1 Chron 12:32 report, 114a: Rick Warren of Saddleback church hosts Australian scholar John Dickson, on the historical credibility of the Gospels in the NT

Following up from yesterday, we can see how megachurch pastor Rick Warren has responded to the challenge to warrant the credibility of our trust in the Gospels as serious historical sources on Jesus, by hosting presentations by scholars. Here (HT: ThinkApologetics), we can see historian John Dickson of Australia:


 This is of course of particular relevance to those who want to dismiss Jesus as a figure of history.

 H'mm, it is worth clipping a note from Bill Pratt of ToughQuestionsAnswered blog, on the implications of the sort of selective hyperskepticism involved in that tactic. He defines:  A hyper-skeptic is someone who will not ever consider any evidences, arguments, or reasoning given for Christianity. 

He then remarks, in the vein of "you might be a hyper-skeptic if . . . " A sampler:

You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).
You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.
You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.
You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.
When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.
You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.
You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.
You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects.
You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.
You are 100% certain that people cannot rise from the dead, and no amount of historical evidence would ever be convincing.
You think that the strength of the historical evidence supporting the stories in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the strength of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.
You think that The God Delusion is a tour de force that annihilates all of the best Christian arguments for God.
You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.
- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2013/10/04/you-might-be-a-hyper-skeptic-of-christianity-if/#sthash.f9C0Agps.dpuf

You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).
You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.
You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.
You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.
When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.
You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.
You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.
You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects.
You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.
You are 100% certain that people cannot rise from the dead, and no amount of historical evidence would ever be convincing.
You think that the strength of the historical evidence supporting the stories in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the strength of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.
You think that The God Delusion is a tour de force that annihilates all of the best Christian arguments for God.
You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.
- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2013/10/04/you-might-be-a-hyper-skeptic-of-christianity-if/#sthash.f9C0Agps.dpuf

For those fair-minded skeptics out there who don’t want to become like this, here are the warning signs I’ve seen. What makes a person a hyper-skeptic? Well, you might be a hyper-skeptic if …
You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).
You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.
You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.
You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.
When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.
You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.
You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.
You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects.
You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.
You are 100% certain that people cannot rise from the dead, and no amount of historical evidence would ever be convincing.
You think that the strength of the historical evidence supporting the stories in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the strength of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.
You think that The God Delusion is a tour de force that annihilates all of the best Christian arguments for God.
You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.
- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2013/10/04/you-might-be-a-hyper-skeptic-of-christianity-if/#sthash.f9C0Agps.dpuf

You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).
You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.
You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.
You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.
When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.
You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.
You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.
You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects.
You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.
You are 100% certain that people cannot rise from the dead, and no amount of historical evidence would ever be convincing.
You think that the strength of the historical evidence supporting the stories in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the strength of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.
You think that The God Delusion is a tour de force that annihilates all of the best Christian arguments for God.
You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.
- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2013/10/04/you-might-be-a-hyper-skeptic-of-christianity-if/#sthash.f9C0Agps.dpuf

 You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).

You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.

You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.

When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.

You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.

You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.

Bill Pratt

His advice to those tempted down this line of hostile closed-mindedness is refreshing:  

 If you are a hyper-skeptic, you are not reasonable and you are not thinking clearly when it comes to Christianity.  Take some time off from the blogosphere  [--> I would add, web forums, YouTube, Amazon reviews etc] and figure out why you’ve crossed this line. I sincerely doubt it is a purely intellectual issue.

 Worth thinking about.  END

1 Chron 12:32 report, 114: Addressing the scandal -- yes, scandal -- of the state of today's Christian mind

It is no secret that I think our civilisation is in peril of lemming-like suicide as we head over a cliff in a mass- march of folly. Reformation is desperately needed, in the full sense of that term, from worldview foundations on up.

But, there is another side to the story, the sad state of the Christian mind in our day. A state manifest in how we tend to think about faith, the faith and our walk of faith; as well as in how we too often fail to seriously engage the discipleship challenge of integrating faith, moral transformation, renewal of the mind in light of the well grounded truth of the gospel, and engaging community and world with the challenge of gospel based transformation.

