I remember how in '98 or so I was rather ticked off that there was some software that required an Intel Pentium 2 processor with MMX technology in order to run at all. Up to that moment I'd been able to run just about everything on my P100, even if slower and/or uglier. Or is that a different MMX?
IIRC MMX was introduced with the Pentium I at 166MHz or so, and they were only faster because Intel at that time also doubled the L1 cache's size. The MMX instructions found in Pentium MMX and Pentium II should be the same, but the rest of the CPU is different ( the Pentium II is a castrated Pentium Pro with MMX added, so there are features and instructions not present in the Pentium I, MMX or not ). There has never been a Pentium II without MMX
Back on topic, in a manner of speaking, DeaDBeeF 0.6.0 was released last month with Opus support. Despite giving it second place in my audio player line-up, it's been my default music player pretty much since I wrote that blog post.
I pretty much stopped listening to anything years ago, except occasionally on the phone, so I didn't pay much attention to audio players. Since old habits tend to stick I'm still kinda partial to xmms
Reminds me, I need to write VIS implementations ( think 64bit SPARC SIMD ) for pixman's compositing routines. There's support for MMX, SSE, ARM SIMD, NEON, AltiVec, various MIPS DSP extensions, even Loongson MMI but not VIS, even though VIS is the oldest of the bunch and still supported by modern SPARC CPUs. Since MMX is more or less a VIS ripoff ( and Loongson MMI is an MMX ripoff... ) I'll probably just do what the Loongson support code does - implement MMX primitives instead of the whole thing.
Opera had a campaign of sorts at version 7.5 or so. Version 7 came with terribly overwhelming and confusing default interface. This was easily remedied by right-clicking and hiding unnecessary buttons, but the campaign offered downloadable skins and "setups" (toolbars and menus - like extensions these days) to make Opera's interface instantly look like IE, FF or something else. This was an absolutely brilliant way to configure it. I think user base grew rapidly at that time. At least the forums membership exploded.
This is the time when I started using Opera as my main browser. I'd been familiar with Opera since version 3.6, and had used it occasionally since version 5 (even as primary for a while with version 6), but it wasn't until one of the Opera 7 betas that they really won me over.
IIRC 7.something was when the Mac version became usable ( as in, switched to OSX instead of being an OS9 app dressed up to look kinda-sorta like an OSX one ). I've been using Opera on Windows since 4.0 ( mostly at work, for digging up docs and such - the MDI interface won me over back then ) and the linux version on NetBSD since 6.0. The BeOS and OS9 versions were odd - they had the side bar and such in a separate window, and at least the BeOS version had a bad habit of deadlocking and crashing.
Well, time to get rid of the linux compat crap then - running Opera was the only reason I had it installed. If I want to run chromium or some other webkit browser I can run them natively.
Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
Trying to explain the 'inexplicable' is part of human nature.
Especially if it's only 'inexplicable' thanks to self-imposed, willful ignorance.
It's indistinguishable from one. Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
The atheist will, very often angrily, demand PROOF that God exists, and when the believer can't provide the proof that the atheist requires-- mostly because the atheist has "refuted" any proof that might go against his theory-- the atheist then claims that lack of proof is proof of lack, or words to that effect.
If there was any such proof we'd be unable to refute it
The flip side of the coin doesn't get much play here, but any atheist who is the least bit honest will admit he has a problem--- proving that there is, indeed, no god. The problem is that in order to provide such proof you would have to be in possession of all knowledge, and since you aren't in possession of all knowledge there has to be an admission that there might, possibly, just maybe, be a god out there somewhere.
The problem with this approach is that it applies just as well to every other deity imaginable, which renders your own position utterly untenable - in order to be consistent you'd have to believe in every one of them.
In claiming dogmatically that there is no god and not being willing to entertain any thought to the contrary, the atheist becomes just as religiously fundamentalist as the very worst fire-breathing bible-thumper he rails against in his anti-god tirades.
You're a dogmatic, fire-breathing, religiously fundamentalist unicorn denier. Or can you prove their non-existence?
Possible, I haven't actually checked. It didn't feel/look like 20,000 characters, it did feel like 8000 characters (the limit at my.opera)
I haven't really given the limit much thought; it's simply the default. But most posts (including this one) never even reach 1/10th of even 8,000, so it doesn't really seem necessary to restrict the few outliers.
