I'm not going to bother responding to the retarded troll post above, but I thought this would be an appropriate place to note that this is yet another example of why it is very bad to let an industry co-opt or corrupt its regulators. Until we come up with a workable solution for regulatory capture, we're going to keep seeing crap like this and all those banking scandals that nobody could be bothered to seriously investigate. How can the government regulate them when they're simultaneously depending on those industries to write the regulations, and even to help enforce them?
Any time a monetary fine is suggested at all, there's something terribly wrong with the picture. Nobody can logically explain why it's okay to take someone's money when it isn't okay to take someones money.
It's about justice. No, killing the criminal doesn't bring back the victim. But what would you suggest as punishment? A forced apology? Yes, the death penalty is hypocritical, but not necessarily unjust. Would it be better to put them in prison for life, incurring a significant cost on society? They have already proven that they can not be trusted to live with the rest of us.
Personally, I'm ok with the death penalty in cases where there is undeniable evidence of intentional murder. (30 eye witnesses, etc. Note: DNA evidence on it's own does not qualify) People like that have absolutely no place in society. However, in many (most?) cases, we don't have undeniable evidence, so I would consider the death penalty to be unjust. There have been many cases where people on death row have been exonerated.
While I'm not against the death penalty per se, I'm not ok with it as it is used today, especially in my home state of Texas. I don't trust our legal system enough to want it to have that sort of power. There are far too many problems with it for it to be the final arbiter of life and death for anyone. Look at the case in Texas right now. As soon as there's evidence that someone may have been wrongfully executed, the governor goes into full cover-up mode and does whatever he can to derail the investigation. Just more evidence that the system can't be trusted.
If we are going to get time travel out of it we would already be neck deep in time travelers and it would be impossible to get tickets to the world cup. Neither of those things is happening so this result will not give us time travel.
Perhaps we're already knee deep in them and don't even know it. They're probably really good at creating identities for themselves, and if they ever fuck up, they could go back and fix it. Or perhaps this period in time is considered to be a pretty shitty time to come back to, so they don't bother?
I'd say the answer is more transparency and accountability for the police. No more of this bullshit about not videoing police. They record us, we should be able to record them, after all, they're obeying the law, right? They don't have anything to hide.
That would help in this particular case, although it wouldn't eliminate the problem - you'd be treating the symptoms rather than the root cause.
Ensuring that corrupt and abusive cops are discovered and held accountable would go a long way toward repairing the sense of distrust and the view that the police are unwilling to hold their own people accountable for their actions. That seems to me to get to the heart of the issue.
Just in case, I think the government should dispatch a few archeologists and experts on Mayan religion and culture to determine if the Maya were aware of or could track sunspots and magnetic solar storms, solar minimum and maximum, etc.
And what would they have known about such things that we don't know now? What could they predict about the effects such an event would have on the electronics and computer systems of today? If they find illustrations of an iPad in some temple, then maybe I'll start taking you more seriously...
Since when have teenagers ever NOT done stupid, dangerous things with cars? They talk like this is something new. From the stories I've heard from my dad and my uncles, they did some things 40 years ago that even teens today would probably think were really insane.
Normally I would also be one to throw up the correlation != causation flag, but in this case, I'm leaning towards actually believing that there is a causal effect. I know that when I play video online games, the swearing rubs off on me and I curse like crazy for the next day or two (or, when I still played WoW, the next year and a half). I know that after I played Burnout or Need for Speed, I was harder on the accelerator and more likely to change lanes instead of slow down when approaching a car in front of me.
Of course, this is one person's anecdotal evidence, but when it corroborates the findings of a study, I find it hard to dismiss. This would be relatively easy to actually experiment on, though. Just take a random sample of teenagers who can drive, give them a random task to perform for an hour, including, but not limited to, playing racing games, then put them in the driver's seat on a controlled course. If the ones that played racing games complete the course faster or more recklessly than the ones who played other types of games, then you can demonstrate causation, if not, then you can't.
Actually that wouldn't show causation at all, because you've put them on a controlled course where pretty much anyone with an interest in driving would want to experiment. After all, that's what a controlled course is best for!
I know it's just a few of the law enforcement officers I need to worry about and it may be flawed logic, but I really do not give a shit.
Of course; irrational people cling to irrational beliefs/fears. You're not telling me anything I don't know. The real question is how do we go about changing that. The fact that it's happening on slashdot tends to suggest that education isn't a sure fix.
I'd say the answer is more transparency and accountability for the police. No more of this bullshit about not videoing police. They record us, we should be able to record them, after all, they're obeying the law, right? They don't have anything to hide.
If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.