For just one instance, Os Guinness writing by way of rebuke in Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It, notes:

 Loving God with our minds is not finally a question of orthodoxy, but love. Offering up our minds to God in all our thinking is a part of our praise. Anti-intellectualism is quite simply a sin. Evangelicals must address it as such, beyond all excuses, evasions, or rationalizations of false piety. We need to affirm certain truths: Intellectualism is not the answer to anti-intellectualism, for the perils of intellectualism-supremely in Gnosticism- are deadly and ever recurring. Our passion is not for academic respectability, but for the faithfulness to the commands of Jesus. Our lament is not for the destruction of the elite culture of Western civilization but for the deficiencies in our everyday discipleship as Christians. For anti-intellectualism is truly the refusal to love the Lord our God with our minds as required by the first of Jesus’ commandments [--> i.e., to love God with all of our being, explicitly including the mind]. Thus, if we take the commands of Jesus seriously, we cannot dismiss the charge of anti-intellectualism as elitism or intellectual snobbery. As God has given us minds, we can measure our obedience by whether we are loving him with those minds, and disobedience whether we are not. [Os Guinness. Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think And What To Do About It. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1994, 18-19. (HT: chab123 of ThinkApologetics blog.)]

Likewise, WK blog (for cause) summarises a recent lecture by Simon Brace on the core nature and challenges of spiritual warfare [cf. MP3], in part:

• Christian slogans about spiritual warfare sound pious, but they are mistaken
• Today, Christianity is focused on piety and zeal, not on study and knowledge
• The result is that Christianity in the West is in a state of erosion and decline
• What we are doing about spiritual warfare is not working to stop the decline
• Preaching, publishing, programs, retreats, etc. are not very useful for spiritual warfare [--> i.e. if they don't systematically engage the sort of challenges we are highlighting]
• Enthusiasm and passion without knowledge  are not very useful for spiritual warfare . . . 
• The real focus and responsibility in spiritual warfare is specified in 2 Cor 10:3-5
• What we ought to be doing is defeating speculations (false ideas), using logical arguments and evidence
• Defending the faith is not memorizing Bible verses and throwing them out randomly
• Defending the faith is not just preaching the gospel [--> save, that preaching the gospel should engage people where they atre and should overturn systems of thought and talking points that block people from listening to the gospel]
• Demolishing an argument requires understanding arguments: premises, conclusions, the laws of logic
• We should exchange [--> some of!] our pious Bible memorizing skills and the like for a class in critical thinking
• The New Testament requires that elders be capable of refuting those who oppose sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)
• It is not enough to preach a good sermon, elders have to be able to defend the Christian faith as well
• People who run conservative seminaries do not mandate that M.Div graduates study apologetics [--> Do we have a core apologetics and a core critical thinking module in our own Bachelor's level seminary education, with electives to do more? Why or why not?]
• Famous pastors like Driscoll, Begg, etc. need to teach other pastors to emphasize apologetics in church
• People in church won’t engage the culture unless they have reasons and evidence to believe Christianity is true [--> and to answer the range of typical talking points likely to be encountered, as well as ways to handle the sort of aggressive attitude likely to also be seen]
• We need a balance of both piety and intellectual engagement [--> which should also engage balanced life, community and cultural renewal by the gospel and gospel ethics]
• We need to make our evangelism rooted in the intellect in order to have an influence at the university
• Mission organizations also have a responsibility to defend the faith and not merely preach (1 Peter 3:15)

Quite an indictment, and, sadly, one that in material part rings all too true.

Let us therefore observe (by way of contrast) how Paul challenged the Athenians, c. AD 50:

Ac 17: ²³ . . . as I passed along and carefully observed your objects of worship, I came also upon an altar with this inscription, To the unknown god. Now what you are already worshiping as unknown, this I set forth to you.

²⁴ The God Who produced and formed the world and all things in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade shrines. ²⁵ Neither is He served by human hands, as though He lacked anything, for it is He Himself Who gives life and breath and all things to all [people]. ²⁶ And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes), ²⁷ So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us.

²⁸ For in Him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your [own] poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

²⁹ Since then we are God’s offspring, we ought not to suppose that Deity (the Godhead) is like gold or silver or stone, [of the nature of] a representation by human art and imagination, or anything constructed or invented.

