Slashdot Mirror
BBC Open Source launched
Elphin writes "The BBC today launched their BBC Open Source website, providing a home for projects such as their video codec dirac , TV-Anytime Java API and Kamaelia network testbed."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Good Lord, there's enough stuff here to create a complete, high quality TIVO system with full network/P2P support! If this is any indication, BBC is taking the concept of Internet broadcasting *very* seriously.
A question for those who are in the know: How is Dirac's performance these days? i.e. Does anyone have any good comparisons to MPEG4 compression ratios, encoding times, etc.?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm glad to see them doing this. Not only are they smart to support OSS, but I have a feeling they are going to get a leg up on their competion by getting excellent help and feedback from the OSS community. It seems like a win-win.
Voice your opinion!
I applaud the degree to which the BBC is embracing the open-source model. I just wish that some American groups would do the same.
A couple questions, though. What inspired the British Broadcasting Corporation to suddenly leap into the software programming foray? Are they hoping to build some sort of new service out of all of this, or is it just going to end up as a bunch of disconnected apps?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
They're pissed off at having to pay ripoff prices to the people (such as Microsoft and Real) whose audio codecs they use, and they're sure as hell not keen to start paying licensing fees for video codecs as well.
Additionally, they think they can get better performance out of Dirac than is being got out of current codecs, which will save them bandwidth.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
But in any case, I do respect the BBC's willingness to contribute back to society. They actively strive to promote the deployment of knowledge, rather than try to restrict and limit its dispersal. But that is most likely because their main goal is not profit. Maximizing profit will always be against what is best for society, as the externalities are not taken into account.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
licensing...at least they didn't introduce a new proprietary license.
But they almost changed it! See the FAQ here.
Looks like they have also released the BBC 'programming language'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/
Seems like extensions to mod_include to add more logic.
Good Stuff
I look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/
and I'm thinking, wow, you could really implement some stupid stuff with that.
Some of the more asinine web templating tools available today would look like Knuth's TAoCP in comparison to the potential train wrecks.
Which is not to say that such little gadgets don't have their time and place; my point is that somebody will always take them out of context.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The Beeb just continue to impress me with initiatives like this - good on them!
here, in italy, i have to pay for our very low quality public television (more berlusconi's than public), and nothing like this is happening. They just offer a few WMV/Real videos on their website, wow. :)
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Personally, I call them Disgruntled terran co-habitators, or Snuggle-umpkins. It makes them sound less fierce.
I have this feeling that the word terrorist is going to be a revisit on the dreaded 'communist' of yore actually. It's an entirely social tool to grant the recipient with stigma. But to the topic at hand, I think something that also gives the BBC the objectivity to give back and care not for story bias as much as profit news networks is they know that the BBC is viewed/read/visited from all over the world. They've really extended beyond just the country in terms of their audience and it's kind of hard to not do something good with that when you're not in it for money.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
Just some stupid software? Damn! I was hoping to find some episodes of the new Doctor Who for download... ;-)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
How well does BBC's Dirac codec relate to Theora?
Well the didn't actually make it but they made it happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
I have fond memories of my Model B
If only they would publicize more of the open-source projects they've been doing in order to spur more development from people who would actually benifit from them.
Take for example the Betsie perl script (which the BBC use extensively on their websites, it's an open-source cgi script which can be used to translate pages on-the-fly into a text-only mode. This has been very helpful for me and for a suprisingly large number of other web developers trying to tackle the issue of accessablity.
If they keep on going in this direction with opening up more projects and providing more APIs for developers to use, then I can really see in maybe as short as 2 years down the line it could be actually be worthwile to pay for that damn TV license.
So has Microsoft retracted their stand on Open Source being a a cancer? They can't possibly stick to that story, specially after so many organizations are seeing the benefits of Open Source. Will MS really and their fanboys ever learn?
[alk]
The BBC is funded by a tax that's mandated on all TV sets in the country and the collection and monitoring process is more than a little nasty--harassement and patrolling vans that can catalog not only that you or I are watching TV, but what we are watching.
The Internet threatens this model. If you can stream video from somewhere else or play DVDs on your computer, what need do you have for a TV set and this infernal tax?
