Jump to content

metadigital

Members
  • Content Count

    13,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About metadigital

  • Rank
    Obsidian VIP

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    m3t4d1g1t4l@yahoo.co.uk
  • Website URL
    http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
  • Yahoo
    m3t4d1g1t4l

Profile Information

  • Location
    ludo ergo sum
  • Interests
    Thinking.<br /><br />

Recent Profile Visitors

9,400 profile views
  1. Please come back meta :(

  2. *kicks corpse*

    Joking.

  3. Hello. We are watching you.

  4. I game therefore I am?

  5. Some info: Vista vs XP Pro Skulltrail supports Quad SLi Intel to stop single core production 512GB Solid State drives
  6. I don't think the makers actually ever even used an old typewriter, or don't remember what it was like. "Touch-typing"? I'm all for NOT using a standard case, though. I can't wait for the consumerisation process that will spawn the generation of IT technology that integrates the geek-ugly into the disposable-income-chic (for an example of which see the transmogrification of the PC into the PVR).
  7. Actually, CPU brand has a bit to do with it, too ... Intel's is locked down tight with Rights Management, whereas AMD has left their products open (to be used with other OSes, for example, like *nix), so that an AMD system can be configured to stream multimedia around a site via any "toasternet" equipment, such as any old router not purchased specially for Windows-Centrino compatibility.
  8. 1. What, exactly, is invalid about the logic behind attributing the causes of lung cancer and nuclear explosions to smoking and nuclear weapons? 2. The difference (in terms of burden of proof) between scientific sufficiency and epistemic proof is not as large as your arguments make it seem. (After all, if scientific sufficiency was such a poor standard for understanding causes then it would not be fit for purpose.) You are guilty of a fallacy here, definitely, by equating the quantity and quality of evidence required for people to be able to ACCURATELY predict (to a stipulated level of precision) EXACTLY how objects will behave in our universe, and the comparably fractional amount to prove the same beyond epistemic doubt. 3. The main fault with your (so far only demonstrable argument) is that you are belabouring under the weighty assumption that there is a god. If you relinquish this assumption (for the purposes of understanding how our universe works), as scientists do, then your highly-valued deductive logic would be free to work on the issues at hand. 4. It might facilitate the discussion if, instead of quoting other people's profundities, you might actually talk about what YOU think / believe. Whenever someone calls one of your more outrageous statements, you simply say "it wasn't my idea". Stop telling me OTHER people's ideas, because you lack the commitment to defend them (or perhaps you realise that the position is indefensible and you are avoiding the admission). You might not be searching for meaning, but I am. I suspect I'm not in the minority (of scholars), either ... you seem to have an odd motivation to discuss the ineffable WITHOUT DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND.
  9. So how are you managing to balance your studies with all that jazz?
  10. But one can have never too much Deus Ex (the original; not IW that is)... +1
  11. Are you trying to convince me ... or you? "
  12. Have you connected to the router via an ethernet cable? (You have to configure the router first, after all.)
×
×
  • Create New...