BackBackBack

Due to censorship I request you to remove this account since you've not constructed a way to do it ourselves.

http://remove.org/removal-requested

For free!

Edit: Due to censorship I request you to remove this account since you've not constructed a way to do it ourselves.

http://remove.org/removal-requested

But it is socially acceptable that after installing an app or signing up for a service it gets to scrub all the data from the phone; contacts, photos, messages, relationships, locations, businesses, apps installed, calls, usage, all of it, then correlate it, classify it, generate profiles, predict behaviors and sell that information?

When I go to a store in "public" like Walmart, and buy a bottle of whiskey, an onion, and a deodorant, in front of hundreds of strangers, sharing willfully my payment details with Walmart and Visa, when I get home I still do not expect all my Facebook friends to know what I bought, to have pictures of me buying the items and to have a copy of my receipt. And some of them even have Walmart as a friend. Some even Visa!

Yet all is public information and happened in a location with no expectation of privacy.

> We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

And that is when the whole world converted overnight never to question dogma again, right? Wait, that didn't happen. Because is not posible to prove any god, let alone the overlord dictator that is, by your own "logic", making me type this words disregarding him/her.

If there are no gods, then I'm right. If there are gods and they are your kind of illogical creators that somehow do not need an explanation themselves, completely powerful and complex beyond imagination, yet simple enough to classify as "first movers", and caring enough to "die" for us but not before having a plan in-place to resurrect themselves, then leaving for some reason, he/she/it/they WANT ME to be an atheist, so I'm still right. Or are you going against your gods?

Anyway I'm done answering you. At least I hope you learned what an Atheist is and don't keep going around claiming that we are as bad as the rest because we also have "faith" in atheism! Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

> What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity.

And what you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a disbelief in a transcendental creator in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical impossibility.

> You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors.

The arrogance is simply astounding.

See, you’ve redefine it.

If you assert “gnosis” then you are not talking about belief you are talking about knowledge. Gnostics claim to know there is a god, Agnostics claim they do not know if there are gods.

But I’m an Atheist. Why? Because I do not BELIEVE there are gods. I have not made any claims. I have not asserted anything. I simply find all the arguments in favor of gods lacking.

Atheism IS NOT a positive belief system, but simply the rejection of one.

You are being downvoted because people have problems separating the two since they've been so tightly coupled for millennia at least in western civilization.

But you are right, nothing in "atheism" prohibits someone believe there is an afterlife, or ghosts, or reincarnation, etc. Atheism just means you don't believe in gods; with a little imagination an afterlife can still exist without any overlords.

Only if you redefine atheism to mean theism, as in "they believe in atheism! Can't you see?"

I'm not saying you should believe Apple. What I'm saying is that it is completely fair to criticize them based on what they say and do.

Apple promised a Mac Pro replacement for pro customers but delivered a new Mac Pro only for the high end of those customers. That is why they are being criticized.

> If your favorite car company releases a nice premium product are they also "pissing on you"?

If Toyota re-releases the Corolla as a 60K car, then yes.

Apple is not "diversifying" their product. They are straight pushing it upmarket leaving current Mac Pro customers, the ones paying until today $3000 for a trash can Apple swore was the future, out in the cold.

Why would you only evaluate the news agency? You evaluate "from the claim" not "from the claimants".

I know that is what people do, and that is why this article exists, to tell them not to do that. Ironic I know. But hopefully someone will get it.

Default skepticism doesn't mean verify everything every time. It means that when confronted with a new claim, a claim you've not decided yet its validity, you should abstain from taking a position until you have enough evidence to accept or refute the claim.

In the case of your example, I gather you've bought rice before, you've probably bought at that store before, you've used money before and you've eaten food before. By the looks of it, you've probably cooked before with that same kind of rice. Hence you are not evaluating the rice and all its production line from scratch every time you buy the rice. You already evaluated that claim and you've found that the store and their products are acceptable to you and that is why you probably bought the rice.

In that case you abandoned long ago the default position because you already had the required evidence to take an action. Which is the only purpose of the default position.

The default position is not the forever position.

Skepticism by definition requires no amount of work. What you are describing is the action of taking a position, or wanting to take a position be it for or against.

> Not easy for a data journalist to standup and get a new set of data when there's a time constraint.

Doing that is actively trying not to be a skeptic. A skeptic would wait for the party making the claim to present the set of data validating the position.

Now, I do not now if the default position in the media should be skepticism, but your misrepresentation of it makes me wonder if you are confusing what being a skeptic means and maybe that is why you find it so troublesome?

After this I’m not answering any more of your questions because you are clearly not reading my responses. But to others that might stumble upon this thread:

- I already have a monitor, 3 in fact. I do not need to pay for another, specially one that is glued to the cpu.

- The gpu is not the only hardware I listed.

- I do not want to cover my desk with external boxes and adapters, each requiring their own psu, that can only be used within 2ft, forcing them to be right next to the computer negating any “benefits” of taking them out of the machine in the first place for a desktop that never moves.

- I do not want to pay for the overhead an external box will bring, in money, noise, or in mess to my desk.

An iMac is a fine machine. It is not the machine for everyone.

Mac mini has no expansion and is very thermally constrained. If you are a web developer and never do anything else it might be fine, but there are many kinds of developers, and some need custom hardware, custom PCI cards, multiple network adapters, normal consumer grade GPUs not on an external bus. In short, not the most extreme processing power but customization options. To be able to change hardware without throwing away the whole machine.

Anyway, I love how Apple has convinced everybody that a ~$3000-$4000 machine cannot be pro and is not worthy of their engineering prowess because only modest, unsuccessful developers would spend such a small amount in a computer.

That's the whole issue. There should be a mac between the mac mini and mac pro as right now they are only addressing the extremes. And it should not be one with a screen attached to it and no expansion.