³⁰ Such [former] ages of ignorance God, it is true, ignored and allowed to pass unnoticed; but now He charges all people everywhere to repent (^[d]to change their minds for the better and heartily to amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins),³¹ Because He has fixed a day when He will judge the world righteously (justly) by a Man Whom He has destined and appointed for that task, and He has made this credible and given conviction and assurance and evidence to everyone by raising Him from the dead. [AMP]

Let us notice, how the apostle first exposed the fatally cracked foundation of the pagan superstitious- speculative philosophical worldview cluster, by highlighting how it had to acknowledge ignorance on the very root of existence, by literally building a a monument to its ignorance of God.  

Then, he pointed out the evident fact that we live in a unified, common creation, and share a common Father, who now calls all of us to repentance and reformation, through the gospel -- which includes the message that we are accountable before God. A gospel of which he has given evidence to us all by raising Jesus from the dead (with over 500 unshakable witnesses).

In case we need a refresher 101, let us again embed the Lee Strobel The Case for Christ video that is permanently hosted on the RH "references and links" side of this blog:



And so, from small and despised beginnings, that unshakable witness confronting that foundational absurdity and its manifest consequences of moral chaos, at length prevailed.

Here, too, we see faith as it should be: being based in soundly rooted conviction, leading to well warranted and confident, penitent trust in the God  who speaks in Scripture.

But instead, as we have been indicted above, we too often tend to assume or even assert that faith and reason are opposites. A major error, manifest in a sort of anti-intellectual attitude that hampers our ability to stand in an evil day.

Which error, we need to address fairly directly and set to rights.

 The error is perhaps most blatantly seen in how we misread a key text in 2 Cor 10, on spiritual warfare, one that was already linked:

2 Cor 10:⁴ For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,⁵ [Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One [AMP]

. . . and in how we far too often outright seem to ignore this instruction in 1 Peter 3:15:

1 Pet 3:¹⁵ But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [AMP; NIV: be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, KJV: be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.]

Yes, given that Satan is the Father of Lies, it is no surprise that a liberating gospel would start from breaking the destructive foundations of worldviews and cultures rooted in such lies and errors, and replacing them with well-founded, confidently explained truth. Therefore the strongholds we primarily overthrow in spiritual warfare are fallacious arguments, flawed reasonings rooted in errors, and pride-filled lofty systems of thought and agendas for life that block people from accessing the knowledge of the true God. No wonder we should be always prepared to answer courteously according to the reason for the hope we have in the gospel.

Yes, there is a place for prayer, praise, worship, intercession and maybe even things like exorcism or the like [yes, there are indeed frighteningly dark and evil spiritual forces out there . . . ]; but that is by extension and in the broader context of these pivotal texts. The plain, stated, main and direct focal thrust of the texts is quite explicitly on the worldview war advanced by the truth of the gospel and good reason that explains its warrant as true and reliable, then calls for a fundamental change of mind and of attitude -- what metanoia, "repentance," in essence means . . .  --  that liberates the mind and soul enslaved by lies, errors and deceptions. If you cannot see that yet, kindly simply read them again. And again, and again and again,  if you have to -- until it breaks through.

Biblical, gospel faith is a confident, truth-based trusting leap of grace-given liberating light into truth and hope and right in the welcoming arms of God. It is not a mind-blind leap into the dark of empty myths and ill-founded speculations, deceptions and bondages -- whether dressed up in a lab coat or standing at the lecturer's podium or coming at us as news or entertainment media or as the confident declarations of a politician or however else it may be packaged.

That is why Peter -- facing judicial murder at the hands of a demonically mad Nero, on a blatantly false charge of arson against the city of Rome, c. AD 64 -- confidently said as part of his last will and testament to the church:

2 Peter 1:¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 

 ¹⁷ For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,^[i] with whom I am well pleased,” ¹⁸ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 

¹⁹ And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, ²⁰ knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. ²¹ For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [ESV]

Yes, I know I know, YouTube, the many online atheistical forums, bestseller book lists, Islamist forums and more are full of talking points against the gospel. Yes, there is an unprecedented climate of hostility against the Christian faith, Biblical ethics and the scriptures abroad in our time.  Yes, our civilisation, with the attempted homosexualisation of marriage is actually going farther than Sodom and Gomorrah and is using a wrenching of the concept of "rights" to smear us as "bigots" or worse for daring to object -- setting up the abuse of civil rights and anti-discrimination law to slander and persecute us for daring to stand on principle-guided conscience under God.  [Cf. a, b, c, d, e, f.] Yes, naked atheism dressed in a lab coat has seized control of science and science education, often expelling those who dare object. And more.

