@hpqp

I've watched a lot of his videos too... not sure why you keep assuming I haven't. Check out some of his other vids on the Sift and you'll see I've downvoted many of them (not all--it's hard for anyone including Pat to be wrong 100% of the time) too. The more I watch, the less I think he is being ironic and the more convinced I am he is being dead-straight honest.

In fact, I don't see how this video can be interpreted to be ironic in any way, shape, or form. If we use Wikipedia again to look at the definition of verbal irony we see that:

Verbal irony is a disparity of expression and intention: when a speaker says one thing but means another, or when a literal meaning is contrary to its intended effect. An example of this is when someone says "Oh, that's beautiful", when what they mean (probably conveyed by their tone) is they find "that" quite ugly.

So how is this diatribe ironic? For it to be ironic, what he is expressing must be the opposite of what he is saying. In other words, he must mean that he really doesn't want them to feel bad after he insults them. In fact, he agrees with their methods. Clearly that's an absurd interpretation of this video.

He is being sarcastic in this video (according to the definitions from my last post), he is being a hypocrite (saying he believes the meaning of life is joy but then arguing its okay to insult other people cuz, you know, they started it), but I don't see how you can argue he's being ironic.

I understand that you believe Pat actually means "criticize" when he says "insult" but taken as a whole I don't think this video gives you much evidence to support that view. Conversely, there's lots of support there to show that when he says insult he means insult. For example at 1:34...

"And for this reason not only do I have a perfect right to insult your religion, I have a right to insult you personally the moment I have to hear about your poxy religion."

FYI according to the urban dictionary "poxy" means: crappy, stupid, dumb.

It's pretty difficult to explain that statement away as a criticism of religion and not a direct insult. Just look at how he says that sentence (his facial expression, intonation, etc.). He is dead-serious.

Just to recap my main points:

1) Claiming that it's okay to insult religion because "they started it" makes it difficult to take your arguments any more seriously than a childish rant
2) Throwing insults around is not likely to accomplish anything--even though you have the right to do something, doesn't always mean it's a good idea to do so.

I absolutely agree with you that we should not let people squelch criticism of religion by claiming that criticism is equivalent to insult. But neither should we, in turn, equate blatant insult with genuine criticism.

As far as Sagan goes... when you have to change multiple parts of someones quote in order to make it sound like they support your views, you're not really quoting them--you're just putting words in their mouth. Sagan was a class-act gentleman who knew how to argue rationally and found no need to throw shit around like some angry ape in order to make a point. Pat could learn a great deal about persuasive arguing from Sagan.

I wasn't really a Alexander fan, but a Diogenes fan. Probably one of my most famous favorite philosophers, what other philosopher got into fights with people for being a dick?! One thing I did like about Alexander was his courage that was down right fool hearty. My favorite story is about Siege of Tyre where they build a road to an island, and the he climbed the battlements ahead of his troops and jumped over the wall and started fighting. His soldiers didn't, and slow to realize of his decision, they finally noticed Alexander fighting the city Guard completely by himself. This rallied his troops to the point that the Island of Tyre was taken by an ancient army without a navy, a thing of legend.

Sad to say, I have only a superficial knowledge of the teachings of the famous Thomas Aquinas. Most of my energies have been on more secular minds. With that said, though, some of my favorite Christian minds are Søren Kierkegaard and George Berkeley. I didn't realize that Existentialism actually has a Christian heritage, I found that rather shocking as most christian's seem rather dogmatic when it comes to finding meaning in their lives. It struck me as interesting that there wasn't a unified feeling among christions to the deeper questions of meaning in life.

George Berkeley's metaphysics are awesome. He represents the only metaphysical experience of the universe that I think humans minds could fully comprehend. Granted, that doesn't mean it is correct, but I think the human mind is really only satisfied with the notion of minds, it is why "Gods" have always been with us, we need minds to be in control.

Sadly, though, even those great christian minds could not save my faith. There were to many problem I had with Christianity and the Bible that my faith was finally crowded out by doubt. You might call me the seed that fell among the thorns that was quickly drowned out of the sun. To me, though, my "Thorns" are truth and knowledge, so I hardly feel embittered or lessened.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
Ah, Alexander. I don't know why I think of him a hero--he was bloodthirsty and ruthless, but I guess I admire him neverthelss. (Saw your quote by him.)

