I'm not going to mod you down, but this should be a clue to you that you've probably lost all perspective of right and wrong. You really want to beat up on their kids, who have nothing to do with what their parents are doing, and are, moreover, just kids? Advocating beating up the weak and the helpless --> you are not on the right side of justice.
And you're also godwinning yourself here with "Of a more dire and extreme sort than any in history." I would point out that these guys are hurting innovation, and they're parasites - but that's it. Unless one of them ran over your dog or something, you're out of control. And the people who modded you up need to leave their homes and try to get a basic understanding of what is and what is not worth methodically destroying people and their (uninvolved) loved ones over. Here's a hint to get them started: patent trolling is on the "not" list.
Don't be an asshole. Here you are, talking up free speech, and then when someone voices an opinion other than your own, you are condescending. How about just let him voice his opinion, criticize it on its merits, and move on. Being condescending is an attempt to brand someone as weak and pathetic, and it's just as harmful to free debate as shouting someone down. Please don't do it.
I'm tired of diversity meaning "people who look different." Promoting diversity should be about finding people who THINK differently, or have a different background, and whose differences may be of benefit to the group in its (essentially) quest for truth. Diversity as getting a bunch of people together with different skin colors is stupid, and ironically an example of the very racism it's supposed to fight.
MLK didn't say that wherever you are, make sure you have your quota of black people, hispanics and asians. He said be color blind. I think it's time more people took that to heart.
They are investing in new refineries. IF you're asking why they haven't built any yet, the answer is that the construction timeline is many years. Believe it or not, there are a huge amount of regulations that surround such construction, and once you're through all that (and the larger planning), you actually have to build the damn thing. It doesn't just take 1 or 2 years. And I'd also remind you that American oil companies only control a small portion of the global market, and there are plenty of other actors, like state-owned oil companies, that need not play by the same rules as others. And also recall that Exxon is greedy. It wants to make even MORE money by producing more oil (it is not a monopoly), and to the extent it doesn't, it is because it can't. And the refinery thing is somewhat misleading - a large portion of the current price of oil is due to speculation based on expectations of further ME conflict. Anyhow, my greater point would be that oil companies are not a monopoly, there is no conspiracy, and although they are making a whole pile of money right now, because they are not monopolies, they would be making more money if they could increase their output, so trust me that they are trying to do that. There are simply more obstacles than are always obvious to the layman.
How would any except the second amendment play into this? Obviously they would no longer be upheld in the instance of extreme governmental tyranny, so how would their having been around previously be of benefit to the revolutionaries? I don't have the time to go through the federalist papers to decisively prove it, but your argument is not borne out by the effects of the amendments, nor by the rationales written by their architects. The ability to successfully revolt may have been a large rationale behind the second amendment (in addition to the fact that, if you will recall, a large amount of American land was frontier space and subject to attack by the natives), but it was NOT the rationale behind the rest of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson wrote that we needed the Bill of Rights to specifically enumerate limitations on government power, to ensure there were very clear forbidden zones; he did not write that we needed them to fight the next revolution. He just didn't.
Outlawing forced quartering of soldiers != protecting against the instances when they start to do it anyway. That's just not whats going on.
I don't mean to be rude, but get a clue. Yes, if you build more roads (or release larger line), more people will use them. BUT THEN THEY GET TO USE THEM. Motorists gain from being able to drive when it used to be too unpleasant, and internet users gain from being able to download larger files. This is called progress. Or would you prefer we never build another grocery store or theme park, because hey, people are just going to wind up using them?
Please take an economics course or two. You may really enjoy it, and you're likely to find it very informative.
>>The problem is that consumers just accept this. They'll complain, but they keep right on paying these companies.
This isn't actually accurate. The higher prices do drive away consumers, just not enough to offset the higher profits that the cellphone companies earn by charging uncompetitive prices - this is monopoly economics 101. The consumers who do keep paying despite being charged more than they would be if the cellphone companies were actually competing with each other do so because cellphones are so desirable to them that they are still better off being overcharged than being without a cellphone. That may be obvious, but it's important because it reminds us that your average consumer isn't a hero, and they aren't going to "vote with their feet" if that entails them staying home. So don't look to consumers to solve this.
