It's also out of favor because of how much of the real world of programming works. My very small company does a lot of work for a very, very large company. At my small company, we have one layer of management - the owner of the company. Everyone else is in the level of "not an owner of the company."
At the large company, there are a multitude of layers of management. Any software they build require extensive specifications and documentation far in advance of laying down any code. The decide all the aspects of the software before it's written. At my company, the boss just gives us a general outline of what he's thinking about and ask us to feel out the idea. We use a RAD environment and will often have a first iteration within a week. This version tends to get completely, sometimes multiple times. We do not document any of this in advance because the usable version may differ so much from the original ideas.
At the large company, their projects tend to take years and years, go far over budget and typically are much less useful than they had originally hoped. As a bonus, they are usually bug-ridden and unstable. Many times they just eventually get canceled by the new layer of management, who then get awards for this "cost saving measure." At my company, our projects are typically finished far in advance for a tiny price. They are typically of very high quality, with very minor bugs which we fix rather quickly.
This large company frequently hires our company to build software rather than trying to do it internally. They are usually amazed at the things we can do.
Something like "literate programming" is completely anathema to how our company works. If we started trying to write specifications in advance of figuring out what product our clients actually want (as opposed to what they think they want at the start of the process).
Now, I will state that our company only works because we don't hire idiots or slackers. Also, I am fully aware that this is not a good way to, for example, design nuclear power plant software or a baggage control system. But for businesses, all that documentation and "thinking" can just cloak that fact that the people building the software don't know what they are doing.
I somewhat disagree with what you and... *sigh* Monkeybaister posted. Yes, there are many times when long stretches of code should be broken out into functions. But I tend to do that mostly when the same bit of code is used in several different cases. The reason being is that when you start modularizing off all your while loops that are more than a dozen lines long, you create a whole new type of spaghetti code. I'm going to coin a term and call it "spaghetti-O code." You try to track down a bug and what would have been a straightforward couple pages of code now has all kinds of functions at different places in the code. As such, it can often make debugging or forming a mental map of the code much harder.
The point I'm making is that you mix a hard line with a soft one. People always have a choice. You don't have to ever voluntarily use an animal product. Unless someone ties you down and force feeds it to you (or I suppose forces a leather jacket on you), it's your choice. Again, taking your own hard line, you're just wimping out betraying your ideals of veganism if you ever make that choice and compromise your ideals.
Say if there's a medication that is only available with animal products, you are making the choice that your welfare is much more important than the animals. And that's animals in the plural because most likely one ain't gonna do it for you. This is the same situation as non-vegans making the choice that their welfare trumps the animals and therefore eating meat is ok. They choose not to sacrifice their happiness and money, which have a large impact on their health.
And I don't care who has discussed it and who has written books about it. Free Will has been talked about for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean the issue is all settled and wrapped up with a nice bow on it. We're talking philosophy and ethics here. Those things will always be subjective. What I'm saying is just because you propound that it has to be a certain way for everyone, that doesn't actually make it so.
If Donald Watson had wanted the word "vegan" to mean a very specific black and white thing, he should have trademarked it. He didn't do that, so its meaning will change and be open to variation just as any philosophy or relgion always is.
You sure are awfully strict in your rules and definition for OTHER people's beliefs. You know, it might be possible those rules and definitions don't apply universally...
Your whole "you are either a vegan or you are not" claim is already invalidated when you later say "Pragmatic concerns apply as always - if you can't find the medication you need in a gelatine-free version, and you have tried your best, there's nothing wrong with going with the gelatine version." If someone offered you a strip of bacon and you hadn't eaten in a day, is it ok to eat as long as you feel some guilt? Is it okay if I keep eating meat, as long as I feel guilty about it? Does that make me a vegan? Because, pragmatically, it would be very inconvenient for me not to eat meat.
It seems you just redefined a vegan as "Someone who doesn't eat or use animal products unless if they feel they have no choice, then they must feel bad about it but go ahead and do it anyway."
In much the same way, the whole tiny amount of gelatin argument is also pragmatic. You can't spend your life feeling guilty about something like this that is unavoidable. If everyone didn't eat meat, they wouldn't use that tiny amount of gelatin because then it would be cost prohibitive.