BTW, a really good religious scholar (The only one I like) is Aquainis (SP?)

@GenjiKilpatrick

Now you're just playing semantic games. By equating peer review--an impersonal process in which people who probably have never even met each other in real life examine a report about an experiment--with "bringing people together" you've grossly exaggerated what science is and what science does. You then go on in nearly the same breath to so narrowly define religion (as only a means of understanding the physical world) that you create a strawman that (quite conveniently for you) is ridiculously easy to knock over.

FYI, I'm sure your definitions make sense to you, but you should be aware that those definitions aren't held by--well, pretty much anyone except you.

From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Let's look at religion (again from Wikipedia):

Religion is a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

So, judging from what you've written here, when you say "science" or "religion" you are clearly talking about something completely different than what the vast majority of people understand science and religion to be. When I refer to science and religion, I am referring to the commonly held notions of them as defined, for example, on Wikipedia. I don't see how we can continue this conversation since you are apparently talking about something different than I am using these terms.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, there is argument in theological cicles that has been going about this for centuries about determinalism and how much is actually predestined. For myself, I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence. I had neither sought it nor even really suspected that God was really real. I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes. So this means my life is predestined.
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally. I think He elects some to do specific things for Him, as part of His plan. Now, if this was all predetermined it would really make it all an exercise in futility. There would no point to running the scenerio..why not just get to the results? Why waste time? There are three reasons I think that show we actually do have real choices.
One is just the fact that God offers us choices. If we didn't have the freewill to make them, they wouldn't be choices. Two is that when we are saved God doesn't remember our sins any longer. So to me this means that God doesn't necessarily have to call to mind everything He knows. Perhaps He restrains His foreknowledge so He can create scenerios with real choices. Three is that He does change His mind. For example, He changed His mind about letting Moses enter the promised land. Which means that what we do can change the outcome of what God does. Perhaps creation is a cooperative thing. I couldn't explain it with certainy but these are just some thoughts.

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.

You seem to forget that apparantly your God is all knowing. He knew exactly what Adam and Eve would do, he knew what the serpant would do and he knew what he would do to them and the whole of humanity afterward (Torture a majority of them for eternity). Now maybe as an imperfect mortal I can't understand this strange "love" of his but it seems to me like your god is anything but all loving.



1.Whether we have free will or not is irrelivant your god is all knowing according to christian doctrine what sort of revelation did it take for you to worship this sadistic diety who TORTURES most of an entire species for THE REST OF TIME.
2.How can a being who can see the future (including his own actions) change his mind this seems to me like a massive plot hole in your poorly written holy book.

Well, there is argument in theological cicles that has been going about this for centuries about determinalism and how much is actually predestined. For myself, I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence. I had neither sought it nor even really suspected that God was really real. I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes. So this means my life is predestined.

Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally. I think He elects some to do specific things for Him, as part of His plan. Now, if this was all predetermined it would really make it all an exercise in futility. There would no point to running the scenerio..why not just get to the results? Why waste time? There are three reasons I think that show we actually do have real choices.

One is just the fact that God offers us choices. If we didn't have the freewill to make them, they wouldn't be choices. Two is that when we are saved God doesn't remember our sins any longer. So to me this means that God doesn't necessarily have to call to mind everything He knows. Perhaps He restrains His foreknowledge so He can create scenerios with real choices. Three is that He does change His mind. For example, He changed His mind about letting Moses enter the promised land. Which means that what we do can change the outcome of what God does. Perhaps creation is a cooperative thing. I couldn't explain it with certainy but these are just some thoughts.


>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.

You seem to forget that apparantly your God is all knowing. He knew exactly what Adam and Eve would do, he knew what the serpant would do and he knew what he would do to them and the whole of humanity afterward (Torture a majority of them for eternity). Now maybe as an imperfect mortal I can't understand this strange "love" of his but it seems to me like your god is anything but all loving.