Bureaucracies have as Goal #1 self-preservation. There are indications that BBC wants to stream video/audio, so it can use that as an excuse to tax all computers, or a least all Internet-capable computers. That would let them add to their gravy train of coerced payments. And it would also mean that they deploy the technology to pick up signals radiated by computers and to track Internet connections. They might use that technology to just collect payments, but a country less democratic could buy that same technology for other purposes.
As the old adage goes, be careful about what you want. You may just get it along with something you don't want.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
"BBC should have called it Dalek!"
Nope. Daleks are fascists. They wouldn't be suitable for a collaborative effort. They'd operate like Microsoft's mantra, but instead of "embrace," it would be "exterminate and extend."
The Cybermen would be the better thing to reference, since they are the nightmare parable for socialism/communism. Calling the project "Mondas" (after the Cyber race's home planet, the twin planet of Earth, sorta like the Annunaki myths) would be more appropriate.
Granted, it would be much better to call a BBC project "Pharaos" or "Logopolis" if referencing the Doctor Who mythos for an open source project.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
BBC has been pushing more and more toward internet-based content.
Like their recent move to eliminate their "cult TV" website?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I think it's #CC7700. Apparently Netscape call it dark orange, and SAS call it Frontier.
HTH.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
I know this will probably fall under "whining", but I wish there was more hand-holding in the Dirac documentation. Not that there isn't plenty, but I think they could fulfill a somewhat "educational" role there, too, in the sense of bringing people "up to speed", as it were, on the techniques involved.
They do offer some pointers, but still, stuff like wavelets is not your everyday applied math, is it? (Maybe it is, in DSP, I wouldn't know).
What do you think? Have you looked at the documentation? What's your estimate in terms of courses you have to take in order to contribute on Dirac? After Calculus and Linear Algebra, what else?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Why doesn't the Beeb do a late night program with open source makers and shakers on the Beeb payroll telling us about themselves and getting people like Alan Cox to talk to us .
This will encourage contributers.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
That said, this site has explainations and code: http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.
It seems a little wierd to call it a page dedicated to their opensource projects. All the DIRC one serves as is link to their sourceforge project. Not too exciting.
Home page: http://dirac.sourceforge.net/Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac
They'd operate like Microsoft's mantra, but instead of "embrace," it would be "exterminate and extend."
Don't you mean, "embrace, extend, and EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"?
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
This time is one of the FEW instances, as of late, where the word "terrorist" (and/or "terrorism") is entirely appropriate. Driving an SUV doesn't make you a terrorist. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a terrorist. Disobeying copyright law doesn't make you a terrorist. But blowing innocent people up in subways and buses to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.
Let's call a spade a spade. If the perpetrators are terrorists, then call them that. And if they're muslim (or Irish), there's nothing wrong in mentioning that too.
-Grym
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.
BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC Five, BBC Six, BBC Seven, BBC Heaven!
BBC, please!
(Listen to austin power soundstrack)
They haven't had a release in nearly two months, though their CVS has activity in it as little as four days old. I wonder when it'll be usable. Sure hope it's soon.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.
So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation a "pirate". After all, some politicians inappropriately apply that label to those who disrespect copyright law.
This line of reasoning is the problem, not the solution.
-Grym
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
I completely forgot about VLC! *slaps himself* Bad codergeek! No cookie!
:-)
Thanks, harryk.
Sir, you need a refresher on the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist". Only once you understand the true meanings (ie. the ones not used by your American media) of those words can you discuss their use.
t
m
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
terrorism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Indeed, notice that the very definition of "terrorism" applies perfectly well to the Blair government that has spoken out so loudly against the recent incidents in London.
The Blair government participated, along with the American government and those of numerous other nations, in the "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" (ie. war, bombardment, killings, torture, etc.) "by a person or an organized group" (ie. the Coalition of the Willing) "against people or property" (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan) "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" (ie. regime change, forced "democracy", giving up of natural resources, etc.).