I think that was the OP's meaning, but it can be read either way. It all depends on what the pronoun "that" is referring to. The full context is:
You can really just say "nine people live here, go away" and they will.
All that information IS necessary for the government to provide all the services they provide today in a reasonable and efficient manner. So you could definitely read it as saying "that" means the information about how many people live there. Again, I don't think that's what the OP meant (mainly from the capitalization of "IS"), but I'd cut Red Jesus some slack on the possible misread. The OP could have done a bit more to make his post less ambiguous.
I agree with many of your points, but I also believe the American founders would have been greatly troubled by trying to centrally govern such a large and populous country as America has now become. The system they created was much more tuned to the size of the country at the time. You could actually know your senator. You could actually, in person, meet with the president to express a grievance. You were much more likely to be able to run for representative or mayor yourself.
Now that our population has scaled up, this is much more likely. One option is to go back to federalism, but that genie has gotten far to fat to fit back in the same bottle. Even if we did, states like California and New York would still have most of the same problems.
I'm not saying use of the internet is necessarily a good way to change things, as you'll still have the mass of population to deal with online (and then some, if you consider those that wouldn't actually care enough about their issue to take the time to get off their ass).
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment [...] Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment. [...] Safeguard our Right to Privacy [...] To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used. [...] Protect the Openness of the Internet A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
To me, a fan who has bought all the seasons and this movie, the best service they could have done was to make a funny movie. They took their eye off the ball with BBS. Hopefully the next one is better. I agree with the other poster who said they should do direct to dvd seasons (or mini-seasons).
Comedy is all about timing. The pacing in BBS was atrocious. They did NOT know exactly what they were doing. This was their first time to try to make Futurama work at that length and it showed. Plus they just made some completely boneheaded decisions like thinking the whole FOX Executive Powder joke was funny after the 500th time. And why did Zapp Brannigan have less screen time than BARBADOS SLIM, for Ja's sake?
I also noticed this in a big way, but I think we're in the minority. I have a Toshiba dvd player with a Faroudja scaler (basically one of the last good mass market priced DVD players made) and I saw jaggies through the whole thing. That was when it was hooked up to an SD television (Sony Trinitron). After I replaced the TV with a 720p plasma, I did not see the jaggies (either with the DVD player set to interlaced or progressive). Still not sure what caused it but it was there and VERY distracting.
And for reference, I also own all the Futurama season discs. They look stunning and there was never a jaggy to be seen - on the SDTV or the HDTV.
While that may seem to be a logical continuation of this line of reasoning, the problem is that you're thinking there are only two levels - companies and employees. There's a third level - citizens. Society is ultimately "the boss" over companies that exist within that society. Sot it goes citizens > companies > employees. We can pass labor laws, including limitations on working hours, maternity leave, and even employee monitoring. It boils down to the citizenry deciding for itself what kind of society they want to live in.
Much like the logic goes "if the employee doesn't agree, they can quit the job", the logic also says "if the employer doesn't agree, they can leave the country."
Yet another reason why.com/.net/.org (and the stupid newer ones) should be abolished and all domains should end in their country codes. There is no such thing as not being under the control of SOME countries laws.
if you want to use someone's property
You can't just steal it You are laboring under the false belief that ideas are the same as real property. They are not. Copyright, trademark and patents are all licenses that the citizens grant to the creators. They recognize that they are creating an imaginary "property" because they feel their is some benefit to it. It's not a fundamental right or something. It's not something that can simply be used as a hammer to prevent someone else from enriching society. It's society saying "we find that we will benefit more from letting you have an exclusive license on this thing than if we allowed everyone to copy it."
Given those reasons, it does not make any sense to claim that a company trying to squash people from making an online version is the one being stolen from. Remember, they are given this exclusive license so it will benefit us. If they had an online version already, it would be a different situation.
Now, this might not be how it works in court. Money can buy a lot of things, but foremost it can buy you the legislative and legal system. But before you go spouting off terms like "property" and "steal" as if it's some kind of moral imperative, try to think for a minute about the basis of very existence of intellectual property.
