|
Written by Antimidas
|
|
Thursday, 08 May 2008 |
|
I have seen similar instructions selling on eBay for $4.99 on Buy-It-Now (here and here), but I question the legality of selling this information for any price. First of all, the modification is easy to figure out for any lay person with a nearby RadioShack. Second, it is illegal in most jurisdictions to bypass the video cut-off of an in-dash DVD player so that the driver can watch DVDs while driving, though experience tells me that there are some out there stupid enough to want to do just that.
Because I am an ethical darwinist, I will tell you how to perform this hack and I won't charge you a dime. If your IQ is such that you feel it is safe to drive while watching a movie, just make sure not to take anyone else out with you. But for passengers in the front seat, there is only one way to enable them to be entertained by watching their favorite movies on long road trips. Here is how to do it. |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 May 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Antimidas
|
|
Sunday, 06 April 2008 |
|
In researching Jewish polemics, I ran across two articles by William Lane Craig where he argues that “the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb” of Jesus. 1 Craig makes several assumptions to show that Jews of the time of Jesus’ death conspired to deny the resurrection based on their counter-arguments to Christians’ claims. He clearly states that the origin of each claim is Christian in origin and attempts to use Jewish response to validate those claims. Though his argument of the topic is acceptable based on the presumptions he asserts, one must look at those presumptions to determine if they can stand on their own against the weight of the argument. Though nothing in the book of Matthew can tell us who actually wrote the document, when it was written or where it was written, the scholarly view is that the book was most likely written in Antioch between the years 80 and 85 of the common era.2 This is approximately fifty years after the generally accepted date of the crucifixion which has been calculated to most likely have happened April 3, 33 C.E.3 It has been further hypothesized that the work was not original, but based upon another source document known as the Q document4 as well as upon the book of Mark (ibid). As such, it would be unlikely that the Matthew document could be construed as an eyewitness account. However, I will concede to Craig’s assertions for the sake of answering his argument on his terms. |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 06 April 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Antimidas
|
|
Wednesday, 20 February 2008 |
|
The following article from General Semantics came to my attention earlier this evening. The article including copyright notice follows in its entirety. I am awating verification of the information from the copyright holder and will provide any update if available. I am fulling willing to admit that I do not understand most of what is written here without further research into the topics. The opinions and statements belong to the copyright holder and not to the owner of this blog. At the bottom of the article is a link to the forum where this topic can be discussed. I am looking forward to a civil discourse of the matter. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 February 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 4 of 41 |