The only way the U.S. cellphone markets (and cable and satellite markets too) are going to become more consumer friendly is when the FCC provides a way for more firms to get into the market and compete for customers. Until then, we're just going to keep getting boned.
I'll give you the RIAA, but oil companies? What's the changing market demand? For more oil? I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle that. You do see the difference, right? Where as the core product of the Recording Industry is small plastic disks, which people are wanting LESS of, the core product of oil companies is oil, which people are wanting MORE of.
So short Exxon if you want, but I don't think it would be a good bet. At least not until alternate power sources are commercially competitive, and that won't be for years. And even then, there will still be a huge demand for oil because it's used as the precursor to so many different chemicals, and used in so many different products (hence petroleum products). You are totally off the mark on that one.
I'm pretty sure they see their shareholders as their owners, not their customers. Do you know what a customer is? It's a person you sell things to. Do you know what an owner is? It's the person you are running the company on behalf of. So my advice to you is: get a clue.
And skip the "corporatocracy" nonsense. All you're seeing is a monopolistic market, where the monopoly in question raises prices and lowers output in order to pad their profits because there is no one to undercut them when they do. It's basic economics 101, you don't need any tin foil for it, and it's hardly some new development.
But fundamentally the computer is still just pretending. You're right that I don't know that all humans (myself excepted) aren't, in essence, moist robots. But what you're suggesting is that whereas the computers we have now don't feel anything, if we program them to pretend that they do, suddenly those feelings may (will?) become real. I don't find that compelling.
It's obviously well into the realm of metaphysics, because I can't perceive any feelings directly other than my own, but like I said, the idea that the computers we have now are unthinking pieces of metal and silicon, and then at some point would stop being so (coincidentally at the point when we've programed them to try to convince us OF THAT VERY FACT), it seems to be low on credibility. I mean if you're going to pick such an arbitrary litmus for feelings, why not pick cells and decide that trees feel, or atoms and decide that everything does.
I guess that's really my point. Why would the litmus be whether it acted like it were feeling, since we already know we are capable of making devices that did a good job pretending. Would you think a dead person began feeling again if we were to design a method of them pretending sufficiently well?
Go in the front of a missile? Advanced planes and armored vehicles are dangerous, but they are fundamentally a lot slower and more easily countered than a nuke. So... a lot.
Having played the game extensively, you can't tell me it's an effective recruiting tool. The first thing you realize when you play the game, is that you get killed. A lot. And reliably so, to the point that even the very best of the best players can't go more than 10 or 15 kills without getting shot.
It's almost certainly not propaganda, because it sites a very specific and verifiable incident (and gives the guys name), but either way, it's harmless. No one's playing a game where they get shot all the time and then deciding they want some of that in the real world. The only reason AA is still around is because the Army is essentially the mother of all bureaucracies, and even useless projects frequently don't get cut.
And as an aside, the medic training in the game IS informative. I now know not to give cold water to people suffering from heatstroke (apparently they can go into shock)....And I know the difference between a BMP and a BTR.
I would argue that it's not. Consider this: altruism (conservation with no personal gain) will not solve our environmental problem by itself. We've got a whole slew of historical evidence to show that humanity at large is simply not that generous. Therefore, the environment will deteriorate to the point that people decide to form treaties and implement carbon taxes, etc, to solve the problem. The point at which they do that is probably pretty stable. Therefore, we are going to reach that point of environmental damage.
So then why bother being overly conservative? All you are doing is allowing other less altruistic people to pollute in your place. Sadly, humanity will not get serious about our pollution problem until it reaches a crisis point. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence to suggest that. Why punish yourself to put off the inevitable and benefit the unscrupulous?
So build a robotic moon base. It would be a good first step, and if it became self-sufficient, it would let us skip the hugely expensive "escape earth's gravitational field" part of lunar exploration, ultimately bringing costs down.
Further, I think advanced robotics is clearly one of those areas that could use some public funding to get through some of the early extremely expensive hard stuff that keeps out large scale private investment. What better (and more exciting) way to do that than with a moon base?
That would be an example right there. I'll give you that as consumers, we are very much the same. But the number and scope of laws that restrict your employers (to give one example) is far larger than in the U.S. Remember, businessmen are people too, and individual freedom is not the only type of freedom. Economic freedom is important too.