Addendum: Even though they already made a PC scrabble game, that's not the same as an ONLINE scrabble game. Fundamentally different when you're talking about a social game like this. Sure, they plan on releasing one now. But a game like Scrabble is so simple it could and should have been officially released online anytime in the last 10 years. It's not a stretch to say they're only doing it now because Scrabulous spurred them on. So really, what you are seeing is a perfect argument for limitations on intellectual property. The success of the unauthorized versions are actually what is causing the official creators to provide society with a new creation.
I don't want it, but that's where we're heading one way or the other. Eventually, it will be possible for people to have an always-on 360 degree panorama video recording device that uploads on-the-fly to offsite storage. It's an inevitable evolution of the technology. This will possibly cause us the loss of some privacy that we now enjoy. On the other hand, can you imagine what it would be like if every power-tripping authority figure knew they were probably being securely recorded at all times? Right now those people will tell you to your face that they're doing something illegal, but since they know there's no proof they just do it anyway.
So, like I said it is inevitable. The big benefit will be that with the deluge of data, it will be much harder for people to sift through it. The question will be if the access is balanced. Will it be in the hands of everyone so they can get the benefits as well as deal with the privacy sacrifices, or will it be in the hands of the few so the many lose privacy and get no real benefit from it?
It's kinda useless now, but it's not a stretch to envision them making video driving directions. In other words, in addition to the map you can watch a video of the drive. The one thing I use Street View for now is to familiarize myself with what an exit will look like and how the road split looks in person. Unfortunately, the speed makes it a bit less useful. But a video created at one time on the back end that I could review, rewind, etc. would be awesome.
You have grossly misread the tone of my post. That's not surprising, as studies show that people have about a 50/50 chance of misreading electronic communications.
I was giving a 100% honest reply. When I asked those questions, they weren't rhetorical. I actually did want to know if the poster was open to the possibility that they were wrong, or if they were just wanting to stir things up. Anyone who has read enough of the posts that look just like that one have to be asking those questions, even if only in their mind.
To question their education is NOT simply an ad hominen attack when it's in a story on evolution education. The questions he asked aren't just a random formulation, they're exactly the same ones that have been used for decades by people who simply refuse to be intellectually honest. If the poster was actually just parroting these lines (as he admitted in a later) post, it shows just how grossly lazy they are from an education standpoint that they haven't googled around to find the answers by this point. Considering that they're two of the top questions, it wouldn't have been hard.
And just FYI, here's some quotes by the original poster. They are from two posts of his/hers long after he/she had already been corrected.
I do believe believing in ANYTHING regarding where life came from amounts to religion, and the people that believe in their "religion" defend it to the end.
Evolution is simply a model that best fits the evidence, is it not? Wasn't the model of the earth flat at one time? I mean, it's great there is a model called evolution, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is absolutely true, no matter what additional information comes about.
As you see, this information given to the poster has done really nothing to change their "science is just a theory" attitude. The posts original comment wasn't fueled by ignorance so much as attitude. I read the original post and was reminded of so many others written from the same attitude. As far as I know, the poster still doesn't really believe that evolution has happened, much less evolution through natural selection. They just know that a couple of the arguments in their toolbox aren't as useful on someone who is at least semi-educated.
Many people really are a lost cause. Maybe twenty, thirty, forty years ago it would have been unsurprising that an adult could possibly remain so ignorant about evolution and natural selection. But in this age, someone with access to the internet simply has no excuse. Science has already failed them. Well, more importantly, society has already failed to inculcate a mindset of finding answers for one's self through research, contemplation and logical thinking, rather than just going by peer pressure.
You are mistaken so many times in your post, that's it makes me wonder if you were educated by someone who had a religious opposition to evolution.
I'm torn on whether I should actually try to correct your incorrect beliefs, or just ignore it. Do you ACTUALLY want to know the real answers? Or are you so set in your ways that you'll just ignore it? Such is the problem of the teaching of evolution on the national scale.
Your astute criticism seems to have accomplished the unthinkable - a slashdot correction. At least this is my assumption, since other people also quoted the original "when one driver breaks" phrase.
