No iPad 3 this year

We’ve been hearing rumors about the iPad 3 launching this Holiday season since before the iPad 2 launched, but that made little sense from the get-go - why would Apple break their successful yearly launch tradition…
This is a discussion for a news article. To read the whole news, click here


72. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

hep, i didnt even bother debating C14 dating with him. a creationist must first disemvow any actual science as fake, and anything that isnt a 100% provable and accurate answer, as lack of proof for anything other than "god did it"

75. hepresearch unregistered

That depends on your definition of "creationism", I suppose. Too many of us are taught in our youth that Science and Religion are two entirely different and incompatible things. We are taught that Science and Religion must never be brought together because they will contradict each other, or they will argue until their adherents destroy each other in a fit of rage. It is sad. What, to you, is "Science"? What, to you, is "Religion"?

91. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

science and religion are 2 seperate subjects. like anything most people live within a shade of grey between where they have a lil science base, and a little faith base.. then their are offshoots like creationism which is an extremism no different than hacedic (yea i cant spell, shush) jews or muslims that think its ok to kill their daughter/wife for looking at another man. It may not be as violent but it is still on the same level, and it is just as dangerous. Instead of being physically dangerous to someone it is a danger to real science as laymen dont know the difference between actual scientific research and pseudoscience like creationism or man-made global warming.

105. hepresearch unregistered

Are science and religion truly that different or separate? I would submit that science and religion are two very similar methods of finding the truth: science and religion both require "faith", or the belief that one unchanging law of truth exists in a given context, before knowledge of the accompanying truth can be gained. In science, we refer to "the Scientific Method" as the means by which truth is discerned; informed by a world-view, we develop a theory (which must be observable, falsifiable, and predictive), which allows us to construct models of behavior, from which we can develop a hypothesis based on existing data and models, and then we test that hypothesis through repeatable observation of a predicted phenomenon specific to that hypothesis. If the observation fails to yield the predicted action, then the hypothesis has failed. If the observed action occurs as predicted, then the hypothesis has been confirmed. Enough confirmed hypotheses lead to confirmation of a model, and enough confirmed models lead to confirmation of a theory as law within the given world-view. As laws begin to be found, and as they begin to have difficulty reconciling with other known laws, it is sometimes necessary to change the world-view slightly. In the true practice of religion, the precise means of discerning truth is often disputed due to a vast variety of world-views... however, there is good agreement with "the Scientific Method" in most cases. One seeking truth generally may learn truth by obeying the tenets that their diety (dieties) established, and in doing so they are "blessed" to receive the knowledge they have asked for as a result of the consequences of obeying a law which is indeed true. Therefore, the consequences of obeying or disobeying said tenet are, for lack of a better explanation, the very observed evidence of the tenet as a true law. Unfortunately, many "religions" have replaced the personal application of obedience/blessings experiments with absolute obedience to "clergy" (as accepted "mediator" for diety), which destroys the use of "the Scientific Method" in religion, and refer to this blind obedience to the human, mortal clergy as "faith". This not only happens in religion, but also among those of the "scientific community", when the most accepted scholars of their respective fields go unquestioned... for an example, one need look no further than "String Theory".

107. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

" we develop a theory (which must be observable, falsifiable, and predictive)" that is the exact opposite of religion right there. if religion demanded its claims be observable, falsifiable, and predictive, the religion would end. that is the difference between science and faith. science is not based on faith. we have "faith" that our theories are correct as we test them, but that is not the same type of faith one has when they "give themselves" to a higher power.

112. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Science should not be based on faith. however evolution is based on faith, since there is no science to support it (except disproved carbon 14 dating).

119. hepresearch unregistered

All science IS based on faith! Read about any scientist and how they came to their ideas, and then found the results of their conclusions. Charles Darwin... the scientist who developed the Theory of Evolution... yes, he claimed Christianity as his religion. When properly understood, they (science and religion) work together quite well.