Yeah, and if some bantay type shows up such a limit wouldn't slow him down much anyway.
It's obvious that in no way the problem you raised (how is it possible that Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves) has any connection with anthropomorphism or some sort of beginning/end vision.
So, based by your response, there wasn't any [glow=red,2,300]"outlandish[/glow] claim"[/i][/size] was there then.
Your god. You claim it exists and attempt to handwave any question for proof. Yet you loudly demand proof from the other side. Typical christian hypocrisy or is it just you?
.... why would I want to believe in your god?..... ..... So does Vishnu. Why should I believe in your god instead of Vishnu?
Who, or what you personally believe in is between you & yourself. I don't seek to affect any of your beliefs, even if I could.
Missing the point by a mile. Again. You pretend that belief in your god is somehow the default, that there's plenty evidence to support it ( which you consistently fail to provide ). All the vague nonsense you brought up in favour of your god would work just as well for any of the others. Why did you pick yours over the others?
The only thing I requested from you was to disprove the existence of God........period.
And I told you about a million times by now that this demand is absolute nonsense. You make an outlandish claim, fail to support it in any meaningful way, therefore rejection of your claim is the reasonable position.
You chose not to for 2 reasons.......because you didn't want to, & because I didn't fulfill your prerequisites, which I contend, you inserted because you figured it was a clever way of avoiding the proposition to disprove the unprovable......the existence of God.
Spare us the babble. We know your favourite strawman by now since you drag his poor ass out every other post. That doesn't magically turn him into anything else than a strawman.
Maybe there should be a rule that moderators who take part in a thread shouldn't do any moderation there ( other than purely janitorial tasks like cleaning up spam )
I'm not convinced that should be a rule, but it should do as a guideline. If you're personally invested in the thread, exercise restraint. Always try to differentiate between what you find annoying and what is not permissible. There's overlap, but they're not the same thing.
Well I'm agnostic, which accepts that neither religion nor atheism can prove they are right.
That's not exactly Agnosticism...
Agnosticism it's different and consists in realizing that the ultimate truths, as the existence or not of God, are inaccessible to the human spirit. It realizes perfectly the paradox of God's definition (in the sense of a total and global human mental comprehension) and basically adopts a posture of "denial of knowledge" - A-Gnosis, therefore the word. An agnostic knows that he can't ever know.
It's the maximum expression of Man's finitude and insignificance and a refusal and disbelief about the possibility of Man's divine origin and soul.
Well, any sufficiently powerful being could certainly hide from all of us as long as it wants, thereby rendering its existence unknowable. To us. The existence of any such beings which don't interact with the world in any measurable way ( otherwise we'd be able to detect them ) is indistinguishable from them not existing. Or rather, it makes no difference either way, which renders the term pretty much meaningless.
Of the two, the atheist viewpoint has logic on its side.
OK, being empirical evidence back then was impossible to glean, explain the logic in how:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. Planets and stars formed from space dust. Matter created life by itself. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
The only way this could support any kind of god ( let alone yours in particular ) would be if the existence of any being capable of creating all that could be shown. Which it can't, what you're doing is merely an argument from ignorance. "we don't know therefore god" stopped being convincing at least 200 years ago. Not to mention that half of the list above is a strawman anyway.
Your whole Atheist existence is predicated on a belief in a doctrine (which oddly enough denotes some form of faith) that says something doesn't exist, but it's impossible for you to support your position either way on it's existence. What a dichotomy.
Nonsense. Believe it or not, but most atheists don't 'unbelieve' in your god like you do believe in yours. And that thing about "it's impossible for you to support your position" is a plain old lie. For the millionth time - why would I want to believe in your god? Where is it other than in your head only?
Whereas my belief in my God is predicated by my personal Faith in my God, & that Faith doesn't require proving His existence to anyone/anything, least of all you.
So the previous statement is weapon grade projection. Again.
I've come to the conclusion that not believing in His existence poses neither Him or me any threat.
More weapon grade projection. So you do feel threatened by the mere existence of non-believers and because of that you keep making up nonsense about them, as shown in this thread.