>> ^taranimator:

calvados, this is some first-class banjo playing! I enjoyed this song so much I went hunting unsuccessfully for a video of a live performance or anything to drive eyes (and ears) to it.
But I did find the Old Man Luedecke - Joy of Cooking -- which is quite different, but might have some appeal -- in case you haven't heard it, the premise is that the meaning of life is, of course, "Bacon".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aN9ifQVSrI
The world needs all the banjo playing it can get.

>> ^calvados:
BEGMO



So say we all!

calvados, this is some first-class banjo playing! I enjoyed this song so much I went hunting unsuccessfully for a video of a live performance or anything to drive eyes (and ears) to it.

But I did find the Old Man Luedecke - Joy of Cooking -- which is quite different, but might have some appeal -- in case you haven't heard it, the premise is that the meaning of life is, of course, "Bacon".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aN9ifQVSrI

The world needs all the banjo playing it can get.



>> ^calvados:

BEGMO

Perhaps they aren't reading the right books or watching the right documentaries. There's a lot on the subject. History Channel runs a series called Ancient Aliens. Though some of the theories presented are far fetched, it's still interesting to watch. You see, I like to keep an open mind on the subject. You obviously don't, and that's your prerogative. But I'm no more nuts than you I can assure you that. Besides, I never said we have been visited by ufo's, or aliens. I only said that assuming we are the only intelligent life in the universe is both ignorant and arrogant. You assumed I was referring to visitations for some reason. That subject is debatable, and depends on who you talk to. Just like religion.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
I know a few million would love to hear from them...

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Zero data? I know of a few scientists who would beg to differ.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^teebeenz:

As you can imagine the ytufo nuts think its real, even tho the photo among other things was tracked down in minutes after it was released. Thats what you get when you base your reality on a belief system and not fact.


I'm pretty sure it's a fact that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. If you think otherwise you are both ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, the chance of alien "life" in the universe, having, currently, or yet to exist is high. But that doesn't mean intelligent life, as we simply have no data on how likely it is that intelligent life would arise. But one thing is certain, we have zero data to indicate any life has contacted us.

I know a few million would love to hear from them...

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Zero data? I know of a few scientists who would beg to differ.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^teebeenz:

As you can imagine the ytufo nuts think its real, even tho the photo among other things was tracked down in minutes after it was released. Thats what you get when you base your reality on a belief system and not fact.


I'm pretty sure it's a fact that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. If you think otherwise you are both ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, the chance of alien "life" in the universe, having, currently, or yet to exist is high. But that doesn't mean intelligent life, as we simply have no data on how likely it is that intelligent life would arise. But one thing is certain, we have zero data to indicate any life has contacted us.

Zero data? I know of a few scientists who would beg to differ.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^teebeenz:

As you can imagine the ytufo nuts think its real, even tho the photo among other things was tracked down in minutes after it was released. Thats what you get when you base your reality on a belief system and not fact.


I'm pretty sure it's a fact that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. If you think otherwise you are both ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, the chance of alien "life" in the universe, having, currently, or yet to exist is high. But that doesn't mean intelligent life, as we simply have no data on how likely it is that intelligent life would arise. But one thing is certain, we have zero data to indicate any life has contacted us.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^teebeenz:

As you can imagine the ytufo nuts think its real, even tho the photo among other things was tracked down in minutes after it was released. Thats what you get when you base your reality on a belief system and not fact.


I'm pretty sure it's a fact that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. If you think otherwise you are both ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, the chance of alien "life" in the universe, having, currently, or yet to exist is high. But that doesn't mean intelligent life, as we simply have no data on how likely it is that intelligent life would arise. But one thing is certain, we have zero data to indicate any life has contacted us.

>> ^Yogi:

It's amazing how perceptive, funny, and intelligent Brian Williams can be...and yet still I couldn't watch his program without stabbing forks in my eyes. How can you be this way and not see that your own network...your own show is soo full of shit?


I think he's like this because of the people that surround him; how could you not be. I would also try to make many a joke that they don't understand unless they look up a turn of phrase--on their iPad (a glorified non-cellphone/unless you really need/want to spend that much money on one-"buggy and slow"-device).

