If they do, they didn't bother letting other parts of the OS team know about it, or the law enforcement agencies that would be looking into was around it; probably at the request of the DOD and other government agencies that wanted to be able to use it without worrying about something as obvious to exploit as a back door.
And nothing (except system speed) stops you from installing truecrypt on top of bitlocker if you really want to be paranoid.
Over 50 percent of the content on TechTV in the year before the merger was original content.
They rebroadcast a couple of the shows more than once a day, but the shows themselves like Call for Help. The Screen Savers, and TechLive in general had newly recorded shows on four out of five working days per week. Other shows like X-Play, Fresh Gear, and Unscrewed were producing at least one new show a week (equaling regular broadcast TV for those shows) and at thier peaks were doing 1-3 new shows each week.
The remaining contect was repeats of successful past shows, or licenses of (mostly) quality content from other markets that had not been exposes to the majority of TechTV viewers. Shows like Body Hits, Big Thinkers, Invent This, Nerd Nation were an attempt to show quality content that could appear to a wider (but still primarily tech-oriented) audience.
Bulk mail and postcard rates are significantly less than letter rate (37 cents).
Most of the scams (get rich quick schemes and luck spreading chain mails) have moved to email as a cheaper alternative. And many of the other types (mortgage/refinance offers, catalogs, sales flyers) are starting to move that way too.
Redmond (Microsoft) doesn't make the "dull computers". They don't make the computers at all.
The implication of the commercial is that people can now get an Intel chip in a pretty, stylish box. It doesn't even begin to address differences in terms of the OS running on that box.
It is more of a slam against Dell, Gateway, Alienware, Shuttle, and the other varied box makers.
It can also be read as a slap against the Modding community (although I realize that was not meant as a direct insult).
Microsoft's response would probably be to use it to provide more incentive for the "dull computer" makers to start pushing Vista and all its variants (Media PC, Tablet PC, etc) to raise excitement in the PC market.
The box makers for their part, need to point out the diversity of makes and models in the market, and that there are a lot of exciting design ideas out there in the old PC market as well.
RECYCLER is the standard recycle bin created by Windows on NTFS partitions.
It is set to hidden and system attributes by default.
Systemworks may utilize it as a starting point for its own stealth directory, but what you describe has nothing to do with what Norton installs of changes on your machine (You need to look for nprotect).
I think you are mistaken RECYCLER is the standard recycle bin created by Windows on NTFS partitions. <b>
It is set to hidden and system attributes by default.
The scientists who had to scrap the Complicated Earth theory did so because the evidence showed they could not use that theory as a tool to predict the formation of extrasolar planets; thus it was not useful in further research.
Scientists today use evolutionary principles to predict the behavior of viruses, plants, and other small organisms. Thus it remains a useful tool for further scientific study.
I have not seen the movie yet, but I'll have to disagree on a few points from my recollection of the series.
"but their relationship is in no way emotional."
That depends on the situation. The sexual tension between the two characters was kept fairly constant, and romance was certainly possible, but always seemed to take a back burner to Trevor's ambition or Aeon's mission to thwart Trevors plans. Several times Trevor did prove to be doing the right thing under the circumstances, but the circumstances were so strange and alien that you were not always sure what the right thing was supposed to be before the end.
And the series itself was an offshoot of the original animated shorts, which always played out as a sort of homage to the SpyVsSpy segments in MAD magazine.
Both Trevor and Aeon were both left as undefined characters deliberately, IMO, to reflect that the conflicts between them are not always black and white.
My main concern for the movie was that they would try to paint the characters as sterotypical Good Girl/Bad Guy roles. I guess now I have more reason to see it after all.
Porn is already in the mainstream, it has been for several thousand years.
I guess you could consider me an advocate of the.XXX and.SEX TLD ideas, but not in the regard of forcing companies to move to specific domains if they do not want to. Some would argue that it leaves little incentive for the current crop of pron sites to want to move, until you point out that once you establish a TLD specifically for a certain type of commerce, it actually makes it more efficient for business of that type to establish themselves within that plane of reference. The flaw of course is that didn't work out so well for the.net TLD (which was supposed to be for networking/ISP concerns only, to seperate infrastructure companies from their clients).
The bigger problem with this proposal, is that it sets government regulation at the transport layer. And the government does not have a good track record of correcting its position if needed when (not if) it puts a breast cancer support site in the same network category as goatse?