Amazing that they will fix this but often leave completely inaccurate articles uncorrected.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also out of favor because of how much of the real world of programming works. My very small company does a lot of work for a very, very large company. At my small company, we have one layer of management - the owner of the company. Everyone else is in the level of "not an owner of the company."
At the large company, there are a multitude of layers of management. Any software they build require extensive specifications and documentation far in advance of laying down any code. The decide all the aspects of the software before it's written. At my company, the boss just gives us a general outline of what he's thinking about and ask us to feel out the idea. We use a RAD environment and will often have a first iteration within a week. This version tends to get completely, sometimes multiple times. We do not document any of this in advance because the usable version may differ so much from the original ideas.
At the large company, their projects tend to take years and years, go far over budget and typically are much less useful than they had originally hoped. As a bonus, they are usually bug-ridden and unstable. Many times they just eventually get canceled by the new layer of management, who then get awards for this "cost saving measure." At my company, our projects are typically finished far in advance for a tiny price. They are typically of very high quality, with very minor bugs which we fix rather quickly.
This large company frequently hires our company to build software rather than trying to do it internally. They are usually amazed at the things we can do.
Something like "literate programming" is completely anathema to how our company works. If we started trying to write specifications in advance of figuring out what product our clients actually want (as opposed to what they think they want at the start of the process).
Now, I will state that our company only works because we don't hire idiots or slackers. Also, I am fully aware that this is not a good way to, for example, design nuclear power plant software or a baggage control system. But for businesses, all that documentation and "thinking" can just cloak that fact that the people building the software don't know what they are doing.
I somewhat disagree with what you and... *sigh* Monkeybaister posted. Yes, there are many times when long stretches of code should be broken out into functions. But I tend to do that mostly when the same bit of code is used in several different cases. The reason being is that when you start modularizing off all your while loops that are more than a dozen lines long, you create a whole new type of spaghetti code. I'm going to coin a term and call it "spaghetti-O code." You try to track down a bug and what would have been a straightforward couple pages of code now has all kinds of functions at different places in the code. As such, it can often make debugging or forming a mental map of the code much harder.
Haha, no. I'm actually quite bad at it. I'm just happy when I can get a couch multi-ball or even better, the mystery spot multi-ball.
I picked up a brand new Simpsons Pinball Party for my birthday a while back. Quite a fun game, especially for someone well versed in the Simpsons.
The point I'm making is that you mix a hard line with a soft one. People always have a choice. You don't have to ever voluntarily use an animal product. Unless someone ties you down and force feeds it to you (or I suppose forces a leather jacket on you), it's your choice. Again, taking your own hard line, you're just wimping out betraying your ideals of veganism if you ever make that choice and compromise your ideals.
Say if there's a medication that is only available with animal products, you are making the choice that your welfare is much more important than the animals. And that's animals in the plural because most likely one ain't gonna do it for you. This is the same situation as non-vegans making the choice that their welfare trumps the animals and therefore eating meat is ok. They choose not to sacrifice their happiness and money, which have a large impact on their health.
And I don't care who has discussed it and who has written books about it. Free Will has been talked about for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean the issue is all settled and wrapped up with a nice bow on it. We're talking philosophy and ethics here. Those things will always be subjective. What I'm saying is just because you propound that it has to be a certain way for everyone, that doesn't actually make it so.
If Donald Watson had wanted the word "vegan" to mean a very specific black and white thing, he should have trademarked it. He didn't do that, so its meaning will change and be open to variation just as any philosophy or relgion always is.
You sure are awfully strict in your rules and definition for OTHER people's beliefs. You know, it might be possible those rules and definitions don't apply universally...
Your whole "you are either a vegan or you are not" claim is already invalidated when you later say "Pragmatic concerns apply as always - if you can't find the medication you need in a gelatine-free version, and you have tried your best, there's nothing wrong with going with the gelatine version." If someone offered you a strip of bacon and you hadn't eaten in a day, is it ok to eat as long as you feel some guilt? Is it okay if I keep eating meat, as long as I feel guilty about it? Does that make me a vegan? Because, pragmatically, it would be very inconvenient for me not to eat meat.