118. hepresearch unregistered

If you think about it, every religion is based on a slightly different set of religious "theories" than the next religion... and, in fact, a true religion would be quite okay with the idea of falsifiability. If you "obey" a "commandment", you are "blessed" with the appropriate consequence that is attached to that "commandment" (or law). If you "disobey", you also receive the consequence for not following a law. The prediction comes from "prophets" who are spoken to by said diety, and who then "preach the word" to those who are willing to listen. If they are true prophets, they will not demand that people obey their words, but will encourage people to "experiment" upon their words. That way, the hearer makes their own choice whether to carry out the "experiment" or not, and when they do they either a) see the promised results, or b) do not see the promised results. From this simple theo-scientific formula, any religion can be tested for its adherence to true principles. It really is as simple as testing a hypothesis, gathering data to determine which "theories" are, in fact, law, and then trying to live or exercise the resulting personal world-view which you find. False religions often demand that their adherents NOT question the theories of religion that are put forth to them, and so, although they remain accepted theories in a given religion, they are not properly tested by the adherents who believe them to be true law. If you want to find a true religion, then you must seek for one that offers claims be observable, falsifiable, and predictive, and that its adherents test the veracity of said claims by honestly practicing them in daily life. If the religion were false, it would, indeed, cease to exist in time as its former adherents discover which tenets are false. If the religion were true, then it would grow in time as its adherents found its precepts to be true, and then shared their experience with others who seek truth. So, you say science is NOT based on faith? Did Enrico Fermi believe that the neutrino existed before it was ever discovered? If you say yes, then that is faith. If you say he did not, then you have not read much about Enrico Fermi or about neutrinos. To have "faith" is to believe in something that you do not yet know for sure, and then to act accordingly. Enrico had "faith" in this new particle, the "neutrino" (which he himself named), even though no one had ever before proposed its existence or measured the presence of one; in having true "faith", he researched, and experimented, and made mathematical models that could help him to figure out how to find one. His work was not completed in his lifetime, but in 1996 the first neutrino was properly isolated and measured, and turned out to be an almost exact fit to Fermi's prediction. Now, if that is not "faith", then I do not know what is. It is the same type of "faith" I exercise in my religion.

44. darth8ball

Posts: 520; Member since: Aug 02, 2011

Since your going science on us remixfa, swallow this, If religion believes God created the heavens and the earth, where was there for God to exist before he created everything, science and math say absolute zero is zero. NOTHING means not God no NOTHING. Religion is a way people created to explain the unexplainable Where did we come from and why are we here. Science has found where we came from and the answer is .....NOT GOD

47. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

there has been thousands of gods over the history of man, each one to explain something not understood. it hasnt changed. most people have replaced polytheism with monotheism, but the end result is the same. each and every believer believed that they were right and that other beliefs were wrong. that still hasnt changed either. Its much worse though when you have a religion based losely on fact instead of straight fiction.. like christianity/mulsim/hebrew vs roman or greek gods. Its much harder to get a point across when there is some factual validity in their holy books. they confuse some historical validity for pure validity.

88. hepresearch unregistered

I can vouch for that... I served a mission for my church for two years, and the easiest people to reason with were usually Buddhist or Hindu. They were more open to things that actually made sense. The most difficult people to reason with were "Christians" of other denominations than my own... they vehemently clung to whatever their "pastor" told them to believe, even if it didn't sit with reason too well. There is a reason that the Bible has a passage in it that says, "They draw near unto me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me..."; there are so many "Christian" denominations whose leaders do just that... they put on the appearance of faith and goodness for the sake of gathering a fanatical following, and then spew forth their own false doctrines, veiled in half-truths, in order to gain power over their followers. It is that simple, and it is true of so many other faiths as well, not just "Christians". This is why "religion" leaves such a bad taste in people's mouths, and also why religions that have a lot of good in them get thrown under the bus along with the ones that have a lot of bad in them.

49. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Oh boy... the answer to your question is simple. God is not affected by time or our universe, he is outside it. He created it !

55. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

in other words, you believe your god is real and the others are made up.. just like every other religious person in history.

89. hepresearch unregistered

and if God is not affected by our time and our universe, than what time and what universe does He exist in? If He created the universe we live in, from where did He acquire the necessary materials/energy to do so? Think before you spew incomplete answers and stupidity... that makes the rest of us who actually think these things through look bad, too.

70. hepresearch unregistered

Science has not yet disproven the existence of "God". It is that simple. Science does not yet have an exact answer as to where we came from either... sorry.

92. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

i dont think science is trying to "disprove" god. A scientist always knows that there are always more questions waiting to be found and answered. There is always more. Science is no different than a mechanic dissasembling an engine that he's never seen before, to see how it ticks and understand it. lack of an answer or a piece of a puzzle does not denote "god". it denotes "lack of an answer". A creationist takes any gaps in knowledge, calls it "god" and refuses to look further to see if they might be wrong or right.