All of that is a call to intellectual arms and to standing steadfastly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.

We have come to the kingdom for such a time as this.

Let us arise and build -- just like Nehemiah, with the guard that we need while building.

And as a first step, we need to get faith straight and spiritual warfare straight.

Then, let us pay careful heed to the sorts of issues we need to cogently address, so that the average Christian will not be hopelessly outclassed at the barber shop, or on the street corner or the verandah or in the classroom, or in the Board room, or the Court room, or the Parliament, or the Cabinet.

Why not now, why not here, why not us? END

Sci-Tech watch, 5: Extinct Judaean date palm grow again -- from 2,000 year old seeds

3,000 years ago, the Judaean date palm was so famed for the sweetness of its fruit that King David named his daughter Tamar in its honour. But, after the Roman suppression of Jewish uprisings, it dwindled out into extinction c AD 500. 

However, it seems in 2005 someone tried the experiment of planting 2,000 year old seeds found in the 1960's. 

Sweet success:

Tree-hugger comments:

During excavations at the site of Herod the Great's palace in Israel in the early 1960's, archeologists unearthed a small stockpile of seeds stowed in a clay jar dating back 2,000 years. For the next four decades, the ancient seeds were kept in a drawer at Tel Aviv's Bar-Ilan University. But then, in 2005, botanical researcher Elaine Solowey decided to plant one and see what, if anything, would sprout.

"I assumed the food in the seed would be no good after all that time. How could it be?" said Solowey. She was soon proven wrong . . . . 

Today, the living archeological treasure continues to grow and thrive; In 2011, it even produced its first flower -- a heartening sign that the ancient survivor was eager to reproduce. It has been proposed that the tree be cross-bred with closely related palm types, but it would likely take years for it to begin producing any of its famed fruits. [HT: UD News]

Nothing beats a try but a fail, it seems. And with luck, maybe some cloning and pollination, we may yet see this crop restored. I wonder if this can be done to the straight-growing varieties of the once famous Jamaican mahogany tree, harvested out over the centuries to make fine furniture. (Reportedly, only the crookedly growing ones are left.) END

Sci-Tech watch, 4: Android Operating System dips a toe in laptop -- and desktop -- waters (with remarks on Google's Chrome OS)

A couple of days back, I ran across a discussion of the new Google-HP Chromebook 11, for US$279.  I thought, well that is a "cloud based" netbook, locked into Google's browser Chrome extended into an operating system. 

Not interested. 

But, what about, an Android OS notebook or netbook PC?

Bingo!

It seems that Lenovo of China (which bought out IBM's PC line of products) "accidentally" leaked -- take that for what it's worth, it has sure got them a lot of free publicity -- a manual for its upcoming IdeaPad A10:

Lenovo's IdeaPad A10 Android 10.1" screen, netbook size PC, shown folded back to the 300 degree "reader" display position

Front view of the A10, showing Touch-Pad interface

Yes, it uses both a touch-screen with gestures and has a touch-pad as can be seen from the more conventional front view. 

That means it can use a mouse too.  Mix in that we already have Kingsoft Office free, the rumour that the long anticipated porting of the Libre Office productivity suite --a fork of Open Office -- to Android is nearing completion, the accessibility of apps for all sorts of things for about US$ 1 - 10, and with the capability to be an E-book reader and this device is looking quite interesting.

PC World comments:

. . . the laptop has a 10.1 inch HD screen and is listed as an Android device, according to the manuals uploaded on Lenovo's site. 

The laptop's 10-inch display also functions as a touchscreen. It can be opened up to 300 degrees, supporting the screen for reading or touching while the keyboard rests face down. In addition, the keyboard has signature Android buttons for "home screen", "previous" and "apps screen", found on the bottom of many phones and tablets running the Google OS . . . . 