It seems you just redefined a vegan as "Someone who doesn't eat or use animal products unless if they feel they have no choice, then they must feel bad about it but go ahead and do it anyway."
In much the same way, the whole tiny amount of gelatin argument is also pragmatic. You can't spend your life feeling guilty about something like this that is unavoidable. If everyone didn't eat meat, they wouldn't use that tiny amount of gelatin because then it would be cost prohibitive.
That "mysterious" thing you did was hit the / button. I'm not kidding, the SLASH. Because no browser uses that for find. Nuh uh.
Millions of years of evolution made them?
You are hilariously wrong.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dwarf&searchmode=term
Beware the Botnet Dwarfs!
All that information IS necessary for the government to provide all the services they provide today in a reasonable and efficient manner. So you could definitely read it as saying "that" means the information about how many people live there. Again, I don't think that's what the OP meant (mainly from the capitalization of "IS"), but I'd cut Red Jesus some slack on the possible misread. The OP could have done a bit more to make his post less ambiguous.
I agree with many of your points, but I also believe the American founders would have been greatly troubled by trying to centrally govern such a large and populous country as America has now become. The system they created was much more tuned to the size of the country at the time. You could actually know your senator. You could actually, in person, meet with the president to express a grievance. You were much more likely to be able to run for representative or mayor yourself.
Now that our population has scaled up, this is much more likely. One option is to go back to federalism, but that genie has gotten far to fat to fit back in the same bottle. Even if we did, states like California and New York would still have most of the same problems.
I'm not saying use of the internet is necessarily a good way to change things, as you'll still have the mass of population to deal with online (and then some, if you consider those that wouldn't actually care enough about their issue to take the time to get off their ass).
[...]
Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment.
[...]
Safeguard our Right to Privacy
[...]
To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.
[...]
Protect the Openness of the Internet
A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
Presumptuous? Possibly. Statistically likely? Certainly.
To me, a fan who has bought all the seasons and this movie, the best service they could have done was to make a funny movie. They took their eye off the ball with BBS. Hopefully the next one is better. I agree with the other poster who said they should do direct to dvd seasons (or mini-seasons).
Comedy is all about timing. The pacing in BBS was atrocious. They did NOT know exactly what they were doing. This was their first time to try to make Futurama work at that length and it showed. Plus they just made some completely boneheaded decisions like thinking the whole FOX Executive Powder joke was funny after the 500th time. And why did Zapp Brannigan have less screen time than BARBADOS SLIM, for Ja's sake?
I also noticed this in a big way, but I think we're in the minority. I have a Toshiba dvd player with a Faroudja scaler (basically one of the last good mass market priced DVD players made) and I saw jaggies through the whole thing. That was when it was hooked up to an SD television (Sony Trinitron). After I replaced the TV with a 720p plasma, I did not see the jaggies (either with the DVD player set to interlaced or progressive). Still not sure what caused it but it was there and VERY distracting.
And for reference, I also own all the Futurama season discs. They look stunning and there was never a jaggy to be seen - on the SDTV or the HDTV.
While that may seem to be a logical continuation of this line of reasoning, the problem is that you're thinking there are only two levels - companies and employees. There's a third level - citizens. Society is ultimately "the boss" over companies that exist within that society. Sot it goes citizens > companies > employees. We can pass labor laws, including limitations on working hours, maternity leave, and even employee monitoring. It boils down to the citizenry deciding for itself what kind of society they want to live in.
Much like the logic goes "if the employee doesn't agree, they can quit the job", the logic also says "if the employer doesn't agree, they can leave the country."
Yet another reason why .com/.net/.org (and the stupid newer ones) should be abolished and all domains should end in their country codes. There is no such thing as not being under the control of SOME countries laws.
Given those reasons, it does not make any sense to claim that a company trying to squash people from making an online version is the one being stolen from. Remember, they are given this exclusive license so it will benefit us. If they had an online version already, it would be a different situation.
Now, this might not be how it works in court. Money can buy a lot of things, but foremost it can buy you the legislative and legal system. But before you go spouting off terms like "property" and "steal" as if it's some kind of moral imperative, try to think for a minute about the basis of very existence of intellectual property.