........ why would I want to prove the non-existence of something without the tiniest shred of evidence that it actually might exist? You claim that your god exists yet you are entirely unable to support your claim. You attempt to handwave the non-existence of any other deity that's supported by the same amount of evidence yet you demand that I disprove your particular delusion? Sorry, as things stand your god is indistinguishable from a delusion. I'll happily accept the existence of the voice in your head ( nothing unusual about that ). I'll refuse to accept that it's some sort of god without decent evidence.
So you can't disprove the existence of God....you admit it.
Since by 'God' you mean 'the voice in your head'...
All bark, & no bite.....just dodge, & avoid doing the manly thing....admit you cant do it & end your charade & tap dance.
For the last time, I'll type reallllly slow this time so maybe you can follow it this time. I will disprove your god as soon as you disprove Vishnu, Cthulhu, unicorns or any other deity. Obviously you're unable to do so.
I don't have a burden of proof here....your the Atheist who says He doesn't exist, but cant begin to back up the assertion...step one.
You really need to learn some logic. You make the claim that your god exists, you support it. Or admit that you also believe in Vishnu, unicorns, or Cthulhu. You're not one of these damn hypocrites, are you?
All you've proven is that you are seething with hate ..... & if somehow you're right (which you're not).... seething with hate of what you say is a non existent god.
If you had any reading comprehension you'd know that I didn't even try to prove anything. Why don't you just stop bullshitting for a minute? Still waiting for your disproof of Vishnu. Or supporting evidence for your god.
Mother of all dodges. So you demand that I accept your god's existence without any evidence whatsoever, yet you are unwilling to apply the same to yourself? Can't say I'm surprised.
You're the Athiest.....this thread is labeled "The Problem With Athiesm", the burden of proof is all yours.
Holy mother of non-sequitur, Batman! So you accept that Cthulhu exists?
I need not prove my Faith, but you are already proving I'm right, by your avoiding my initial direct question ....... can you simply disprove the existence of God? ..... last chance ... Macallan, the ref is about to count you out!!
For the 3rd time, since you're apparently a little slow - why would I want to prove the non-existence of something without the tiniest shred of evidence that it actually might exist? You claim that your god exists yet you are entirely unable to support your claim. You attempt to handwave the non-existence of any other deity that's supported by the same amount of evidence yet you demand that I disprove your particular delusion? Sorry, as things stand your god is indistinguishable from a delusion. I'll happily accept the existence of the voice in your head ( nothing unusual about that ). I'll refuse to accept that it's some sort of god without decent evidence.
That said, I'll gladly disprove your god ( whichever christian variety it happens to be ) right after you show me undeniable proof that Vishnu does in fact not exist, and never did. Or Cthulhu. Or unicorns. Or any other deity you don't believe in.
I don't care about any organized religion, or belief other than my own.
Mother of all dodges. So you demand that I accept your god's existence without any evidence whatsoever, yet you are unwilling to apply the same to yourself? Can't say I'm surprised.
So far all I hear is a lot of hot wind, stressful frustration no doubt, & name calling ............ so when are you going to disprove the existence of God?
You can read, can you? I said right after you disprove Vishnu, Cthulhu, unicorns or any other deity of your choice.
I like that. Long rules serve the purpose of convincing everyone that the Boss has a legitimate authority.......
I think "my house, my rules" applies, since this is practically an extension to Frenzie's living room. No need whatsoever to legitimize any authority here. The rules are whatever the host is willing to put up with.
I agree, but I do not envy his huge task, to always display the 'Judgment of Solomon' when faced with his own personal likes & dislikes, weighed against the greater well-being of the Forum.............a form of fairness, that if not seen by all as mostly always fair can undo a lot of hard work in making this Forum all happen.
Maybe there should be a rule that moderators who take part in a thread shouldn't do any moderation there ( other than purely janitorial tasks like cleaning up spam )
The Problem with Atheism is that they can never disprove the existence of God, so they attack everyone of faith with hate.
You mean everyone who regurgitates the same old crap, again, that wasn't convincing, valid or even coherent the last five million times
So are you, Macallan, going to break the mold, & be the very first Atheist that can actually disprove God?
Why exactly would I want to disprove something that isn't supported by any kind of evidence to begin with? That said, I'll gladly disprove your god ( whichever christian variety it happens to be ) right after you show me undeniable proof that Vishnu does in fact not exist, and never did. Or Cthulhu. Or unicorns. Or any other deity you don't believe in.