That, and although I don't know what nation you're from, I'm betting you can't own a handgun. So we've, uh, got that one on you too.
>>Science is not anti-religion...I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.
You don't see ANYTHING you might be doing that would strike religious people as confrontational? Anything ending in ondensation and starting with a c? I'm not defending anyone's willful ignorance, but you're being disingenuous. You can't walk around telling people that they're more dangerous than al Qaeda and act like that's not an attack. And for what it's worth, science IS anti-religion. It may not have been in Newton's day, when it wasn't obvious that natural laws made omnipotence at best unnecessary, but in the 21st century, science is very much anti-religion. You just can't have any sense of the merit of the scientific method and look at the number of mutually exclusive religions, all with equal supporting evidence (read: none), and not come to the conclusion that the question of "Does God exist?" is totally a wash. We just don't have any information on it. And if you believe that, and someone believes (and moreover lives their lives based on) something else, you are simply and fundamentally at odds, and that's just the end of it.
I don't think your assessment of consistent cultural anti-intellectualism is accurate. I remember watching Forbidden planet a few years ago and noticing that throughout the movie one of the main characters is treated as near-omnipotent simply by dint of being a scientist. My understanding is that this type of theme was commonplace throughout the era.
In any case, I think it comes down to the invention of the pill (the timing is conspicuous too). Once you didn't in any way need to get married to get laid, suddenly the ability to run a good household and win bread, which is strongly dependent on your intelligence, became a lot less important. Not surprisingly, realizing they could now get sex without being capable of heading a family, suddenly a large portion of the population stopped caring about being capable of heading a family. Ergo, education stopped being so compelling. Yes?
And as a final point, I'd like to note the HUGE decline in males bothering with higher education, even though the financial rewards for doing so have gone nowhere but up, and are almost certain to continue doing so. Conspicuous, no?
>>You can't selectively be enforcing what traffic travels without being responsible for all of the rest.
I smell a job for lobbyists. Given their past track record, my money's on AT&T. I mean they wrote many of the laws that govern what they're liable for now, so I suspect this is something they're ready to handle.
Over the short term, you're right about evolution simply favoring the bumper crop of people, but I think if you will look at history, you will notice that (as an example) the Native Americans, although outnumbering most of their aggressors, were nevertheless annihilated because they were technologically deficient. And THAT'S an evolutionary force too.
I think it was actually in 1984 that Orwell pointed out that the only thing that prevents nation states from going insane is that if they do, their more sane competitors would wipe them out (which was why the fact that the three factions were equal in power was such a problem). Anyhow, that's what I mean at the end by some "educating" us.
Fwiw, I wasn't making a negative comment, just pointing something out for the sake of advancing your logic.
And I think even in the case of cakes as commodities, you would still need at least two cakes to have one AND eat one, and I didn't see a second cake. But I digress.
I think you totally misinterpret the intent of those questions. They aren't the asking people to remember to set the "evil bit" if they're going to do something wrong. They're preemptive legal maneuvering against people who are ultimately caught. It's a good move because, 1) authorities can add fraud to the list of crimes committed, and 2) authorities can prove that the law was clear and defendants had been made aware of it. Those are both real benefits, and particularly that second one. So even if the policy comes off as stupid because it's enforced in a somewhat silly and arbitrary bureaucratic manner, it actually (at it's core) isn't.
I disagree. The whole reason we disparage ID has to be because it makes you interact with the world disadvantageously. Otherwise our complaint rests purely on principle (which I don't think it does). Therefore, as people who trust evolution and science a little more, we have a competitive advantage. See where I'm going?
If evolution and science really are better systems than ID and faith, we on the science side should be more productive, and eventually edge out our counterparts. It's evolution in action baby!
So don't complain about ID, just remember that it's wrong, go out and make more money and rise to more influential positions than those who believe in ID, and then because the rich and powerful call the shots, rule in favor of evolution. That's how it's going to end anyway, because that's the only way it does end, so you may as well do it consciously.
Better to prove science works better than faith locally, than wait till some other nation proves it for us, if you get my meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
>>the schools their children attend. Everything
I'm not going to mod you down, but this should be a clue to you that you've probably lost all perspective of right and wrong. You really want to beat up on their kids, who have nothing to do with what their parents are doing, and are, moreover, just kids? Advocating beating up the weak and the helpless --> you are not on the right side of justice.