Addendum: Even though they already made a PC scrabble game, that's not the same as an ONLINE scrabble game. Fundamentally different when you're talking about a social game like this. Sure, they plan on releasing one now. But a game like Scrabble is so simple it could and should have been officially released online anytime in the last 10 years. It's not a stretch to say they're only doing it now because Scrabulous spurred them on. So really, what you are seeing is a perfect argument for limitations on intellectual property. The success of the unauthorized versions are actually what is causing the official creators to provide society with a new creation.
I don't want it, but that's where we're heading one way or the other. Eventually, it will be possible for people to have an always-on 360 degree panorama video recording device that uploads on-the-fly to offsite storage. It's an inevitable evolution of the technology. This will possibly cause us the loss of some privacy that we now enjoy. On the other hand, can you imagine what it would be like if every power-tripping authority figure knew they were probably being securely recorded at all times? Right now those people will tell you to your face that they're doing something illegal, but since they know there's no proof they just do it anyway.
So, like I said it is inevitable. The big benefit will be that with the deluge of data, it will be much harder for people to sift through it. The question will be if the access is balanced. Will it be in the hands of everyone so they can get the benefits as well as deal with the privacy sacrifices, or will it be in the hands of the few so the many lose privacy and get no real benefit from it?
It's kinda useless now, but it's not a stretch to envision them making video driving directions. In other words, in addition to the map you can watch a video of the drive. The one thing I use Street View for now is to familiarize myself with what an exit will look like and how the road split looks in person. Unfortunately, the speed makes it a bit less useful. But a video created at one time on the back end that I could review, rewind, etc. would be awesome.
You have grossly misread the tone of my post. That's not surprising, as studies show that people have about a 50/50 chance of misreading electronic communications.
I was giving a 100% honest reply. When I asked those questions, they weren't rhetorical. I actually did want to know if the poster was open to the possibility that they were wrong, or if they were just wanting to stir things up. Anyone who has read enough of the posts that look just like that one have to be asking those questions, even if only in their mind.
To question their education is NOT simply an ad hominen attack when it's in a story on evolution education. The questions he asked aren't just a random formulation, they're exactly the same ones that have been used for decades by people who simply refuse to be intellectually honest. If the poster was actually just parroting these lines (as he admitted in a later) post, it shows just how grossly lazy they are from an education standpoint that they haven't googled around to find the answers by this point. Considering that they're two of the top questions, it wouldn't have been hard.
And just FYI, here's some quotes by the original poster. They are from two posts of his/hers long after he/she had already been corrected.
I do believe believing in ANYTHING regarding where life came from amounts to religion, and the people that believe in their "religion" defend it to the end.
Evolution is simply a model that best fits the evidence, is it not? Wasn't the model of the earth flat at one time? I mean, it's great there is a model called evolution, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is absolutely true, no matter what additional information comes about.
As you see, this information given to the poster has done really nothing to change their "science is just a theory" attitude. The posts original comment wasn't fueled by ignorance so much as attitude. I read the original post and was reminded of so many others written from the same attitude. As far as I know, the poster still doesn't really believe that evolution has happened, much less evolution through natural selection. They just know that a couple of the arguments in their toolbox aren't as useful on someone who is at least semi-educated.
Many people really are a lost cause. Maybe twenty, thirty, forty years ago it would have been unsurprising that an adult could possibly remain so ignorant about evolution and natural selection. But in this age, someone with access to the internet simply has no excuse. Science has already failed them. Well, more importantly, society has already failed to inculcate a mindset of finding answers for one's self through research, contemplation and logical thinking, rather than just going by peer pressure.
You are mistaken so many times in your post, that's it makes me wonder if you were educated by someone who had a religious opposition to evolution.
I'm torn on whether I should actually try to correct your incorrect beliefs, or just ignore it. Do you ACTUALLY want to know the real answers? Or are you so set in your ways that you'll just ignore it? Such is the problem of the teaching of evolution on the national scale.
Your astute criticism seems to have accomplished the unthinkable - a slashdot correction. At least this is my assumption, since other people also quoted the original "when one driver breaks" phrase.
Amazing that they will fix this but often leave completely inaccurate articles uncorrected.