keelanz

After re-watching that video i realised how much fun it would be to work for google, the lulz

We have an innovating website idea that we would like to develop, it is a new concept. We have no experience in web developing therefore we are looking for someone who can help us build the website and bring our ideas to reality.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Best regards,

 

Laurent Méan

I can do certain aspects.

Reminds me of a thread Pangloss had started . . . the Sixth Sense Device - MIT

 

I love the instant access to Amazon comments on books that you might be buying in a store and in person!

thats next level technology

the advert is too funny LOOL i want me some E-ink

ostrov Kotel'nyy

google it, IMO = eden

Maybe the existence of such a forum would incite the activity! I would like to have discussions on this topic and will maybe one day be capable of actually doing so. In the mean time if others were to discuss issues this would give me more to read. I'm just up-voting the suggestion here.

is this of any interest to you?

http://www.inbiosa.e...article=acib-11

its from a thread in computer science but it seems to cross atleast 5 if not more subjects for example mathematics, computers, biology, physics and philosophy

Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. It's right there on page 26 of the MiB handbook.

genius

Okay so i was just reading a thread about Nooks and Kindle 2 which are different versions of an e-book reader (the latter developed by amazon) which got me thinking about other pieces of technology which is out there that i have absolutely no idea about.

heres an example

http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/

now if i knew anything about wii technology or had one myself i could explain a little about it and give my opinion on it unfortunately i dont and hence why i started the thread

btw from reading a bit of the site i think all you need is a wii remote and a c# compiler

heres another example

http://www.netgadget...camera-pen.html

this type of technology scares especially for the price but i suppose everyone is walking around with cameras on their phones anyway.

oops i forgot there is some new technology that excites me, i cant wait for the new sony handheld ngp, its gona have dual analogue sticks which automatically makes me think COD aswell as having a quad core processor

http://www.techradar...-to-know-921111

heres an interesting watch about the kindle, gives you a scientific explanation about the screen

Stop teasing me with technology i cant afford..... lol

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

Let me conclude this:

Not everything can be visualized. Can you get the knowledge of the letter 'A' only by visualizing? Simply not. You need to have the knowledge how the word sounds.

Can you prove your father by visualizing? No, because you weren't even born at that time.

Can you prove a far country by visualizing? No, because the country can be beyond reach of eyes, but it actually exists.

Same is for God. He is beyond our material eyes and ears and all senses.

A lot of saints have seen him and they have attained bliss.

 

Something more-

What is nature?

Whatever we can't explain scientifically is what we call nature.

For ex- We know subatomic particles have no smell when taken individually. But when they combine in ratios of different number(as different elements) they form compounds with different smell. How can you get smell? This is termed as NATURE of electrons! Because this is unexplained.

There are countless examples of so called Nature.

GOD is what we call nature in science.

ive just realised this thread has nothing to with the existence of our own "gods" that is mine, yours, the christians or the muslims but of the god of nature that rktro defines.

it has been my personal opinion that nature is god and science our bible for a few years now however there are in my own view still philosophical concepts above and beyond science. i wouldnt like to define the concepts as religious but im sure they are metaphorically covered in most religions, the personal touches on life which make them our own, the trivialities and pursuit of existence as a human and all the deeper fundamental questions dont seem to have any objective answer and i think thats where the subjective god has come into existence

also incase you dont read a few posts up (as i tend to do), would this be an accurate description of your general thinking?

"really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove or show E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature(undefined, un-explained), we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god.

ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his belief (no need to disagree with the premise) "

I seriously can't possible see how God being identified as a male (when God is most likely genderless) offends you in any way.

 

I had no idea women were being oppressed. Are you not allowed to vote? Do you not have your inalienable human rights?

 

Then why are you complaining?

 

Seriously. What point are you trying to make? That women are oppressed because of Jesus or something?

you have no idea what country she is from (originally or now) or what religion she could have been born into, keep the sly remarks away from religious posts as this is where it can cause the most offense. im sure you are aware that sexism is more than an occurrence almost everywhere but western civilization so please keep it in mind when your challenging people about what you think you know.

EDIT: the reasons gods sex is important (why i originally pointed out your ignorance) is that if you dont change your outlook on simple things such as that then obviously from our point of view you havent shaken other deeply inserted religious traits that only proves your religious ignorance (theres plenty after reading the god delusion TWICE)

This quote of yours seems to make out itself that either you have studied all religions yourself both theoretically and practically or you are yourself BIG AND BEST God so that you can always insult other Gods.

I doubt both.

 

To Everyone: Now please make this thread a dead one and start a new one. I respect your ideas, so should you . I am not asking to follow them like a saint.