And you're also godwinning yourself here with "Of a more dire and extreme sort than any in history." I would point out that these guys are hurting innovation, and they're parasites - but that's it. Unless one of them ran over your dog or something, you're out of control. And the people who modded you up need to leave their homes and try to get a basic understanding of what is and what is not worth methodically destroying people and their (uninvolved) loved ones over. Here's a hint to get them started: patent trolling is on the "not" list.
Maybe he gets laid solely from prostitutes. Now the lines are shorter.
>>I feel sorry for you.
Don't be an asshole. Here you are, talking up free speech, and then when someone voices an opinion other than your own, you are condescending. How about just let him voice his opinion, criticize it on its merits, and move on. Being condescending is an attempt to brand someone as weak and pathetic, and it's just as harmful to free debate as shouting someone down. Please don't do it.
I'm tired of diversity meaning "people who look different." Promoting diversity should be about finding people who THINK differently, or have a different background, and whose differences may be of benefit to the group in its (essentially) quest for truth. Diversity as getting a bunch of people together with different skin colors is stupid, and ironically an example of the very racism it's supposed to fight.
MLK didn't say that wherever you are, make sure you have your quota of black people, hispanics and asians. He said be color blind. I think it's time more people took that to heart.
They are investing in new refineries. IF you're asking why they haven't built any yet, the answer is that the construction timeline is many years. Believe it or not, there are a huge amount of regulations that surround such construction, and once you're through all that (and the larger planning), you actually have to build the damn thing. It doesn't just take 1 or 2 years. And I'd also remind you that American oil companies only control a small portion of the global market, and there are plenty of other actors, like state-owned oil companies, that need not play by the same rules as others. And also recall that Exxon is greedy. It wants to make even MORE money by producing more oil (it is not a monopoly), and to the extent it doesn't, it is because it can't. And the refinery thing is somewhat misleading - a large portion of the current price of oil is due to speculation based on expectations of further ME conflict. Anyhow, my greater point would be that oil companies are not a monopoly, there is no conspiracy, and although they are making a whole pile of money right now, because they are not monopolies, they would be making more money if they could increase their output, so trust me that they are trying to do that. There are simply more obstacles than are always obvious to the layman.
How would any except the second amendment play into this? Obviously they would no longer be upheld in the instance of extreme governmental tyranny, so how would their having been around previously be of benefit to the revolutionaries? I don't have the time to go through the federalist papers to decisively prove it, but your argument is not borne out by the effects of the amendments, nor by the rationales written by their architects. The ability to successfully revolt may have been a large rationale behind the second amendment (in addition to the fact that, if you will recall, a large amount of American land was frontier space and subject to attack by the natives), but it was NOT the rationale behind the rest of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson wrote that we needed the Bill of Rights to specifically enumerate limitations on government power, to ensure there were very clear forbidden zones; he did not write that we needed them to fight the next revolution. He just didn't.
Outlawing forced quartering of soldiers != protecting against the instances when they start to do it anyway. That's just not whats going on.
I don't mean to be rude, but get a clue. Yes, if you build more roads (or release larger line), more people will use them. BUT THEN THEY GET TO USE THEM. Motorists gain from being able to drive when it used to be too unpleasant, and internet users gain from being able to download larger files. This is called progress. Or would you prefer we never build another grocery store or theme park, because hey, people are just going to wind up using them?
Please take an economics course or two. You may really enjoy it, and you're likely to find it very informative.
Cheers.
>>The problem is that consumers just accept this. They'll complain, but they keep right on paying these companies.
This isn't actually accurate. The higher prices do drive away consumers, just not enough to offset the higher profits that the cellphone companies earn by charging uncompetitive prices - this is monopoly economics 101. The consumers who do keep paying despite being charged more than they would be if the cellphone companies were actually competing with each other do so because cellphones are so desirable to them that they are still better off being overcharged than being without a cellphone. That may be obvious, but it's important because it reminds us that your average consumer isn't a hero, and they aren't going to "vote with their feet" if that entails them staying home. So don't look to consumers to solve this.
The only way the U.S. cellphone markets (and cable and satellite markets too) are going to become more consumer friendly is when the FCC provides a way for more firms to get into the market and compete for customers. Until then, we're just going to keep getting boned.
