Why a lack of anonymity is a nightmare to you? Is it because you don't live in a free country and the only way you can express your ideas without going to jail afterward is with anonymity? Is it because you want to be able to lie to people around you in order to look better than you really are? Is it for another reason?

I don't recall Genesis talking about an explosion and I don't recall the Big Bang theory saying there was nothing before the Big Bang. I also don't follow how you can conclude water on a moon of Saturn is a proof of the great flood. Anyway, even at the time the Bible was created, I think several people already knew of this thing we call "water". There is really no need for proof for the existence of this "water".

We now know Genesis is ridiculously wrong. I even suspect some people were able to say it was ridiculously wrong at the time it was invented. Those who wrote it had absolutely no clue. It's not even pseudoscience, it's plain illogical fantasy. I mean, plants were created before the Sun? Even at the time, they could have thought of it and at the very least put the creation of the Sun before plants. Of course in a fantasy world anything is possible and those details are irrelevant, but still...

I don't really blame all the people who wrote the Bible, at least no more than I blame J.K. Rowling for writing Harry Potter, but I certainly blame you for not being able of basic thinking.

When the person you replied to talked about "magic" bracelet, he didn't mean he believes the bracelet is magical. The three words "Magic Magnet Bracelet" is the known name of a product.

It's not because they bend to peer pressure, it's because they are competing.

We are now so used to the concept of "intellectual property" that when we see something we might find interesting without someone trying to use it as a source of free income, we immediately think it's an April fools' day joke.

Our world is very, very sad.

No, memory is not just storage. You don't have memories, you are your memories. You don't have a part of your brain to store data and another to think.

Said in an extremely simplified way, a new memory is a new wiring configuration and that wiring configuration is what will create what you call thinking.

To use a computer analogy, memory is not just some data in RAM, it is the code. When we execute this code the result is what we call thinking, but that code (your memory) is really what creates the thinking.

No, there is no evidence which strongly suggest a non-deterministic universe. There are different interpretations of data, some imply quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, some imply it is deterministic and some doesn't imply anything. None seems better than the other. Up to now, we have no way to know if quantum mechanics is deterministic or not. Popular belief is that it is non-deterministic, but popular beliefs are not "science".

About free will, it seems obvious to me I don't have free will. When I think about something, I don't know why I decide to think about it. I just do. I may of course choose to think about something, but in the end I don't know why I made this choice. I just did. Some of my actions can be the result of a long reflection, but I have no control over why I began that reflection and why I chose some conclusions over others. I just did. I may try to understand myself, but it's just turtles all the way down. After the last turtles, I must admit have no control over what I do. I just do. Where is free will in that?

We've never seen or measured anything which might be qualified as a "soul", so the idea that it exists is just that, an idea. It is a concept we invented out of nothing to try to explain some of our perceptions. The idea of a "soul" is something we imagined. So yes, souls are clearly imaginary. It doesn't mean they don't exist, after all I could imagine horses with wings without any kind of evidence and then realize after that they really do exist, but it doesn't change that until I have some kind of physical proof horses with wings exist, they are only imaginary.

As for quantum mechanics, when did they prove it was intrinsically non-deterministic? It has the appearance of being non-deterministic, but this is if our basics assumptions, like locality, are correct. And that's a very big if. Also, quantum mechanics is not only in our brain, it's everywhere. Does that mean that a grain of sand has a soul?

Trying to use quantum mechanics to give some validity to the idea of "souls" has absolutely no logical basis whatsoever. It's basically : here's something you don't fully understand, so let me use it as a vessel for my own imaginary ideas, that way you won't be able to disprove them.

I'm someone who wants change. For example, I think Linux is dated and I would ditch it for Hurd if that thing could ever work reasonably well one day.

I tried Unity, I tried to adapt to it, but it is, for me, a step in the wrong direction. Maybe it's because I'm using three monitors (one 27" and two 22"), maybe it's because I'm using too many programs, working on too many files and doing too many tasks, but Unity doesn't work well for me.