The laptop's specs show that it could be a budget product. It has an Arm quad-core 1.6GHz processor from Chinese firm Rockchip, 1GB or 2GB of RAM, and 16GB or 32GB of storage. There is also a 0.3 megapixel camera, a microSD card slot and an HDMI port. 

Tech vendors are increasingly experimenting with Android at a time when demand for traditional Windows PCs has been waning. Earlier this year, Acer and Hewlett-Packard showed all-in-one desktops using the Google operating system. HP's product, called the Slate 21, has a price of $399.

On the convertible PC side, Asus has shown a hybrid device that can run both Windows and Android. Called the Transformer Book Trio, the product operates as a stand-alone Android tablet, but when attached to its keyboard it can also boot up Windows.

The point is, Windows 8 -- am I the only one who finds the blocky appearance of the start screen irretrievably ugly? --  has not taken off like a rocket, and with a growing base of Android Smartphones and  Tablets, a PC is the next logical step. Especially, when we consider that Android is actually built on the Linux Operating System Kernel, where in turn Linux is actually sufficiently compliant with Unix tests to be a valid Unix.  

Already, there are "super-tablet" Desktop All In One PCs that use Android, such as the US$ 399 starting, HP Slate 21.

This video review from India -- pardon glitches -- is remarkably sincere and  gives a good idea of Android as a desktop experience:



What this opens up is another road to educational computing, the c. 10-inch screen netbook sized PC running Android OS, and using Libre Office or Kingsoft as main productivity Suite. That goes with the 7-inch tablet with a folio and keyboard that I have already discussed.

I can speak from the experience of coming on four years of using an Asus Eee, that this is a valid computing platform, and has the distinct advantage of being truly transportable. the only complaint I have -- apart form the usual one that the small keyboard will take some adapting to -- is that it is a tad heavy for a go anywhere book reader. It fits in any reasonable sized pouch or bag, can accompany calculators and the like. (If you want a hardware calculator. A touchscreen calculator is easy to get, often free -- including my HP style RPN calculator. I even have a working HP 49 emulator on this Windows machine.)

One fly in the ointment.

Google's lock-in game is the App Store. If manufacturers want to access it, they have to come to Google, hat in hand. So far, there are a lot of other attempted walled gardens by various manufacturers. Not interested.

(A better bet so far is Amazon's Android App store that has some 50,000 apps, Yes Google Play is at 600,000, but 50,000 is quite good enough for our purposes, thank you. And of course, there's an App for that, too. [It is pre-loaded on Kindle Fire tablets, which use a modified Android.)

So, we have a workaround for that issue.

I therefore want to put on the table a cluster of such devices, for consideration as a new educational pattern:

a: 7" tablets living in folios with keyboards
b: 10" netbook PCs for students and many teachers (as in Australia and Trinidad and Tobago)
c: 10 - 12" transformer-type tablet/netbook PCs for those who want a step up
d: 21 - 27" All in One tablets for desktop work
e: 40 - 50+ inch screens based on TV's for display, with wireless keyboard and touch-pad
f: Multimedia projectors as needed, up to the high Powered Barco's for lecture theatres etc
g: For labs, a blend of thin client PCs, All in Ones and Windows workstations or the like as needed, backed up by servers

All of these would work together in the context of a distributed access web based education model that uses local micro-campus centres for class type work, backed up by a web based cybercampus.

But also, I think the Android netbook is a valid and potentially revolutionary computing platform, having potential to break the hold of Windows on the desktop, save for specialist niches where special software and high powered machines are really needed. 

In short, Windows may well be heading for the sort of niche status that Apple's OS X already has. (Given the rise of the phone as the most common computing device used by people, that may already have happened. Just, we need to move beyond thinking, entertainment to seeing potential for education and even productivity.)  END
__________

PS:  It may be helpful to clip from the RH column, on the cyber campus edu initiative I have been pondering for a while under the capacity development theme for this blog:

Capacity Development -- the AACCS

• The Associate in Arts, CCS degree proposal
• Making a choice to move forward on the AACCS
• A critique of the William G Perry relativist model of intellectual/ ethical "development" in college and its relevance to the need for the AACCS
• On "we don't have the money" and other barriers to getting breakthrough projects through
• The Schools of Hope (Haiti+) proposal
• How could a cybercampus-based, microcampus delivered education programme pay its way?
• Part-time delivery framework for the AACCS
• Towards a cyber-campus with mini campus centres for delivery of education
• Capacity-building Grad Cert, Dip & Masters in Education
• Daphne Koller of Coursera gives a TED talk on the emerging, web-based, interactive education delivery revolution
• Moodle, Xerte and Exe as key cyber campus and web course development tools
• Video and multimedia "on the cheap"
• Video-making 101
• Using PowerPoint (and Windows Movie Maker) as a "simple" way to make videos
• First graders in Portugal show how Movie Maker can be used as a video editor
• Blender video sequence editor -- the next level
• Widescreen TVs as Web access devices for education, etc
• A digital multimedia lab for all (hosted at a public library in IL, USA)
• An online book for a survey course in education (focus on engineering edu, but very broadly useful)
• Towards a regional digital, e-book library for a cybercampus
• Potential digital library resources
• The Kno e-textbook initiative
• The Android Tablet -Open Office platform for education delivery (including e-book reading and "light" office productivity)
• Sample course -- a Nicene Creed-based Systematic Theology Survey
• A look at Book-keeping and accounting using Quickbooks etc
• The Garduino student lab scale drip irrigation & lighting controller
• The Raspberry Pi US$ 25/35 credit-card sized Linux computer for students
• A Java Hello world course for the AACCS
• Java, Python and digital productivity in the AACCS
• Computer productivity for all with open-source software
• ICTs for interfacing, control and communication
• TRIZ 101 -- theory of inventive problem solving
• Robots, controls & mechatronics
• Interfacing and control development kit
• Paul's online math notes for algebra, calculus and diff eqns etc.

Sci-Tech watch, 3: The "Rolltop" PC, a possible future for large tablets/notebooks, with a flexible OLED screen

Just to keep breaking our thoughts on the future of the PC out of the box, here is the original concept vid for a "Rolltop":



(There is an updated vid, but I find the emphasis on the jeans clad wiggle of a model a bit too much.)

The blurb:

Rolltop is a portable computer development concept for designer, architect and everyone, who would like to have a gadget, which, from an aesthetic standpoint alone, certainly hits the mark. By virtue of the OLED-Display technology and a multitouchscreen the utility of a laptop computer with its weight of a mini-notebook and screen size of 13 inch easily transforms into the graphics tablet, which with its 17-inch flat screen can be also used as a primary monitor due to the support attached to the back of the screen.

Rolltop 2.0 is a further development of Rolltop with some visible and mostly invisible improvements (e.g. internal design, placement of certain components etc.)

OLED 55-inch display by LG  (HT: Wiki)

Just to open our minds up to other possibilities. A Rolltop would certainly be convenient for education, and if the OLED can be made big enough, that would be a valid presentation-size screen technology.

And, a 55-incher (as in the picture from a Consumer Electronics Show), is quite good enough for classrooms, conference rooms and church halls. Wiki:

An OLED (organic light-emitting diode) is a light-emitting diode (LED) in which the emissive electroluminescent layer is a film of organic compound which emits light in response to an electric current. This layer of organic semiconductor is situated between two electrodes. Generally, at least one of these electrodes is transparent. OLEDs are used to create digital displays in devices such as television screens, computer monitors, portable systems such as mobile phones, handheld games consoles and PDAs. A major area of research is the development of white OLED devices for use in solid-state lighting applications . . . .

[Long term economics/cost implications:] OLEDs can be printed onto any suitable substrate by an inkjet printer or even by screen printing,^[58] theoretically making them cheaper to produce than LCD or plasma displays. However, fabrication of the OLED substrate is more costly than that of a TFT LCD, until mass production methods lower cost through scalability. Roll-to-roll vapour-deposition methods for organic devices do allow mass production of thousands of devices per minute for minimal cost, although this technique also induces problems in that multi-layer devices can be challenging to make due to registration issues, lining up the different printed layers to the required degree of accuracy.