I'll give you the RIAA, but oil companies? What's the changing market demand? For more oil? I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle that. You do see the difference, right? Where as the core product of the Recording Industry is small plastic disks, which people are wanting LESS of, the core product of oil companies is oil, which people are wanting MORE of.
So short Exxon if you want, but I don't think it would be a good bet. At least not until alternate power sources are commercially competitive, and that won't be for years. And even then, there will still be a huge demand for oil because it's used as the precursor to so many different chemicals, and used in so many different products (hence petroleum products). You are totally off the mark on that one.
I'm pretty sure they see their shareholders as their owners, not their customers. Do you know what a customer is? It's a person you sell things to. Do you know what an owner is? It's the person you are running the company on behalf of. So my advice to you is: get a clue.
And skip the "corporatocracy" nonsense. All you're seeing is a monopolistic market, where the monopoly in question raises prices and lowers output in order to pad their profits because there is no one to undercut them when they do. It's basic economics 101, you don't need any tin foil for it, and it's hardly some new development.
But fundamentally the computer is still just pretending. You're right that I don't know that all humans (myself excepted) aren't, in essence, moist robots. But what you're suggesting is that whereas the computers we have now don't feel anything, if we program them to pretend that they do, suddenly those feelings may (will?) become real. I don't find that compelling.
It's obviously well into the realm of metaphysics, because I can't perceive any feelings directly other than my own, but like I said, the idea that the computers we have now are unthinking pieces of metal and silicon, and then at some point would stop being so (coincidentally at the point when we've programed them to try to convince us OF THAT VERY FACT), it seems to be low on credibility. I mean if you're going to pick such an arbitrary litmus for feelings, why not pick cells and decide that trees feel, or atoms and decide that everything does.
I guess that's really my point. Why would the litmus be whether it acted like it were feeling, since we already know we are capable of making devices that did a good job pretending. Would you think a dead person began feeling again if we were to design a method of them pretending sufficiently well?
Go in the front of a missile? Advanced planes and armored vehicles are dangerous, but they are fundamentally a lot slower and more easily countered than a nuke. So... a lot.
Having played the game extensively, you can't tell me it's an effective recruiting tool. The first thing you realize when you play the game, is that you get killed. A lot. And reliably so, to the point that even the very best of the best players can't go more than 10 or 15 kills without getting shot.
...And I know the difference between a BMP and a BTR.
It's almost certainly not propaganda, because it sites a very specific and verifiable incident (and gives the guys name), but either way, it's harmless. No one's playing a game where they get shot all the time and then deciding they want some of that in the real world. The only reason AA is still around is because the Army is essentially the mother of all bureaucracies, and even useless projects frequently don't get cut.
And as an aside, the medic training in the game IS informative. I now know not to give cold water to people suffering from heatstroke (apparently they can go into shock).
And it needs to be emphasized that you can't give robots feelings; you can only make them PRETEND to have feelings.
Will robots ever love? Yes, as far as YOU know.
I would argue that it's not. Consider this: altruism (conservation with no personal gain) will not solve our environmental problem by itself. We've got a whole slew of historical evidence to show that humanity at large is simply not that generous. Therefore, the environment will deteriorate to the point that people decide to form treaties and implement carbon taxes, etc, to solve the problem. The point at which they do that is probably pretty stable. Therefore, we are going to reach that point of environmental damage.
So then why bother being overly conservative? All you are doing is allowing other less altruistic people to pollute in your place. Sadly, humanity will not get serious about our pollution problem until it reaches a crisis point. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence to suggest that. Why punish yourself to put off the inevitable and benefit the unscrupulous?
>>2: The reduced MTBF is lower than your company intends to keep the asset.
This is wrong. That M stands for mean, and many machines obviously fail before their MTBF. So only 1. and 3. need to be true.
So build a robotic moon base. It would be a good first step, and if it became self-sufficient, it would let us skip the hugely expensive "escape earth's gravitational field" part of lunar exploration, ultimately bringing costs down.
Further, I think advanced robotics is clearly one of those areas that could use some public funding to get through some of the early extremely expensive hard stuff that keeps out large scale private investment. What better (and more exciting) way to do that than with a moon base?
>>cannot be penalized if I refuse to do overtime.