But the thing is I think Linux fragmentation is bad. I think Linux needs a strong leader. That's why I think going with the most popular distribution makes sense and that's why I chose to switch to Ubuntu a few years ago. I guess I should now move to Mint, but I also think Canonical is in a better position to help Linux gain market share. So saying "use something else" is not a good solution for me. For me, the best solution would be for Canonical to offer more options with the UI in order to satisfy more people instead of forcing one design choice to everyone.

I don't have any control over what happens inside my brain and, in fact, I'm not even aware of it.

So not only I don't have free will, but I'm not even conscious of myself.

Making sure people don't hurt or cheat one another? Very few people want that. We value our "freedom" a lot more than whatever the consequences of our actions may have upon others. If our freedom means we will hurt others and if it means we must lie to others, so be it! Sure, we will agree to limit a bit our freedom to avoid falling into anarchy, but we all acknowledge that hurting some people in order to be "free" is perfectly acceptable.

Personally, because I'm a bit asocial and don't see the need to lie, I'm in favor of a society where there is no privacy. That's why I post under my real name and that's why I don't fear cameras and things like Google Glass. But how many people are like me?

Haha, look at all the AC posts. You guys are fricken cowards

Look at my user name. Now look at yours.

I don't think you're in a position to criticize anyone about being a "coward".

"Apple were only making higher end models with faster processors"

Mac Classic, from 1990 to 1992 : 8 Mhz 68000.
A3000, also from 1990 to 1992 : 16 or 25 Mhz 68030.

Commodore should have released the A3000 sooner to compete with the Macintosh II. I remember seeing ads for the A3000 long before it came out. When it finally came out in 1990, I remember magazine articles saying that it was too late and Commodore's future didn't look good.

Even then, before the A3000 came out, it was possible to buy an A2000 with a 68030 accelerator board and a SCSI hard disk for a lot less than the price of the Macintosh II. So saying Apple machines were higher end is not entirely true. Unfortunately, adding an accelerator board is something hobbyists do, not something businesses do.

"the lowest end mac had a 25mhz 68030, 4mb ram, scsi hdd and came with a proper monitor"

When the A1200 came out, the Mac Classic II had a 16 Mhz processor (not 25 Mhz) and 2 MB RAM (not 4 MB). Also it came with a 9" black and white monitor, which was clearly inferior to anything else. The Mac II Classic was 1900$ while the A1200 was 600$. I do not remember the price for the A1200 with the hard drive, but in 1991, you could buy a 14" color monitor for 279$, a SCSI controller for 125$ (for an A500, for an A2000 you could get one for 85$) and a 49 MB hard disk for 215$. Again in 1991 (I'm looking at an ad from an old magazine), you could get a 25 Mhz 68030, a 68882 and a 4 MB RAM expansion kit for 1499$ or 2159$ for a 50 Mhz 68030.

Macs were not higher end than Amigas and MacOS was clearly inferior to AmigaOS. Of course, Apple's prices were higher than Commodore.

Are there really that many people playing Skyrim and Crysis? Particularly playing those games with low graphic settings in order to not be GPU limited? A lot of my clients still have Core 2 duo or Phenom II and don't need more power. Even worst, a lot of their employees still have P4 at home and see no reason to upgrade. Also, considering the Xbox One and the PS4 both have an AMD processor (and not a fast one), it's kind of obvious there is very little use of a Core i7 for most people, even for gaming.

Personally, I think it's a shame we can't buy something like a 70$ Athlon II X3 anymore, because with its ECC memory support, it was is the perfect desktop machine for regular people. I did buy a Xeon e3-1230 for myself, but it's a waste of money for most people. I'd say it was even a waste of money for myself.

The only place where I clearly recommend Intel is for laptops, where heat and power consumption is important.

Alanis is cosmic irony which, ironically, doesn't appear in your list of definitions.