Yes, I've used my Dad's. It certainly has some nifty features (which have all been invented or used already), but since it's Apple and it has the name i"x", it must be a game changing, revolutionary, cutting edge, never crashes, solves: world hunger, bi-polar, cancer, Fox News, heralds baby Jesus's return to Earth in North Western Missouri; and it has a shelf/I'm mean battery life of 30.62 days--or so I've heard.

It was semi-slow (that wasn't very surprising); slow in two departments: switching and starting between and new apps or processes. Second, the Wi-Fi connection was flaky (either not downloading or when downloading, even including the occasional burst speeds, it averaged 22 KBps (as I say below it should at least be going 100-200 KBps [this is still incredibly slow], as his connection has a download rate of 1.2-1.5 MBps). I'll play with that a bit more (as I think it may have been the wireless router as he has a 14-Megabit connection).

The games were fun and a few of the apps were great. But, I'd rather have a lightweight fully functional notebook PC with a 16:9 screen, atleast 720p, and a fully customizable network adapter. ...And to be blunt, I'd much rather have Windows 7 or even Vista (fully patched), as both have great functionality and support plus their 64-Bit support is great. Plus I can put in a full Blu-Ray drive that comes with PowerDVD.

Better applications, better games and support. Yes, this is an anti-apple rant as I think all of their once "highly revered" features: functionality, non-crashing, no hacking (hah!), graphical editing applications (which is a "contract" feature), sound editing applications (same as the last), and it's "ease-of-use" (which is now a completely moot point). Apple is still successful, because they find niche products that do well; like the Nintendo DS. The iPod (although the screens break a bit to early, my only complaint) and the iPhone are great products and fill a gap in a niche market. The iPad does the same thing, but from what I've tried it needed another year (plus some spec changes like a 16:9 screen going up to 720p (which is HD not this stupid licensing agreement so they can use the logo on a nice, but NOT HD screen (I think it's XGA or 1024x768), a connection port that could handle a multitude of devices: usb, 1394, ethernet, gamepads, speakers, etc I know it does some of this already, especially in the bluetooth department.

But, I feel that it should have come with the large flash/ssd drive, cell phone features (which they do have, it just costs an arm and a leg), more functionality for the "touch pen" (some mouse-like buttons etc...), FLASH & FULL browser SUPPORT (not having flash, plus other regular features "kills it" in a lot of ways)--Apple has to have their money/way though; I don't think they've got any clue when they shoot themselves in the foot), and a slightly faster (or duo-core) processor to help the experience feel more smooth; they have a: "1GHz Apple A4 custom-designed chip" were as a Intel Atom that has an nVidia extension may have been a better choice (I'm not to sure about battery usage for these guys, but from the devices it was used in it wasn't too bad).

So in the end (damn this was WAY longer than expected) I think they should have refined it for another year. Got some REAL user feedback; give it to people that don't work for the ass-kissing mainstream Apple press-core (yes, I'm talking about the likes of Engadget). Then, actually work on their gripes! People already seem willing to pay an arm and a leg for their stuff, so if the price goes up one-hundred, don't worry all your loyal'ii will still buy it. Anyway...this didn't happen, so I was left feeling underwhelmed by it and would instead by a nice laptop.

BTW, Brian Williams is the shit!

/This post may seem anti=Apple and in a lot of ways it is, but I would like them to make a good tablet (or awesome tablet--if they'd pull their collective heads out of their asses). It seems to me that any company, right now, that takes some time and makes a fast, reliable, easy-to-use, with 720p (and lots of video/codecs support)...will destroy Apple's iPad longterm (right now I just see Android tablets, but the ones I've seen are underwhelming).

//If someone has seen a good tablet coming out that has some of the features that I'm talking about, please throw in a reply.

Why can't people just believe the fact that there is no god, there never was, and there never will be. The hide-and-seek theory behind god makes humans feel important, and gives a certain meaning to life - two fallacies that we are still struggling accept as an _evolved_ species because 70% of us are in pure denial.

Eric Idle said it better.