That would be an example right there. I'll give you that as consumers, we are very much the same. But the number and scope of laws that restrict your employers (to give one example) is far larger than in the U.S. Remember, businessmen are people too, and individual freedom is not the only type of freedom. Economic freedom is important too.
That, and although I don't know what nation you're from, I'm betting you can't own a handgun. So we've, uh, got that one on you too.
>>Science is not anti-religion...I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.
You don't see ANYTHING you might be doing that would strike religious people as confrontational? Anything ending in ondensation and starting with a c? I'm not defending anyone's willful ignorance, but you're being disingenuous. You can't walk around telling people that they're more dangerous than al Qaeda and act like that's not an attack. And for what it's worth, science IS anti-religion. It may not have been in Newton's day, when it wasn't obvious that natural laws made omnipotence at best unnecessary, but in the 21st century, science is very much anti-religion. You just can't have any sense of the merit of the scientific method and look at the number of mutually exclusive religions, all with equal supporting evidence (read: none), and not come to the conclusion that the question of "Does God exist?" is totally a wash. We just don't have any information on it. And if you believe that, and someone believes (and moreover lives their lives based on) something else, you are simply and fundamentally at odds, and that's just the end of it.
I don't think your assessment of consistent cultural anti-intellectualism is accurate. I remember watching Forbidden planet a few years ago and noticing that throughout the movie one of the main characters is treated as near-omnipotent simply by dint of being a scientist. My understanding is that this type of theme was commonplace throughout the era.
In any case, I think it comes down to the invention of the pill (the timing is conspicuous too). Once you didn't in any way need to get married to get laid, suddenly the ability to run a good household and win bread, which is strongly dependent on your intelligence, became a lot less important. Not surprisingly, realizing they could now get sex without being capable of heading a family, suddenly a large portion of the population stopped caring about being capable of heading a family. Ergo, education stopped being so compelling. Yes?
And as a final point, I'd like to note the HUGE decline in males bothering with higher education, even though the financial rewards for doing so have gone nowhere but up, and are almost certain to continue doing so. Conspicuous, no?
>>You can't selectively be enforcing what traffic travels without being responsible for all of the rest.
I smell a job for lobbyists. Given their past track record, my money's on AT&T. I mean they wrote many of the laws that govern what they're liable for now, so I suspect this is something they're ready to handle.
Over the short term, you're right about evolution simply favoring the bumper crop of people, but I think if you will look at history, you will notice that (as an example) the Native Americans, although outnumbering most of their aggressors, were nevertheless annihilated because they were technologically deficient. And THAT'S an evolutionary force too.
I think it was actually in 1984 that Orwell pointed out that the only thing that prevents nation states from going insane is that if they do, their more sane competitors would wipe them out (which was why the fact that the three factions were equal in power was such a problem). Anyhow, that's what I mean at the end by some "educating" us.
Fwiw, I wasn't making a negative comment, just pointing something out for the sake of advancing your logic.
And I think even in the case of cakes as commodities, you would still need at least two cakes to have one AND eat one, and I didn't see a second cake. But I digress.
I think you totally misinterpret the intent of those questions. They aren't the asking people to remember to set the "evil bit" if they're going to do something wrong. They're preemptive legal maneuvering against people who are ultimately caught. It's a good move because, 1) authorities can add fraud to the list of crimes committed, and 2) authorities can prove that the law was clear and defendants had been made aware of it. Those are both real benefits, and particularly that second one. So even if the policy comes off as stupid because it's enforced in a somewhat silly and arbitrary bureaucratic manner, it actually (at it's core) isn't.
I disagree. The whole reason we disparage ID has to be because it makes you interact with the world disadvantageously. Otherwise our complaint rests purely on principle (which I don't think it does). Therefore, as people who trust evolution and science a little more, we have a competitive advantage. See where I'm going?
If evolution and science really are better systems than ID and faith, we on the science side should be more productive, and eventually edge out our counterparts. It's evolution in action baby!
So don't complain about ID, just remember that it's wrong, go out and make more money and rise to more influential positions than those who believe in ID, and then because the rich and powerful call the shots, rule in favor of evolution. That's how it's going to end anyway, because that's the only way it does end, so you may as well do it consciously.
Better to prove science works better than faith locally, than wait till some other nation proves it for us, if you get my meaning.