Would you really go through all that trouble of getting a lawyer and pressing charges and bringing suits if it were a $20 book? If so, you're probably going to be in the minority.
This is why we're seeing these corporate "micro-crimes" where you get cheated out of $1, $5, $10 or much more. Whether it's something you bought that doesn't work and isn't worth the trouble of returning or a $50 game for which there was no demo that turns out to be garbage or unplayable. Most people just suck it up and move along, which is what the corporation is counting on. You say "I'll never buy from them again" but you do, you always do. Because if you have a Kindle, you're kind of stuck regarding where you can buy your books. If you have an iPhone, you're absolutely stuck as to where you buy your apps. In most American cities, you're stuck as to where you get your broadband.
So I disagree when you say "this shit wouldn't fly" because it's flying all over the place right now.
Hell yes I'd press charges! To take a hard copy book, they'd have to first, know that I'm the owner of the book. Then they have to either break into my home, or mug me, most likely among other crimes as well. Now multiply that by all the people that they want to repossess books from. See how that shit wouldn't fly now?
Of course with electronic books in a system like Apple's, it's much easier, because the customer doesn't have a tangible copy, nor do they have full control over the device they purchased from Apple. So Apple has the control and can easily take back any electronic item they sell. As you say, people don't seem to make too much of an issue of it. I would, but I guess that's why I don't own an iPhone or iPad.
Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.
If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.
Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA.
Different types of shoreline, different shapes, require different configurations. Your numerous anchor points (for this spill those would be 1-yard cement blocks with tie-off buoys) need to be chosen so the boom-tenders (you) can adjust the ropes, slanting the booms this way and that to account for changes in wind and current. Booms are tended 24/7, by the way.
You divert to a catch basin. You are not building the fucking Great Wall of China. You are diverting oil so you can then drain it out.
So even if the feds had given them all the boom in the world, they still would have fucked up the deployment and made it all worthless anyway.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
So if one woman can produce a baby in 9 months, 9 women could make a baby in 1 month? Maybe if you only pay them enough?
Having money helps, but there's still a limit on how fast things can happen. Really, to make a significant contribution to cleanup, there would need to be reasonable production (if not relatively large stockpiles) two months ago. You know, before the oil was coming ashore to wetlands and islands.
This is not at all like making babies. There are plenty of factories that specialize in manufacturing specially coated cloth. They could have one or more reconfigured and producing this stuff quickly if they offer enough money. Of course it won't fix the damage that's already been done, but it could prevent even more from being done. That's about the best we can hope for right now.
I didn't mention this before because I figured there was a problem with this but it occurred to me if they had a set of wide rollers they could attach rugs or such to a wide belt of some sort that could be attached to the front of a ship and the belt would rotate out into the water, collecting oil and pass through a couple rollers that would squeeze most of the oil out, and that part would pass back into the water to lap up more oil. The oil collected could then be processed and used. I figure I might as well mention it now, though I have doubts it would really work, but who knows. I don't.
Lol. They'd have a bunch of belt-sander looking ships running around the gulf. I like it:)
Instead of trying to push the oil around or filter it out of the water, the primary use of this cloth could be to stop more oil form leaking form the pipe. Simply wrap the pipe and damaged area in the cloth, and the oil won't be going anywhere, allowing for other clean-up measures to filter out the oil.
Wrap it how? How would you deal with the immense pressure from the oil coming out of the pipe? Best I could see them doing with this would be to create a sort of tube of this stuff to funnel the oil up to tankers.
according to TFS you coat a common cloth with a particular chemical... sounds ready made to me.
Easily-made is not the same as already made. How many thousands (or millions?) of square feet do you think are needed? How long do you think it would take to make that much by hand? How long do you think it would take to retool a production line to start producing it?
I can conceivably see this being deployed while we are still dealing with the aftermath, but it is definitely too late for most of the areas that really could have benefitted from this. It will be a token contribution for this spill, nothing significant.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
Good to know. But whether they've written products from scratch or assimilated them (which is how Microsoft got big), they've done this:
Search with pagerank
Translate
Images search
Maps with driving directions
Satellite View
StreetView
News
Froogle
Google Video + bought YouTube
Gmail
Books
Google FastFlip ("Reader"?)
Android
Chrome browser (I'm using now, it's the fastest at loading Slashdot comments)
ChromeOS
They are doing everything a software company should do, which is to write or collect all the software they could ever want. If I ran the company myself, I wouldn't do much different.
Lots of good stuff there. I'm liking Google Goggles a lot too.
I'm with you all the way on this, but you have to admit that this new iPhone is not only going to be enormously popular, but is also a really good device. It's just a different 'good' than your Nexus One.