A.XXX site would at least have access to the same level of arbitration that is awarded.COM and.NET disputes.
Believing that Allah created the earth is not bad for science, but I doubt you meant for us to insert Allah, Yahweh, Maya, Ja, Osiris, or Odin in place of G-d in that statement.
It is bad for science when the people that want to believe in _______ as creator start to influence the decision making process surrounding scientific exploration and discovery, not because of the validity of the scientific work or the ethical implications of continuing down certain lines of research; but because they want _______ as creator to have a controlling hand in the process. Or more to the point, they want to have be that controlling hand by proxy, not because they have proven themselves educated or experienced in the field, but because they can claim to be on the side of _______.
"(They must have forgotten about the many great Christian scientists and thinkers throughout history...)"
We have not forgotten, we also remember those great scientists who were persecuted throughout history for having ideas or discoveries that did not jibe with established religous understanding.
The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.
Since we trust the tools used to build the body of evidence in evolution are themselves factual in nature, we can honestly say that we have a number of evolutionary "facts" available that can themselves be used as tools to further the study of evolutionary theory.
Based on that understanding, unless the kids in question are in a special honors course, we can honestly say that what is taught in schools as evolutionary theory is as factually valid as biology, geology, botany, and chemisty to name just a few.
End Simple disclaimer...
SO to answer your question from above: "Are you prepared to state that Evolution is fact?", the answer is YES. I am also prepared to state that there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other "tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that field of science that have yet to be discovered.
If you wish to challenge Evolution as a science, they you must do so by addressing the existing facts about evolution that are supported by testing and verification within other fields of science. Or you have to start challenging those other fields of science as being invalid as tools to use to support evolutionary ideas as fact.
"but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent."
No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it. We have no problem with people wanting to challenge evolution, but the "Intelligent" way to do so is to:
(A) Provide new evidence that causes a re-evaluation of existing facts.
(B) Show where the underlying tools are innaccurate, thus causing a re-evaluation of the conclusions upon which the facts are based.
(C) Show how the conclusions can be changed using other equally valid, or more valid tools; thus causing a re-evaluation...
You will note that none of those sentences addresses evolution specifically. Because the basic structure of science requires that you be able to apply the same thought process to any other field of science as a test.
To do any less would be defined as an unintelligent approach.
"When will you scientists and "scientists" eventually understand that ID advocates are usually not against science."
When will you "ID proponents" and evangelists understand that ID advocates
are very much against "science" because they refuse to play by scientific
"rules" in thier attacks against what they see as flaws in Evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary Theory (not Darwins Theory) has tons of evidence and over a
hundred years of research and observation to back it up.
ID has "We don't agree with the implications we percieve from the evidence
and observations of evolutionary theory, so we want the whole structure thrown
out to make room for our viewpoint"; meanwhile overlooking that the structure
as a whole is based on the solid foundations of several other fields of science
that are not being questioned along with evolutionary theory.
But the real flaw in the arguement:
"What the oposition says is that ID is currently of similar value as Darwin's theory and until any of them is actually proven, none has higher value and shouldn't be taught as fact. "
ID offers no compelling evidence, experimental or thru observation, in support
of its "theory". Plus it does nothing to explain any other conclusions (that
still fit in the framework of known science) that address the existing body
of evidence that has already been gathered thru other fields of science
in support of evolution.
"It is to call back to scientific virtues of proving rather than believing something..."
ID's very foundation is rested on an unproven belief. And so far in the
whole debate, ID has made NO scientifically valid attempt to offer any
"proof" that contradicts evolution.
Before you want to question the value of others beliefs, you need to have
a few answers for your own.
Spyware? Yes, it hides in your systen and checks on your activites and what other programs you have lauched are doing.
Malware? Probably, while it does not attempt to damage the system in and of itself, it does use additional resources unnecessarily; which can affect other applications like virus scanners and distributed computing projects. And it has been shown to leave the computer in a vulnerable state, and can even affect system stability if it is not removed properly.
Trojan Horse? Unlikely, although it is a hidden payload, you are supposedly given token notice of it in the form of the EULA. EULAs notwithstanding, you should be allowed to find out what is being installed before you agree to that happening.
