This policy is not new. It has been around for at least a year. But I live outside the US (and I am a US citizen... not that it matters in this case) and I still regularly purchase and download and watch TV shows and movies on iTunes. In fact, it is the only software that lets me do this. Amazon and other alternatives disable their service outside the US.
Are you completely ignorant of terminology in Louisiana? The word "parish" has nothing to do with religion, but equates to district or area. It is amazing how much an alarmist piece can get some of us so riled up over nothing.
These are questions of philosophy and theology. Science, as many scientists would tell you, does not answer those questions. They don't begin to answer them. The issue here is that creationists think they do which leads to conflicts like this.
It is both arrogant and dangerous to presume that these are merely questions of theology and philosophy. Science is intrinsically tied to both philosophy and theology; in fact, it naturally evolved from those areas of study. As a scientist I know that many scientific findings raises questions that affect both philosophy and theology, thus I cannot simply say that whatever my scientific findings are their problems, not mine. That is both arrogant and dangerous. If science raises a question, but then shies away from any attempt to answer then that is not science at all.
Your quotation of the Kitzmiller case exactly proves my point.
Any scientific theory will eventually be universally held as a fact (such as gravity even though technically its a theory) when it is thoroughly tested. Some may reference back to when the Catholic church suppressed the work of scientists such as Galileo, but today much of his work has been proven correct. Evolution hasn't been around long enough to stand the test of time. Unfortunately for evolution, since part of its premise includes assumptions of very long periods of time, we will never in our lifetimes see the ultimate acceptance or rejection of evolution as we have seen with things like gravity.
I realize your facetiousness of your last paragraph, but challenging something like gravity would be ridiculous in the face of current knowledge. You say it doesn't explain what happens inside a black hole and use that as logic for not arguing against evolution because it doesn't explain everything. The problem is that gravity doesn't affect a person the way evolution does. The crux of a religious believing person's argument is that evolution ultimately questions "Why am I here?". If I am a naturally selected, evolved creature of happenstance then do I have a purpose in my life? When you break it down to that question that is when people start getting nervous and defensive over their faith, because evolution doesn't have an answer yet.
The submitter could have at least linked to the text of the bill that was actually passed instead of linking to a piece of alarmist journalism.
I really don't think there is anything for us to be worried about here. The act allows teachers to "use supplementary textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Teachers cannot teach ID or creationism. In fact, the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Additionally, Joe Cook, director of the ACLU for Louisiana has said that the act is constitutional as written.
This bill is probably totally unnecessary, but simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics. Now that is scientific right?
The BWB design didn't have customers because with current FAA standards for safety there is no way Boeing could certify that airplane. Ironically, it actually does have a little to do with windows (sorta). The BWB is a great concept and it *should* work fantastically, but there are sticky rules about how fast a plane must be able to be de-boarded in an emergency. The BWB concept does not provide viable escape paths for passengers that a single "tube" aircraft can provide. You can't put hatches in the floor, because that won't work on water (or much on land either). You can't put hatches in the ceiling and expect all the passengers to be able to get out in under 2 min. You can't put escape hatches on the leading or trailing edges of the wings for many aerodynamic and structural reasons. So where that leave one to put mandatory escape routes? No where.
The problem is that the current state of composites being used doesn't actually save much weight. In the future, as our knowledge of composites on large fuselages increases it will probably gain a large advantage over aluminum. As it stands now though the composite vs aluminum weight advantage is extremely small if non-existent. The real advantage to the 787 is the engines. The new engines are where the better fuel economy lies.
here is the official (English language version) website for the subject product.
http://www2.amdlive.com/us-en/
AMDLive appears to be simply a media software suite available on computers with AMD processors.
Slashdot Mirror
Go with Deezer man. It is the best alternative to Pandora that we can find here in France. www.deezer.com
This policy is not new. It has been around for at least a year. But I live outside the US (and I am a US citizen... not that it matters in this case) and I still regularly purchase and download and watch TV shows and movies on iTunes. In fact, it is the only software that lets me do this. Amazon and other alternatives disable their service outside the US.
Are you completely ignorant of terminology in Louisiana? The word "parish" has nothing to do with religion, but equates to district or area. It is amazing how much an alarmist piece can get some of us so riled up over nothing.
These are questions of philosophy and theology. Science, as many scientists would tell you, does not answer those questions. They don't begin to answer them. The issue here is that creationists think they do which leads to conflicts like this.
It is both arrogant and dangerous to presume that these are merely questions of theology and philosophy. Science is intrinsically tied to both philosophy and theology; in fact, it naturally evolved from those areas of study. As a scientist I know that many scientific findings raises questions that affect both philosophy and theology, thus I cannot simply say that whatever my scientific findings are their problems, not mine. That is both arrogant and dangerous. If science raises a question, but then shies away from any attempt to answer then that is not science at all. Your quotation of the Kitzmiller case exactly proves my point.
Any scientific theory will eventually be universally held as a fact (such as gravity even though technically its a theory) when it is thoroughly tested. Some may reference back to when the Catholic church suppressed the work of scientists such as Galileo, but today much of his work has been proven correct. Evolution hasn't been around long enough to stand the test of time. Unfortunately for evolution, since part of its premise includes assumptions of very long periods of time, we will never in our lifetimes see the ultimate acceptance or rejection of evolution as we have seen with things like gravity.
I realize your facetiousness of your last paragraph, but challenging something like gravity would be ridiculous in the face of current knowledge. You say it doesn't explain what happens inside a black hole and use that as logic for not arguing against evolution because it doesn't explain everything. The problem is that gravity doesn't affect a person the way evolution does. The crux of a religious believing person's argument is that evolution ultimately questions "Why am I here?". If I am a naturally selected, evolved creature of happenstance then do I have a purpose in my life? When you break it down to that question that is when people start getting nervous and defensive over their faith, because evolution doesn't have an answer yet.
The submitter could have at least linked to the text of the bill that was actually passed instead of linking to a piece of alarmist journalism. I really don't think there is anything for us to be worried about here. The act allows teachers to "use supplementary textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Teachers cannot teach ID or creationism. In fact, the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Additionally, Joe Cook, director of the ACLU for Louisiana has said that the act is constitutional as written. This bill is probably totally unnecessary, but simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics. Now that is scientific right?
The BWB design didn't have customers because with current FAA standards for safety there is no way Boeing could certify that airplane. Ironically, it actually does have a little to do with windows (sorta). The BWB is a great concept and it *should* work fantastically, but there are sticky rules about how fast a plane must be able to be de-boarded in an emergency. The BWB concept does not provide viable escape paths for passengers that a single "tube" aircraft can provide. You can't put hatches in the floor, because that won't work on water (or much on land either). You can't put hatches in the ceiling and expect all the passengers to be able to get out in under 2 min. You can't put escape hatches on the leading or trailing edges of the wings for many aerodynamic and structural reasons. So where that leave one to put mandatory escape routes? No where.
The problem is that the current state of composites being used doesn't actually save much weight. In the future, as our knowledge of composites on large fuselages increases it will probably gain a large advantage over aluminum. As it stands now though the composite vs aluminum weight advantage is extremely small if non-existent. The real advantage to the 787 is the engines. The new engines are where the better fuel economy lies.
here is the official (English language version) website for the subject product. http://www2.amdlive.com/us-en/ AMDLive appears to be simply a media software suite available on computers with AMD processors.