Flexible OLED touchscreen technology has a lot of possibilities. END

Sci-Tech watch, 2: The America's Cup AC 72 and AC 45 -- the revolution of winged, hydrofoil catamarans capable of 40+ knots and sailing up to 20 degrees off the wind

AC 72 Team New Zealand's Aotearoa
in San Francisco Bay, 2013, showing
hydrofoils in action. The mainsail,
at back, is a wing. [HT: Wiki]

For years, I have hardly watched television, so I missed the catamaran revolution in the America's Cup in 2010 and now 2013. But then one afternoon I visited some friends in an office where ESPN was on on a small office TV. 

Sailing races.

I soon realised this was the America's Cup finals (a replay) 2013.

I was amazed to see wing sail catamarans, a revolution since the days of the classic monohulls with the familiar Bermuda Rigs.

Then, I noticed: they are hydrofoils too -- and of course the dominance of black told me these were carbon fibre matrix composite multi-hulls. Light, strong but running close to the limits of materials and structures, very fast. No wonder the crew were wearing hard protective helmets.

I decided to follow up, and found this Wiki article helpful (this is not a very political topic, Wiki tends to do much better on such). Clipping:

Following the 2010 America's Cup, where the Golden Gate Yacht Club's USA 17 trimaran defeated the catamaran Alinghi 5, it was decided by the winners that the next America's Cup competition would be sailed in catamarans in the hope of making the sport more attractive to television audiences.^[2] At the same time a smaller sister class, the AC45, was developed to allow teams to practice and adjust to the new formula as well as create a greater exposure of sailing to the general public with the America's Cup World Series . . . . 

[The AC 72] was expected to sail faster than the wind: upwind at 1.2 times the speed of the true wind, and downwind at 1.6 times the speed of the true wind.^[4][5] But in fact it proved faster, averaging about 1.8 times the speed of the wind with peaks slightly over 2.3.^[6] Emirates Team New Zealand sailed at 44.15 knots (81 km/h, 50 mph) in 15.8 knots of wind (2.79 times the wind speed) on July 18, 2013. ^[7]

Typical racing speeds are over 30 knots (55 km/h, 34 mph) with the boats capable of sailing well over 40 knots (74 km/h, 46 mph) in the right conditions. The fastest race speed recorded was on Emirates Team New Zealand which was 47.57 knots (88 km/h, 55 mph) in 21.8 knots of wind (2.2 times the wind speed) on September 24, 2013.^[8]

Such numbers are very impressive, but do not come without a price. The Swedish entry capsized and was "[d]eemed a "complete loss" in 9 May 2013 capsize resulting in the death of crew member Andrew Simpson."

Doff caps for a minute of silence, in memory to the price technological breakthroughs so often extract before they become routine -- and even after that.

Then, let us watch a brief vid:


 
And, when you have time, enjoy the Final, race 19 -- observing how the various aspects of the technology and the underlying science of sailing based on the lift on what is in effect a wing (and sometimes of course simply a surface for wind to press against) as well as the way the hydrofoil wings provide life by flying though the water and thus lifting hulls out sharply reducing friction and enhancing speed potential dramatically all come into play -- here:



As we watch, let us reflect on the underlying science and technology on display, and what this says to us as a region about where we need to go to be up to world class speed for C21.

The points of sail. A. in irons (into the wind);
B. close hauled; C. beam reach;
D. broad reach; E. running;
Shaded: "no go zone" [Wiki]

To give an idea of the revolution involved, sailing at 20 degrees to the wind is sailing -- at 32 points to 360 degrees, or 11.25 degrees per "point" -- within two points of the wind direction. Sailing at 45 degrees to the wind is hard, indeed, old fashioned sailing boats had a hard time tacking upwind. In the days of  Paul's famed voyage to Rome of Ac 27, 6 points off the wind was probably an effective limit, 4 points being 45 degrees.

 "Tacking" of course describes the zig-zagging pattern of sailing on one side then the other side of the wind that allows boats to progress upwind. But this is inherently wasteful as the side to side components are wasted. 

While I am at it, yes, sail boats have been using wings since the days of the old Lateen rigged triangular sail, and since the Polynesian "crab's claw" sailed catamarans that allowed settlement of the Pacific.  

Indeed, the classic Genoa and Bermuda sailing rigs do just that. Bermuda Rig:

Bermuda rig (HT: Wiki)

But then, the old fashioned kite is a wing.