Virus? No. It doesn't attempt to propogate itself thru the system or to other systems, it does not attempt to modify other system files or executables (without permission); and it is not specifically designed to expose vulnerabilities in the system, to damage the system files or data, or to utilize the system for some other (possibly illegal) purpose.
IANAL either... While the XCP software can probably be argued as a form of malware, I think Sony lawyers would be able to mount an effective enough defense against claiming it as a virus that it would not be worth attempting a lawsuit.
Raising awareness, and leaving it in the court of public opinion could be just as effective a form of litigation under the circumstances.
Fair enough, let the label raise the price of the CD, and claim it as a software title. Then me, you, and every other computer user can legally review it as a piece of software:
"So I purchased this game called...
the soundtrack is pretty good, but the gaming experience frankly, sucked.
All it really seemed to do was let me hide a few files from prying eyes.
Then I went an purchased (with my hard earned money)...
Again the soundtrack was decent, and the kind of stuff I would buy on a CD all by itself if I could; but would you believe they put an almost exact version of the same game as before? It wouldn't even install because it saw another version already on the system. It did patch a couple of files so it could send information back to the home office more efficiently, but that is not what I'd call "online play".
Between the lackluster performance of the first title, and what basically amounted to me buying a service pack on the second, I really cannot recommend this "rootkitter" gaming series. I've contacted the company to see if they might consider releasing the soundtrack as a music CD instead.
I also asked if they had plans on improving gameplay for the Linux port, but they don't seem to know about alternative OSes at all. "
The keyboard that you typed that question on is a product of science. The screen that displays your question, my reply, and the comments of thousands of other people... is a product of science.
The Internet connection... the servers that Slashdot runs on, the HTML formatting... etc, etc. all come from various scientific discoveries or developments based on an understandig of science.
Just an immediate example of the relationship you have with science. It may not be as personal as your relationship with God, but the relationship is very much there in ways you seem to take for granted.
Your position is not Anti-Science, but the determination of some people to have God smite ideas they are personally not comfortable with is.
Dogma is what religions produce, the static belief that X must be true because the
powers that be tell you it is true.
People are not starting to question it, the purpose of science has been to question
it all along. And so far, it has stood up to scientific analysis, which is why
it is considered valid enough to be true.
"evolution as the reson we are here is not proven"
Evolution has nothing to do with questioning the reason we are here,
it is asking the much simpler question: "How did we get here". It attempts
to answer that question by looking are where we (animals) came from, and where
they are now.
Tell that to all the creationists that are pushing for intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution, without also requiring the rigors of scientific review.
...you are correct. The mod that was created does not represent the game that Mr. Thompson actually described to be built.
However, Jack Thompson's reaction is the most telling part of this. As I understand it, instead of doing as you have done, and logically pointing out the flaws in the comparisonbetween his design specs and what was created; he is backpedalling and saying that his original proposal was meant to be satire. Thereby giving tacit acceptance that the mod created indeed does live up to his goal.
i.e. He could have just as easily said: "Sorry, that doesn't live up to the game idea I outlined earlier"
By not saying that, he undermines his own arguement, by giving the impression that he was BSing all along.
All religions and philosophies expect a person to be willing to examine and modify thier lifestyle in order to achieve some higher level of enlightenment.
But most religions do not expect you to pay your way to paradise in cash. Or to have to pay to gain the teachings of the faithful.
In fact, much like Open Source, most religions are perfectly happy with giving away their teachings to anyone interested in learning more.
Also like Open Source, it can be open for abuse by those who do not accurately apply what they have learned, or attempt to modify what is available in less beneficial ways.
Not all distributions of Religion expect you to act, Love, or Hate in the same way. Some want you to abide by thier CodeBase, and reject strange and unusual package management tools. Others allow you to roll your own, and encourage the expression of ideas and exploration into new areas of application. And some are based on a foundation of mutual trust and respect, with the goal of being totally free and beneficial to all who come to build on the community.
Blindly challenging everything is not belief, it is a lack of Scientific Detachment.
Slashdot Mirror
If they do, they didn't bother letting other parts of the OS team know about it, or the law enforcement agencies that would be looking into was around it; probably at the request of the DOD and other government agencies that wanted to be able to use it without worrying about something as obvious to exploit as a back door.
And nothing (except system speed) stops you from installing truecrypt on top of bitlocker if you
really want to be paranoid.