102. hepresearch unregistered

Is it possible that there are "creationists" who believe that God did create the universe, not through some magic trick or "explosion", but through organizing what already existed there? In that case, then why not allow science to tell us how this "creation", or organizing behavior, took place? If this is not the case, then the "Creationists" have done nothing but hijack the term "creationism" and applied it to something that has nothing to do with true "creation".

10. hepresearch unregistered

ummmm... I thought that "freedom of religion" means that the government can't tell you how you should practice your beliefs. I have no argument to show that Apple-worship is socially unreasonable, even if it sounds dumb to me, therefore who am I to stop iFans from seeking the favor of their "master" Steve Jobs? I can preach to them the ills of worshipping their idol iPhone/iPad/iPod/etc... through the "freedom of speech" as long as I am not belligerent or infringing on their reasonable request for peace and privacy. In America, we call this balance between total freedom and law-abiding behavior "liberty", and those who govern themselves reasonably (by generally-accepted societal definitions of "reasonable" within said community) well do great in such a society. Are Buddhists not free to worship Buddha just because he was a man? The Japanese worshipped their Emporer as a living-god... the Egyptians worshipped Pharoah as the same. Obviously there are lines that are drawn on a societal level, such as the idea of religious human sacrifice or polygamy, which are illegal because they are socially abhorent to us, but beyond the obvious limits of reasonablilty there ought not to be limits on how, what, where, and for whom worship may be offered. The Constitution says we have "freedom of religion", and that includes the freedom to worship anything or anyone within the socially-accepted limits in each community.

15. bobfreking55

Posts: 866; Member since: Jul 15, 2011


17. hepresearch unregistered

... maybe it is simply a "New Age Religion". Religions are not required to "make sense" by any specific definition. I think people should feel free to discuss religion, even proselyte, but it ought to be done with the highest of respect, and without compulsion or force.

20. ivanko34

Posts: 617; Member since: Sep 04, 2011

Apple is really like a sect with millions of worshipers giving all their money

22. hepresearch unregistered

A sect? A religion? It sort of is... sort of. If you give more of your time, talents, and resources to having and caring for your iPhone or iPad, I suppose it is sort of worshipful... sort of.

29. ivanko34

Posts: 617; Member since: Sep 04, 2011

or fashion victims ?

79. hepresearch unregistered

perhaps fashion-victimization IS a religion... 8-P

34. G-Reg unregistered

Its a freaking picture, You people that are chooseing to be offended by that are pathetic. "Lets raise a stink, let everyone know im not happy, let everyone know i love my god" WE DONT CARE IDK where some of you got the idea that anyone on here cares? Keep that crap for your facebook page, complain on there to your "friends". Granted i know the intellect level may not be to high here, but lets try to keep on technology at the very least.

5. wolfordtw

Posts: 16; Member since: Aug 17, 2011

We all know how it's gonna turn out......omg a new iPad.....omg a 3g variant on Verizon.....omg only 900 dollars.....omg another device to add to my apple collection that's thinner and lighter and prettier....where can I stand outside for 3 Weeks to buy this?

7. som

Posts: 768; Member since: Nov 10, 2009

Down rotten Apple no more Samsung chips for you. Apple will be looking for other companies components and rotten Apple lovers have to wait longer to save more money for more expensive Apple products.

9. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

i think android will take a strong #2 position for the next 2 years as windows 8 catches up.. both will be eating away at ipad sales though more than each other. We'll see from there.

12. dancore

Posts: 4; Member since: Sep 01, 2011

Im with PETERFROMSWEDEN for once, this picture is blasphemous, every religion deserves respect. PA I though you were more professional than this.

18. hepresearch unregistered

What do you define as "blasphemy"? If I spent all day, every day, trying to stop people from making fun of Jesus, or from burning copies of The Bible or The Book of Mormon, everywhere in the world, then I would certainly be quite unable to accomplish that task and quite unsuccessful. Though I may define that as "blasphemous", should I be all angry and upset with people who do that, or try to stop them by force? Why should I take so much offense? Yeah, I would not like what is being done, but it is not my place to force others to observe my beliefs. We are the ones who "take offense", and therefore we ourselves may choose whether to be "offended" or not. Yeah, I don't think it is classy to make fun of or intentionally try to offend any one from any religion, but I choose not to let others "offend" me when they have no way to force me into submission. Is the blasphemous picture with the illuminated Steve Jobs offending you? I'll agree it is disrespectful, but I would not take away their freedom of expression in response.
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.