What the C21 rigid wings do, is they enhance efficiency (how in 2010, the wing sailed trimaran beat the defending Catamaran Alhingi 5.)

 As Wiki discusses:

Sailboats cannot sail directly into the environmental wind, nor on a course that is too close to the direction from which the wind is blowing. The range of directions into which a boat cannot sail is called the no-go zone. Its width depends on the design of the boat, its rig, and its sails, as well as on the wind strength and the sea state. Depending on the boat and the conditions, the no-go zone may be from 30 to 50 degrees either side of the wind, a 60 to 100 degree area centered on the wind direction.

When attempting to sail into the no-go zone, the boat's sails do not produce enough drive to maintain way or forward momentum through the water. Therefore the boat will eventually coast to a stop, with the rudder becoming less and less effective at controlling the direction of travel.

A sailboat's ability to sail close to the wind is referred to as its "pointing" ability. A yacht designed primarily for racing can typically point within 30 or at worst 40 degrees from the wind direction, whereas one designed for cruising may only be able to point within 40 to 50 degrees of the wind direction. Working boats may not be able to point this well and square rigged vessels certainly cannot. The size of the no-go zone varies, but all sailboats have one.

"Within 30" degrees tells us all we need to realise.

We are now talking 20 degrees, almost straight into the (apparent) wind. (There is some interesting vector addition stuff at work when a yacht sails at various angles to the wind, of interest to students and fans of physics, cf. here. In effect, the vessel's speed and direction and that of the true wind combine to give an apparent wind speed and direction. Blend in lift and drag, and voila, boats that can sail up to twice as fast as the wind.)

Here is a discussion, with a CAD visualisation:




Telegraph has a less nerdy discussion, and this vid is worth a look:



And so, we see here a lot of science and technology, and not a little art and strategy too. Well worth pondering, and expanding on in due course. END

Sci-Tech watch, 1: Donkey-like robots running and climbing slopes

Here:



The technology to create these walkers is interesting indeed. 

Worth keeping an eye on, even if for the moment these are military developments, within a decade these will have impact in the working world, e.g. a walking agricultural tractor or truck. END

"It's Friday, but Sunday's coming!" -- the original sermon by SM Lockridge

I first heard Tony Campolo's citation back in the 1980's.

This is the original by S M Lockridge, with snippets from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ:



(The full sermon is here. Youtube is amazing!)

Now, let us ponder The Lord of Heaven willing to be so humbled to be our Saviour:

Phil 2:⁵ Have this mind among yourselves, 

which is yours in Christ Jesus,^{[a] 6} 

 who, though he was in the form of God, 

did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  

⁷ but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,^[b] 

being born in the likeness of men. ⁸  

And being found in human form, 

he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, 

even death on a cross.  

⁹ Therefore God has highly exalted him 

and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,  

¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus 

every knee should bow, 

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  

¹¹ and every tongue confess 

that Jesus Christ is Lord, 

to the glory of God the Father. [ESV]

And, let us think again. END

SM Lockridge

SM Lockridge, with video snippets from The Passion of the Christ:

Matt 24 watch, 226: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's "Wolf in sheep's clothing" speech to the UN General Assembly, Tuesday October 1, 2013

Video:



Transcript.

Money clip:

. . . like everyone else, I wish we could believe [newly elected Iranian President] Rouhani’s words, but we must focus on Iran’s actions. And it’s the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rouhani’s words and Iran’s actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy — Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.

Rouhani spoke of, quote, “the human tragedy in Syria.” Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad’s murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.

Rouhani condemned the, quote, “violent scourge of terrorism.” Yet, in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities in five continents.

Rouhani denounces, quote, “attempts to change the regional balance through proxies.” Yet, Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and many other Middle Eastern countries . . . .

Last Friday Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran — this is a quote — Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.

Rouhani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here’s a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?

Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?

And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don’t build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.

Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Iraq; that’s in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rouhani’s election — and I stress this — this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.

Ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICBMs. See, it’s not that it’s hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it’s hard to find evidence that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.

Last year when I spoke here at the UN I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it.

Let us hope that Iran wakes up in time to turn back from the brink, and if not, that there will not be a worst case outcome. Not good. END