It's only a "different good" if you don't mind all those issues that were listed. If you do, then the iPhone may be impressive hardware-wise, but it's not a "different good", it's "less good".
Of course not, because while Europeans (I'm guessing the GP is of EU descent) consider themselves part of a diverse multi-spanning society worthy of individual judgement, many refuse to look at the United States as a union of fifty separate states, equal in territory and with over half the population.
On the other hand, we do have Texas, and it's hard to get over that criticism.
Well, I happen to live in Texas, and while I can't really defend the government and the kooks here, I can say that at least we aren't South Carolina!:)
Hm, looking at the worldwide map, much of the US doesn't have electricity (much less healthcare?) either...
Ever notice the difference between having no electricity throughout nearly the entire country, which happens to be smaller than many US states, and having stretches of land where nobody lives in a one of the largest countries in the world?
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life.
Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.
The fact that people misuse words doesn't change the definition of evolution.
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.
My point was that the process operates regardless of whether any given individual has an advantage or not. Even those with no advantage, or even a disadvantage can survive to procreate. Chance is a component, but the process isn't not random, as it is continually refining the population towards fitness for its environment.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.
Case one is an ignorant person who doesn't understand the theory of evolution. Case two depends on what version of ID you're talking about. Plenty of creationists define it as a replacement for evolution. If they use it that way, they're completely ignorant and there's likely not much you can do but point out that fact and move on. We see this a lot with those folks that want to "teach the controversy" between ID and evolution.
If they use the definition that you seem to be talking about, referring to the origin of life, then there's a different argument. ID is still not a scientific theory, so it contributes nothing to science. As an explanation for the origin of life, it doesn't actually explain anything. It's simply an assertion backed by nothing, so what's the point? At least the scientific theories around the origin of life base themselves on what we know about the basic structures of life and how they form. We haven't figured out all the details that go into creating life, but we're getting a lot closer to figuring out how it can be built "from scratch", so to speak. The scientific theories have at least got something to support them. They may never know with any high level of certainty how life actually formed, but we'll likely know of at least one possible way that it could have formed. That's more useful than anything that will ever be learned from ID, because ID is just unsupported speculation.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to bother responding to the retarded troll post above, but I thought this would be an appropriate place to note that this is yet another example of why it is very bad to let an industry co-opt or corrupt its regulators. Until we come up with a workable solution for regulatory capture, we're going to keep seeing crap like this and all those banking scandals that nobody could be bothered to seriously investigate. How can the government regulate them when they're simultaneously depending on those industries to write the regulations, and even to help enforce them?
This describes my beliefs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
You might consider it in your search.
That's a rather bizarre belief. Any particular reason someone would want to adhere to it?
Any time a monetary fine is suggested at all, there's something terribly wrong with the picture. Nobody can logically explain why it's okay to take someone's money when it isn't okay to take someones money. It's about justice. No, killing the criminal doesn't bring back the victim. But what would you suggest as punishment? A forced apology? Yes, the death penalty is hypocritical, but not necessarily unjust. Would it be better to put them in prison for life, incurring a significant cost on society? They have already proven that they can not be trusted to live with the rest of us. Personally, I'm ok with the death penalty in cases where there is undeniable evidence of intentional murder. (30 eye witnesses, etc. Note: DNA evidence on it's own does not qualify) People like that have absolutely no place in society. However, in many (most?) cases, we don't have undeniable evidence, so I would consider the death penalty to be unjust. There have been many cases where people on death row have been exonerated.
While I'm not against the death penalty per se, I'm not ok with it as it is used today, especially in my home state of Texas. I don't trust our legal system enough to want it to have that sort of power. There are far too many problems with it for it to be the final arbiter of life and death for anyone. Look at the case in Texas right now. As soon as there's evidence that someone may have been wrongfully executed, the governor goes into full cover-up mode and does whatever he can to derail the investigation. Just more evidence that the system can't be trusted.
If we are going to get time travel out of it we would already be neck deep in time travelers and it would be impossible to get tickets to the world cup. Neither of those things is happening so this result will not give us time travel.
Perhaps we're already knee deep in them and don't even know it. They're probably really good at creating identities for themselves, and if they ever fuck up, they could go back and fix it. Or perhaps this period in time is considered to be a pretty shitty time to come back to, so they don't bother?
I'd say the answer is more transparency and accountability for the police. No more of this bullshit about not videoing police. They record us, we should be able to record them, after all, they're obeying the law, right? They don't have anything to hide.
That would help in this particular case, although it wouldn't eliminate the problem - you'd be treating the symptoms rather than the root cause.