Regards

|rktpro|

as far as the religious aspect went i do not for one minute pretend to be a theologian however i have my own opinions on what religion "is" and what god "is" therefor ill make my own assertions about what god "is" defined as by abrahamic religion, if you dont agree with my assertion please state the facts of why rather than saying my god is the "BIG AND BEST" god, all im doing is being philosophical of religion rather than conformist, i can see truth in your religion but not as much as in my own reality of the modern day.

in my answer to the existence of god you dont question my fundamental statement about it depending on "gods definition" but rather trivialities in my text about my own definition of abrahamic god, if you want to start getting technical i actually think alot of religious people have no idea whats going on, they are preached to each sunday and whole heartily believe what they are being told as fact, you could tell them god is a spinning tea cup or a spaghetti monster and they wouldnt disagree etc etc (this scares me)

again this brings me back to my original post, in my own opinion if you believe in any deity or organised religion your definition of god is false on premise and therefor non existent however if you deduct your own definition of god then only you can decide weather it exists

P.S i believe there is much to learn from organised religion I.E the metaphors and stories but theres too many contradictions in the bible for it to be taken factually

ALSO its IMO that religion is a cover for spirituality for the benefit of the kids or the less educated. (only my opinion)

EDIT EDIT: i think the simplest answer to this thread is "YES" but only by our own definition

You said:

 

 

 

First of all your premise is false. People don't say that. And even if some people did, it's not a valid source to base a claim from. Therefore, your conclusions are logically invalid.

its not even a case of if "people" said it, its the fact science requires what he states as both visual and experimental proof to be valid, that which in most peoples definition of "god" is impossible to show(right now), also relative to his assertion that "god" is "nature" this only backs up his statement as nature is yet to be defined which only means its yet to be fully discovered for its absolute truth I.E "the natural universe" is almost endless.

really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature, we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god.

ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his also belief (no need to disagree with the premise)

"Microsoft Windows Search Protocol Host has stopped working"

 

I recently started using Windows 7 (formerly on Windows XP). Above is an error message I have been getting dozens of times a day. It doesn't appear to interfere with anything I am doing, but it is a nuisance. Any suggestions about what is going on and what can I do about it?

read up on what the protocol is, if you dont need it stop it in the services tab of msconfig

How can you remove a registry key that shows up as a threat on Spybot but cannot be removed or fixed? I found 26 of these things since Wendnesday .

 

If they can't be removed then would a complete removal of my OS be needed then reapplied?

 

Thank you for your help.

have you actually used regedit and got the area of the registry the spybot is in?

its an mmc snap in just go to run and type regedit.

Have I made a misinterpretation or more somewhere?

 

 

Information at hand (simplified):

 

1. Bing Bang shows that energy became matter.

 

2. Matter has 4 states depending on the speed of its molecules. (Solid, liquid, gas, plasma)

 

3. The faster the speed the closer to energy, and the slower the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions (Simplified):

 

1. Matter is energy slowed down.

 

2. Everything is of the same energy, at different speeds and time.

 

3. Thus the Big Bang is really a slowing down of energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure I have, if not why does it seem that way?

 

For example, if the above is true, then wouldn't "The Big Freeze" be the only possible end result of the big bang?

computer says NO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

So in your view of the world it is more appropriate to call God 'BS', 'fairy tale', and 'metaphor' rather than to call God 'him'? To the point of suggesting violence against me? When all I was doing was using a commonly used pronoun when referencing him?

 

 

http://www.beliefnet...-My-Church.aspx

My post was more a reference of general ignorance than directly at you but take it as you will.

Yes most abrahamic gods are IMO BS, fairy tales and metaphors therefor i personally dont see much scientific proof of rising from the dead or turning water into wine so why should i take it as anything else? on another note abrahamic gods are always portrayed as the "good" and the "light" in the world so this can be added to that definition of god.

To be fair i was trying to get people away from the idea of god "being" as defined in most religions because if we do that then god would certainly exist, we just get to subjectively define what "it" is.

I dont think god can change, only our perception of it, hence why now i call god "it" rather than "him" i have lost some of my ignorance but not all.

ovcourse this whole post depends on one simple question.......what is the definition OF god

IMO all abrahamic gods are BS, fairy tales and metaphors but then again if we dont take any human definition of god then god can be anything and surely anything exists because its easier to comprehend than nothing which kinda makes us god.....

and please guys stop saying "him" and "his" because it just makes me want to shoot you in the face

much love =D

I think that to the ordinary layman anything that has no end point can be defined as infinite. This definition is not quite exact, though. For instance, the surface of a sphere has no end point and yet is a finite (closed) surface.

 

Chris

no i understand the definition of infinite, thanks, what i actually meant was obviously anything that exists doesnt exist anymore than it already existing, so our planet doesnt perceptually inflate to become infinite which means no matter how you look at it our physical existence is limited regardless if we cant express certain shapes or mathematical equations finitely. My question was actually asking if nothing could go for ever or would something have to fill the nothing for the nothing to be determined as something?

because if you dont need something for nothing to be determined as infinite then space is certainly infinite from our own perspective?

it was my belief relativity created time, if time didnt exist then neither would relativity but the fact your able to think regardless of all the external physical evidence proves that even your brain is relative to something ....... POW

Whatever you call it, according to religious mythology it is all part of the creation. Humans and their knowledge and ideas, reasoning, etc. are all part of "going forth and multiplying" that began with God supposedly replicating himself and his creative potential by creating humans "in his image."