Notice that the actions of such government fits the definition of "terrorism" perfectly. But of course you never see the media make mention of that fact. That is because the media, in cooperation with such governments, have distorted the use of such words. They have become buzzwords that are meant to evoke an intense emotional response, rather than accurately describe a situation. As such, any legitimate news organization whose main focus is to distribute the truth should not resort to the use of such buzzwords.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
Sure I would. I may not like it, but, in this instance, my country would have declared war on them. Moreover, they would be flying according to the generally accepted rules of war--in uniform (marked aircraft), targeting militarily-valuable targets* and under a command structure which is accountable to another society. How isn't that legitimate?
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
As nice as that common platitude sounds, it's utter bullshit. It implies all terrorists are similarly freedom fighters. This isn't true at all! Some people are just terrorists. Moreover, there's a sense of moral relativity in that statement. That, any and everything is morally acceptable, because somewhere out there, somebody else agrees. Example: "One man's pedophiliac is another man's hopeless romantic." This may very well be true, but it still doesn't justify anything or make a moral judgment any less condemning.
-Grym
*Desdon excluded--an instance of allied terrorism, imho. But, then again, you said "Berlin."
Village of the damned
If you're wondering about those orange box borders, FF's Colorzilla extension says it's: #FFA500.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Well they didn't correct the old ones. That is used English spelling, licence, rather than the American/Websterised English, license. Perhaps it should be called dewebsterising?
Is that real or is that photoshop? why do they look like southern house-wives?
FUCK
To me, a terrorist is a thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of their ideological bent or their legitimization at law. Whether it's some brainwashed religious zealot blowing themselves up on a bus, some politician deciding to invade a country for no good reason, or if it's some mafia boss. IMHO, they are all thugs, and are driven by nothing but greed.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
What kind of value judgment is being made here? The acts were unquestionably terrorism at its very definition. All I'm saying is that we call it that rather than use some politically-correct (oh, sorry, "neutral") placeholder. That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
If this extreme interpretation of journalistic integrity were such a concern to the BBC, then they should similarly replace other emotionally-charged words such as "murder" or "rape". But they don't do this. Why do you think that is?
Look, I like the BBC. I think they're one of the best (if not the best) major news outlets in the world. But on this issue they're both incorrect and inconsistent.
-Grym
If you want to contribute to Dirac as a programmer but don't want to spend several months studying maths, there's plenty of work to be done outside the field of optimising the codec - interfacing it to every video-related open-source project under the sun for example. There're already Dirac patches for transcode, ffmpeg and mplayer, but that's just the tip of the iceberg...
That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
Your concern was that "bombers" implied "legitimacy". If you didn't mean legitimacy to imply a position on right vs. wrong then I've misunderstood you. However, I can see no reason to object to the word "bombers". I also think its absurd that you feel able to accuse someone else of political correctness when it's you that's complaining that their terminology doesn't carry the message that you want it to - how is what you are asking for not 'political correctness'?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
This refers to the fact that 40% of homes have digital TV capability. However a much smaller proportion of televisions are capable of receiving digital, as most homes have more than one TV. So even if 100% of homes have digital TV, there will still be a public outcry when they switch off analogue transmissions.
I personally don't have either......
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
One of the great cultural divides in Western democracies is between those who still retain a measure of courage or at least respect for those who are brave and those who're simply trying to muddle through life as affluently and comfortably as possible, avoiding all danger and discomfort.
You think that captures the difference between the Republican and Democrat voter base? And, moreover, the "affluent and comfortable" comprise the latter? Boy are you out to lunch.
The "base" of today's GOP is motivated by two things: tax breaks and Jesus. There are self-styled "paleoconservatives" who still believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the kind of isolationism that declines helping dictators overthrow foreign governments. But they're drowned out by Reaganite rhetoric that pretends (or has no idea) Dick Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and their colleagues were politically weaned on the Socialist Party USA.
The "great cultural divide" in our republic (look that up too) is between closet religious fanatics--which I define as anyone who thinks other people should convert, rather than mind his own business--and those of us who don't buy into the popular myth of "clashing civilizations." On your side are the terrorists, the KKK, and these winners. On mine are these guys--don't skip that, it has some new insight on why shutting off your TV means the terrorists lose.
Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite blowhard. Tolkien's work is a fairy tale. You're gullible.
Interesting that you characterize others as cowards when you're only willing to sacrifice other people's lives in a final showdown you're gunning for as hard as any suicide bomber.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
It doesn't look like much has happened.. they're still talking about 'preliminary support for media player' which is what that had this time last year.