Ensuring that corrupt and abusive cops are discovered and held accountable would go a long way toward repairing the sense of distrust and the view that the police are unwilling to hold their own people accountable for their actions. That seems to me to get to the heart of the issue.
Just in case, I think the government should dispatch a few archeologists and experts on Mayan religion and culture to determine if the Maya were aware of or could track sunspots and magnetic solar storms, solar minimum and maximum, etc.
And what would they have known about such things that we don't know now? What could they predict about the effects such an event would have on the electronics and computer systems of today? If they find illustrations of an iPad in some temple, then maybe I'll start taking you more seriously...
Since when have teenagers ever NOT done stupid, dangerous things with cars? They talk like this is something new. From the stories I've heard from my dad and my uncles, they did some things 40 years ago that even teens today would probably think were really insane.
Normally I would also be one to throw up the correlation != causation flag, but in this case, I'm leaning towards actually believing that there is a causal effect. I know that when I play video online games, the swearing rubs off on me and I curse like crazy for the next day or two (or, when I still played WoW, the next year and a half). I know that after I played Burnout or Need for Speed, I was harder on the accelerator and more likely to change lanes instead of slow down when approaching a car in front of me.
Of course, this is one person's anecdotal evidence, but when it corroborates the findings of a study, I find it hard to dismiss. This would be relatively easy to actually experiment on, though. Just take a random sample of teenagers who can drive, give them a random task to perform for an hour, including, but not limited to, playing racing games, then put them in the driver's seat on a controlled course. If the ones that played racing games complete the course faster or more recklessly than the ones who played other types of games, then you can demonstrate causation, if not, then you can't.
Actually that wouldn't show causation at all, because you've put them on a controlled course where pretty much anyone with an interest in driving would want to experiment. After all, that's what a controlled course is best for!
I know it's just a few of the law enforcement officers I need to worry about and it may be flawed logic, but I really do not give a shit.
Of course; irrational people cling to irrational beliefs/fears. You're not telling me anything I don't know. The real question is how do we go about changing that. The fact that it's happening on slashdot tends to suggest that education isn't a sure fix.
I'd say the answer is more transparency and accountability for the police. No more of this bullshit about not videoing police. They record us, we should be able to record them, after all, they're obeying the law, right? They don't have anything to hide.
Would you really go through all that trouble of getting a lawyer and pressing charges and bringing suits if it were a $20 book? If so, you're probably going to be in the minority.
This is why we're seeing these corporate "micro-crimes" where you get cheated out of $1, $5, $10 or much more. Whether it's something you bought that doesn't work and isn't worth the trouble of returning or a $50 game for which there was no demo that turns out to be garbage or unplayable. Most people just suck it up and move along, which is what the corporation is counting on. You say "I'll never buy from them again" but you do, you always do. Because if you have a Kindle, you're kind of stuck regarding where you can buy your books. If you have an iPhone, you're absolutely stuck as to where you buy your apps. In most American cities, you're stuck as to where you get your broadband.
So I disagree when you say "this shit wouldn't fly" because it's flying all over the place right now.
Hell yes I'd press charges! To take a hard copy book, they'd have to first, know that I'm the owner of the book. Then they have to either break into my home, or mug me, most likely among other crimes as well. Now multiply that by all the people that they want to repossess books from. See how that shit wouldn't fly now?
Of course with electronic books in a system like Apple's, it's much easier, because the customer doesn't have a tangible copy, nor do they have full control over the device they purchased from Apple. So Apple has the control and can easily take back any electronic item they sell. As you say, people don't seem to make too much of an issue of it. I would, but I guess that's why I don't own an iPhone or iPad.
Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.
If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.
ahem...
So even if the feds had given them all the boom in the world, they still would have fucked up the deployment and made it all worthless anyway.
This is not at all like making babies.
Aside from the Gulf being fucked anyway. :) Figured I might as well say it since I'm sure others would think it.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
So if one woman can produce a baby in 9 months, 9 women could make a baby in 1 month? Maybe if you only pay them enough?
Having money helps, but there's still a limit on how fast things can happen. Really, to make a significant contribution to cleanup, there would need to be reasonable production (if not relatively large stockpiles) two months ago. You know, before the oil was coming ashore to wetlands and islands.
This is not at all like making babies. There are plenty of factories that specialize in manufacturing specially coated cloth. They could have one or more reconfigured and producing this stuff quickly if they offer enough money. Of course it won't fix the damage that's already been done, but it could prevent even more from being done. That's about the best we can hope for right now.
