TimTheTinker

Second this - System 7.5.3 has by far the most backward and forward compatibility of any classic era Macintosh OS.

It's also available for both 68k and PPC architectures. And the PPC version can run 68k software (it internally emulates a 68020)

> Is it a rhetorical statement from your part?

I'm just hoping to clarify how I think Christian evangelism (or indeed any sharing of a worldview) is best received -- a desire to know and follow the truth, because it's the truth, regardless of consequences.

> If it can't be proven (or at least observed), then by definition, it is a belief, not a truth.

If you believe Socrates and Alexander the Great existed, do you say those are "truths"?

The evidence for those people is, relatively speaking, scant compared to the evidence for Jesus - his recorded words, death, and resurrection.

Historical events aren't something one can "prove" in any scientific or mathematical sense. We believe what we believe about history based on strong consilience in informed observation of artifacts. By design, Christianity supplies just 1 empirical foundation upon which everything else is built: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

> Most UIs should operate using only one thread

on the contrary, native app UIs should at minimum separate the UI thread from background work, if only to keep UI controls responsive.

The UI thread may spend most of its time asleep, but it has to be available to instantly respond to user input (or events/signals from the OS)

I'm just saying from the viewpoint of people in Islam (or in Islamic nations)... the tradeoffs look a lot different from that perspective.

Almost nothing in common with a 17th century French philosopher in Christian Europe

I agree Pascal's wager is generally weak. But I think the strongest reason it's weak is because people in other worldviews, particularly Islam, have a tremendous amount to lose if they convert to Christianity but it turns out Islam is true.

That may be true, but embodied human life and history provides a base set of axioms by which to evaluate further axioms -- starting with the 5 senses.

So yeah, Christianity has some axioms, but it doesn't ask people to merely accept them on faith; that's a mischaracterization. The invitation is to consider (a) how good the evidence really is for your current worldview, and then (b) how good is the evidence for Christianity's truth claims.

Pascal goes one further and suggests considering what you have to gain and lose either way -- which may have been helpful for some when the alternative was mere atheism or unbelief in Christianity, but I disagree that it's helpful in all cases. People coming from Islam have a tremendous amount to lose, including their family, community, livelihood, reputation, and the risk of being condemned eternally by Allah for committing shirk in embracing Christianity, if Islam is true.

I think a better question to ask, whatever someone's background, is "do you want to know the truth, even if it turns out you don't believe it now, and are you willing to follow it no matter what the cost?"

> you can't do this with made up bullshit

Are you saying the case for Scientology can't fail when considering its internal consistency and correspondence to reality?

I would think its positive case isn't that strong... it's more like an attack chain with an arbitrary payload (including money extraction) for minds with certain vulnerabilities than a coherent set of truth claims (let alone truth claims with at least some evidence in favor).

> It assumes that there are only two possibilities: no god, or the god of the New Testament.

I don't think so. It isn't concerned with giving any description or shape to the negative case, just an invitation to consider a particular positive case.

There are positive cases for other gospels and worldviews... there's nothing wrong with invitations to engage with one or another.

As science has shown, the truth is best discerned by considering each theory individually (and continually) against evidence. Not "dark matter sounds cool, I think that's true, not MOND" but rather considering each individually for internal consistency and against observation and predictiveness.

"It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." --Richard Feynman

> What if there's a god, but he punishes humans for believing he exists, just for fun? Where's your wager now?

That's the equivalent of Russell's teapot - an imagined, unfalsifiable proposition.

But Pascal's wager was anchored to specific attested propositions: specifically, the gospel of Jesus (repent of sin and call to him, he's paid for it and will save you from judgment and eternal separation from God if you do) rooted in the historical events of his verbal claim to be the son of God, followed by his death and resurrection, witnessed by many. You may agree or disagree, but what you are affirming or denying is at least concrete and specific.

Americans, French, and Russians seem to be like powerful engines, rockets, race cars, etc. more than other western nations

A lack of information density... I felt like I could glean more from the above-the-fold Yahoo.com site in 2001 than any site today.

Note Japan has not embraced the so-called "clean" UI design aesthetic. Check out any Japanese website and it looks like US web sites in 1999, but even more so. I wouldn't mind me some of that.

wrong link?

Video title is "AI Shader Insanity!"