It looks like they're having trouble getting it to run fast enough to be usable - the one I tried was unusably slow on an amd64... it isn't going to replace wmv any time soon on their current performance.
It *does* look beautiful though. Very few artefacts.
According to the Dirac FAQ they're aiming to get it into beta by the end of 2005.
First their free Beethoven symphonies and now this. :)
What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
I know that the beeb is not perfect, but as a UK citizen who has been living in the US for 3 years, I know come to appreciate and cherish the commercially unbiased broadcasting from the BBC. Compared to the crap that is broadcast here in the US, the beeb is the best broadcasting corporation in the world. You only have to look at US cable media coverage of the Iraq invasion to see this.
"these people" provide news and media without advertisements and commercial backing, and thus without commercial bias, and that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world.
I fail to see what you complaint is. Subtle and contentious wording after the atrocious attacks in London is understandable. Did they distort the truth? Completely ignore major work events or just outright lie as the US cable networks do on a regular basis?
Try watching Fox News for a day before criticising the good ol' beeb.
-SL
OK, let's not call them terrorists.
Would there be any objection to calling them, say, murderers?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Off topic and you are out to lunch as well if you think this, there is a lot more to them than this. Besides it isn't about the GOP, it is about the DNC and just how pissed off they can get their own voter base. What is the DNC about today besides "abortion rights" (as if it is a "right")? They have a raving lunatic now as the chairman (screaming Howard Dean, even he admits he looks like a lunatic after watching a video of himself)! This is definately not the Democratic party I know from the past. They are way far left from anything I remember. This is very difficult to explain here, however I hope you look into it. What was Jimmy Carter for? How about JFK (Tax brakes, amoung many other things)? No surprise that the Dem's have had only one president in the past 25 years. Unless guys like you wake up I don't see a change in this trend for the GOP.
Why did you mention the KKK? Whose party has a very well known KKK member, complete with skeletons in his closet? It is Senator Byrd from West Virginia, a life long Democrat. Someone the KKK put into Congress because he is so influential. If he were a Republican I bet the press would have him for lunch, the NAACP would be on him like a cheap suit. He has even broken the Senate rule on Filibusters - the so called "nuclear" option. They should call it the Byrd option.
Well, at least you knew that we live in a Republic. Did you know that 8 out of the 9 Supreme court Justices were appointed by Republicans? One was appointed by Bill Clinton - know which one?
Off topic and you are out to lunch as well if you think this
/ videos/headlines/index.jhtml?playVideo=16327
I was recalling the exit polls of the 2004 presidential election and my own discussions with die-hard, straight-ticket GOP voters. I think it's accurate to call these people the "base" targeted by the party's campaign strategy, but if you need Congressmen showboating religion as a partisan wedge issue:
"The long war on Christianity continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives...Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians."
John Hofstadtler, R-IN, US House, Defense Spending, 6-20-2005, CNN
Daily Show, "Hyperbolic Rhetoric," video here, 2:52: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show
Stewart, as usual, cleans his clock.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
"The long war on Christianity continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives...Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians." John Hofstadtler, R-IN, US House, Defense Spending, 6-20-2005, CNN
The Senator is simply repeating what I already said. The Dems keep trying to bring stink on the Republicans by associating them with some sort of religous crusade, of which most people know they are full of it. The dems are the party of liberalism they tell us, loose morals and "tollerance". They want tollerance from us and are totally intollerant with conservatives (how dare you say God!). So what is a moral authority in America to "rebel" against? It is religon. Otherwise they are simply blithering idiots having a tantrum. So the Senator is right, they can't help but to keep repeating this propaganda about religon in an attempt to get others to believe it. Otherwise what would they say? The "their rich" monster is brought out from time to time, doesn't seem to go anyplace. A lot of Dems are rich, some very very wealthy - billionaires with a B.
Do you personally feel that you are being pushed into a religon? If so, which one and by whom? Did the state, county or someone from the city make you go to church? So how are these "terrible" religous people impacting your life? It is very tough to separate out what is truly religon and what is time tested wisdom. Wisdom that trancends even into those that are pure athiests. For example lets look at a very famous one - "thou shalt not kill". Religon or not? Since that trancends every civilization it is very difficult to say that is religon.