I didn't mention this before because I figured there was a problem with this but it occurred to me if they had a set of wide rollers they could attach rugs or such to a wide belt of some sort that could be attached to the front of a ship and the belt would rotate out into the water, collecting oil and pass through a couple rollers that would squeeze most of the oil out, and that part would pass back into the water to lap up more oil. The oil collected could then be processed and used. I figure I might as well mention it now, though I have doubts it would really work, but who knows. I don't.
Lol. They'd have a bunch of belt-sander looking ships running around the gulf. I like it :)
Instead of trying to push the oil around or filter it out of the water, the primary use of this cloth could be to stop more oil form leaking form the pipe. Simply wrap the pipe and damaged area in the cloth, and the oil won't be going anywhere, allowing for other clean-up measures to filter out the oil.
Wrap it how? How would you deal with the immense pressure from the oil coming out of the pipe? Best I could see them doing with this would be to create a sort of tube of this stuff to funnel the oil up to tankers.
What does this mean for all the sea life that gets pulled into these trawling nets?
That they were probably pretty screwed to begin with? I guess you can just throw them back in.
according to TFS you coat a common cloth with a particular chemical... sounds ready made to me.
Easily-made is not the same as already made. How many thousands (or millions?) of square feet do you think are needed? How long do you think it would take to make that much by hand? How long do you think it would take to retool a production line to start producing it?
I can conceivably see this being deployed while we are still dealing with the aftermath, but it is definitely too late for most of the areas that really could have benefitted from this. It will be a token contribution for this spill, nothing significant.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
Good to know. But whether they've written products from scratch or assimilated them (which is how Microsoft got big), they've done this:
Search with pagerank Translate Images search Maps with driving directions Satellite View StreetView News Froogle Google Video + bought YouTube Gmail Books Google FastFlip ("Reader"?) Android Chrome browser (I'm using now, it's the fastest at loading Slashdot comments) ChromeOS
They are doing everything a software company should do, which is to write or collect all the software they could ever want. If I ran the company myself, I wouldn't do much different.
Lots of good stuff there. I'm liking Google Goggles a lot too.
I'm with you all the way on this, but you have to admit that this new iPhone is not only going to be enormously popular, but is also a really good device. It's just a different 'good' than your Nexus One.
It's only a "different good" if you don't mind all those issues that were listed. If you do, then the iPhone may be impressive hardware-wise, but it's not a "different good", it's "less good".
No harm. :) Between Texas politics and Texans' love of living up to the stereotypes, we pretty much paint the target ourselves.
Although, the thing that pisses off Texans the most... ...cutting Alaska in half would make Texas the 3rd largest state.
Heh... yeah yeah. But unfortunately for them, both halves would still be Alaska :)
Of course not, because while Europeans (I'm guessing the GP is of EU descent) consider themselves part of a diverse multi-spanning society worthy of individual judgement, many refuse to look at the United States as a union of fifty separate states, equal in territory and with over half the population.
On the other hand, we do have Texas, and it's hard to get over that criticism.
Well, I happen to live in Texas, and while I can't really defend the government and the kooks here, I can say that at least we aren't South Carolina! :)
Hm, looking at the worldwide map, much of the US doesn't have electricity (much less healthcare?) either...
Ever notice the difference between having no electricity throughout nearly the entire country, which happens to be smaller than many US states, and having stretches of land where nobody lives in a one of the largest countries in the world?
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life.
Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.
The fact that people misuse words doesn't change the definition of evolution.
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.
My point was that the process operates regardless of whether any given individual has an advantage or not. Even those with no advantage, or even a disadvantage can survive to procreate. Chance is a component, but the process isn't not random, as it is continually refining the population towards fitness for its environment.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.
Case one is an ignorant person who doesn't understand the theory of evolution. Case two depends on what version of ID you're talking about. Plenty of creationists define it as a replacement for evolution. If they use it that way, they're completely ignorant and there's likely not much you can do but point out that fact and move on. We see this a lot with those folks that want to "teach the controversy" between ID and evolution.
If they use the definition that you seem to be talking about, referring to the origin of life, then there's a different argument. ID is still not a scientific theory, so it contributes nothing to science. As an explanation for the origin of life, it doesn't actually explain anything. It's simply an assertion backed by nothing, so what's the point? At least the scientific theories around the origin of life base themselves on what we know about the basic structures of life and how they form. We haven't figured out all the details that go into creating life, but we're getting a lot closer to figuring out how it can be built "from scratch", so to speak. The scientific theories have at least got something to support them. They may never know with any high level of certainty how life actually formed, but we'll likely know of at least one possible way that it could have formed. That's more useful than anything that will ever be learned from ID, because ID is just unsupported speculation.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?