzy

Daniel--thanks for the insight. Great blog by the way--it's consistently high quality with useful/interesting content.

Daniel--thanks for the insight. Great blog by the way--it's consistently high quality with useful/interesting content.

LOL--I love the reference to Hot Dog Pro. Seriously, "lack of availability" has been one of the longest perpetuated "jokes" regarding OS X. The irony is that some of the best apps out there are only available (or were originally developed for) OS X.

LOL--I love the reference to Hot Dog Pro. Seriously, "lack of availability" has been one of the longest perpetuated "jokes" regarding OS X. The irony is that some of the best apps out there are only available (or were originally developed for) OS X.

Daniel,

Aren't you a huge VIM proponent? How do you decide whether to use VIM, BBEdit, or TextMate when confronted with an editing/coding task?

Daniel,

Aren't you a huge VIM proponent? How do you decide whether to use VIM, BBEdit, or TextMate when confronted with an editing/coding task?

I have to agree with this article. For the past few years I've used Linux exclusively on my laptop--Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SuSE, Ubuntu... I love Linux have great respect for the forementioned distros, but this year I became disenchanted with continually fixing/configing my main work machine.

For example, on Linux I used several applications that required a kernel recompile every time a new version of the Linux kernel was released. Although I like the freedom of compiling my own kernel, the necessity of compiling the kernel in order to use the applications I need can be very frustrating.

Now I'm happy with OS X on my laptop and Debian on my server--both are solid as a rock in their respective uses. In short, I learned a lot keeping my Linux laptop just how I wanted it. In this sense it was time well spent. I still love Linux (and keep it on my laptop as a Parallels VM), but I just got tired "fixing my tool".

I have to agree with this article. For the past few years I've used Linux exclusively on my laptop--Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SuSE, Ubuntu... I love Linux have great respect for the forementioned distros, but this year I became disenchanted with continually fixing/configing my main work machine.

For example, on Linux I used several applications that required a kernel recompile every time a new version of the Linux kernel was released. Although I like the freedom of compiling my own kernel, the necessity of compiling the kernel in order to use the applications I need can be very frustrating.

Now I'm happy with OS X on my laptop and Debian on my server--both are solid as a rock in their respective uses. In short, I learned a lot keeping my Linux laptop just how I wanted it. In this sense it was time well spent. I still love Linux (and keep it on my laptop as a Parallels VM), but I just got tired "fixing my tool".