By the way, you might want to watch something other than the daily show. It is comedy. Stewart himself has expressed concern about people thinking they are getting real news from him.
they can't help but to keep repeating this propaganda about religon in an attempt to get others to believe it. Otherwise what would they say?
I'm not sure. Without muscling some imagined US Christian persecution, politicians and commentators have no stupidity to capitalize on except "liberal is evil," a mantra becoming all the more naked as neo-con politicking becomes indistinguishable from the liberal socialism of its intellectual forebears. They need a wedge; as per my original reply, that wedge is Baby Gee.
Most people don't have a problem with Christians, but many take issue with some dickhead saying the religion is UNDER ATTACK by or AT WAR with the rest of us. See the difference?
It's my personal feeling that the fundamental tenets of the religion will quite literally come under attack in the not-too-distant future, as they're flagrantly ridiculous, but from libertarians and not democrats. If you think the GOP's had a problem reconciling cheap labor with xenophobia, wait until the people with truly conservative fiscal policy talk frankly about mythology.
I suggest you follow your own wisdom about current events. When you can't tell which stories Jon Stewart and SNL fabricate outright, versus when they take shots at real people for deserved reasons, you live in a bubble. Blowing steam out your ears at "those damn liberals" for their incisive material doesn't make your point of view attractive to educated people.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Most people don't have a problem with Christians, but many take issue with some dickhead saying the religion is UNDER ATTACK by or AT WAR with the rest of us. See the difference?
This is funny, really it is. Know what a "red herring" is? You should live in Ireland for a while to understand what religion and war is about. Sometimes they show it in the US - grown (Protestent) adults throwing stones at (Catholic) children for example. It used to be much worse over there, bombings and the like. There are always a few people out there that think something out of the norm. If you talk to them, they are very convinced they are right. Is religion really under attack? Probably not, at least not more than it has been for a very long time. It is easy to get that feeling with the ACLU using God as a fund raiser lately. You see, they get paid for bringing these cases regardless if they loose or not (a 1972 rule allows for this, the state pays them either way). For some reason they classify the God cases as a civil rights case. So they see a pot of gold under anything that has to do with religon and something public. Clearly there is no "separation of church and state". We know this because Thomas Jefferson said so in a letter to a friend later, after all that stuff was signed. In his letter he said that he wished it were in there. Of course the right gets upset because the ACLU seems to only object to as you put it baby gee. Where are the lawsuits about making people use the Koran in college courses and the other clear abuses of establishing a religion? Again, the Democrats see themself (admitedly) as the party about abortion. They offset that as a struggle against religion, even in cases of clear murder. Look up what a partial birth abortion really is. Usually it is a viable baby, nearly to term and they suck the brains out, then deliver the dead baby. I support abortion but not that. Nobody does when they understand what it really is. At least I haven't found one yet and I know some VERY liberal people.
It's my personal feeling that the fundamental tenets of the religion will quite literally come under attack in the not-too-distant future, as they're flagrantly ridiculous, but from libertarians and not democrats. If you think the GOP's had a problem reconciling cheap labor with xenophobia, wait until the people with truly conservative fiscal policy talk frankly about mythology.
GOP and being xenophobic? That's funny. I have to wonder if you have the GOP and the Democrats/labor confused. Look at Judgeship denials too. I'm not sure which tenents of religion you are talking about, however I have a feeling they will remain. They have survived for 2000 years after all and this comes up about twice a decade. Quite few of those stories have even been confirmed by Scientists I understand. In fact some in academia go so far as to say the Bible isn't a bad history book. You may want to rethink this one. There is a surge in Religion and away from athiesm now. Athiest are finally realizeing that they are not here by chance. There is more to it than that.
I suggest you follow your own wisdom about current events. When you can't tell which stories Jon Stewart and SNL fabricate outright, versus when they take shots at real people for deserved reasons, you live in a bubble. Blowing steam out your ears at "those damn liberals" for their incisive material doesn't make your point of view attractive to educated people.
What the hell are you talking about? I know exactly which ones are and aren't spoofs. There are a lot of people out there that don't, however. Studies show that educated people tend to b