 

 

I think that's why the bible eventually talks about armageddon as an eternal war between good and evil. Once God created evil, he won't destroy it because that would also be evil and so evil has its place in the creation next to good. It seems as though what God and the prophets usually do is to try to show people the light of what is evil and good so they can act on it themselves. Then they go forth and multiply that for others. Ultimately, everyone is free to make their own choices between good and evil but those that see the light try to help others see it so they can make better choices. It's like if you know that fire can hurt you, you would tell someone to be careful around fire but you wouldn't go around stopping everyone from getting near fire for any reason.

 

my first line shows that what we all agree or believe is still only subjective not objective

on the second paragraph again i agree for the most part however killing evil isnt the evil but what it does do is destroys any concept of good, it would definitely destroy a few levels of consciousness in relation to weighing situations and such because for example if only good things existed it wouldnt really matter what you decided to do so thinking really wouldnt be needed.

evil doesnt sit next to good in creation it sits because of good as creation. (so essentially they are one another and therefor we only have different perceptions of the same thing)

i like your analogy about the fire i think it explains what you wanted to express very well, i think its probably a very accurate description of what JESUS himself may have been about.

and what homework is this for?

ive never seen any sort of language like this, i dont get the syntax sorry.

what level of language is this? im actually very interested =D

ahh i get whats happening, your declaring things and asking some sort of propositional question in relation to certain areas of computing?

i think theres some sort of mix up though html seems all over the place so it doesnt have any sort of logic that makes sense without taking out html?

i dont really know any of the concepts at work here so ill let someone take over from where i left off, this is all rather confusing me.

if you want to feed me more information ill have a go

I think the issue is that by creating a creation that "goes forth and multiplies" infinitely, God created both goodness and evil as a byproduct. The story of the fallen angel is a good illustration because the angel gets perverted by his own narcissism as God's great angel. So when (parts of) the creation becomes oppositional towards other parts, that could be seen as parts of God going bad. God did, however, supposedly create the distinction between good and evil and replicate this ability to distinguish between them in humans, so you could say that God is everything AND he is the means of distinguishing good from evil - and maybe the wisdom to know how to deal with evil in a way that resists generating more evil or destroying/perverting goodness in the process.

I agree totally from my own point of view however if you philosophise a second you realise its only our intersubjective which is the wisdom to distinguish. #

also the means by which to distinguish is different from actually being good, so god is still as much bad as good if with the knowledge of distinguishing we dont act upon it.

The concept of God is usually defined as an entity which is omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely good. But omniscience does not imply that God has to be everything he knows, since knowledge can and usually does extend to things which are not in or of the knower. Knowledge usually implies a gap between the knower and the known. Omnipotence also does not imply, as you seem to assume, that God himself 'is' everything, since having the power to do X does not necessarily mean being X. God might have powers which he reserves, and his refusal always to exercise them could leave many things outside his individual nature and control, keeping them ontologically distinct from him. Infinite goodness doesn't mean being everything either, since people who are more good than other people are not any more ontologically extensive than evil people. So by all these three defining predicates of God, there seems to be no reason why he also has to be everything, so that he cannot be just the good and not the bad.

 

Now we can blame him for withholding his omnipotent power to correct evil, which he should logically be willing to exercise for the good if he is both omnipotent and infinitely good, but that is separate from the issue of God's being having to include everything within itself.

you say "his" and "him" far to much for me to take you seriously, the creator is what it created...its that simple

I don't see how being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnibenevolent means that you have to be evil.

it doesnt, it implies that you cant just be good, your the bad and the good, the down and the up etc

How so?

The logic is there in my text already. If god is EVERYTHING it cant be defined as just being "good" it would also encompass what is "bad" which according to abrahamic religion is the sins. So god is either EVERYTHING or he is everything that is GOOD, being both is a paradox.

hola nerds, im keelanz, im 19 and im from england. I currently study computer science at university but i have a deep interest in physics, philosophy & politics.

Im currently in a deep philosophical battle(with myself) for understanding of our existence...=D

Im also interested in economics, math tricks and illusions ;-)

But imprisoning also takes away the same member of society, but for a longer period. Not to mention it allows a deviant to intermingle with other deviants and find out how to better commit crimes. For the most part there is no 'perfect' answer to deviance.

If you take someones eye they are permanently disabled, imprisonment is relative to the crime, also i was looking at it from an idealogical point of view so i wouldnt have criminals "mingling". I agree there is no objective answer but like we was saying earlier things like prison are more intersubjective than physical harm.