Over 50 percent of the content on TechTV in the year before the merger was original content.
They rebroadcast a couple of the shows more than once a day, but the shows themselves like Call for Help.
The Screen Savers, and TechLive in general had newly recorded shows on four out of five working days per week. Other shows like X-Play, Fresh Gear, and Unscrewed were producing at least one new show a week
(equaling regular broadcast TV for those shows) and at thier peaks were doing 1-3 new shows each week.
The remaining contect was repeats of successful past shows, or licenses of (mostly) quality content from
other markets that had not been exposes to the majority of TechTV viewers. Shows like Body Hits, Big Thinkers, Invent This, Nerd Nation were an attempt to show quality content that could appear to a wider
(but still primarily tech-oriented) audience.
Tivo does do HD. Or at least Tivo can work with Cox to offer a box that does everything your current DVR does, with Tivo functionality on top.
No, I could have bought a socket 754 system instead.
Bulk mail and postcard rates are significantly less than letter rate
(37 cents).
Most of the scams (get rich quick schemes and luck spreading chain mails)
have moved to email as a cheaper alternative. And many of the other
types (mortgage/refinance offers, catalogs, sales flyers) are starting
to move that way too.
Redmond (Microsoft) doesn't make the "dull computers". They don't make
the computers at all.
The implication of the commercial is that people can now get an Intel chip
in a pretty, stylish box. It doesn't even begin to address differences in
terms of the OS running on that box.
It is more of a slam against Dell, Gateway, Alienware, Shuttle, and the
other varied box makers.
It can also be read as a slap against the Modding community
(although I realize that was not meant as a direct insult).
Microsoft's response would probably be to use it to provide more incentive
for the "dull computer" makers to start pushing Vista and all its variants
(Media PC, Tablet PC, etc) to raise excitement in the PC market.
The box makers for their part, need to point out the diversity of makes
and models in the market, and that there are a lot of exciting design
ideas out there in the old PC market as well.
"I'm not at a Windows machine right now, so I can't verify whether Wordpad supports WMF. but I strongly suspect it does."
I just checked Wordpad here, no obvious support of WMF in the File Open
dialog, and no mention of the file type in help.
I then searched my system for any wmf files I might have, and found one
graphic I had made a while back and saved as WMF.
Neither Wordpad nor Word will recognize the file dropped onto an
empty document, or dropped directly onto the apps to open as a file.
Actually IIRC, Vista has the same core as Server 2003.
I think you are mistaken.
RECYCLER is the standard recycle bin created by Windows on NTFS partitions.
It is set to hidden and system attributes by default.
Systemworks may utilize it as a starting point for its own stealth directory,
but what you describe has nothing to do with what Norton installs of changes
on your machine (You need to look for nprotect).
I think you are mistaken
RECYCLER is the standard recycle bin created by Windows on NTFS partitions. <b>
It is set to hidden and system attributes by default.
No, not really.
The scientists who had to scrap the Complicated Earth theory did so because the
evidence showed they could not use that theory as a tool to predict the formation
of extrasolar planets; thus it was not useful in further research.
Scientists today use evolutionary principles to predict the behavior of viruses,
plants, and other small organisms. Thus it remains a useful tool for further
scientific study.
I have not seen the movie yet, but I'll have to disagree on a few points from
my recollection of the series.
"but their relationship is in no way emotional."
That depends on the situation. The sexual tension between the two characters
was kept fairly constant, and romance was certainly possible, but always seemed
to take a back burner to Trevor's ambition or Aeon's mission to thwart Trevors plans.
Several times Trevor did prove to be doing the right thing under the
circumstances, but the circumstances were so strange and alien that
you were not always sure what the right thing was supposed to be before
the end.
And the series itself was an offshoot of the original animated shorts, which
always played out as a sort of homage to the SpyVsSpy segments in MAD magazine.
Both Trevor and Aeon were both left as undefined characters deliberately, IMO,
to reflect that the conflicts between them are not always black and white.
My main concern for the movie was that they would try to paint the characters
as sterotypical Good Girl/Bad Guy roles. I guess now I have more reason to
see it after all.
Porn is already in the mainstream, it has been for several thousand years.
.XXX and .SEX TLD ideas, but .net TLD (which was supposed to be for networking/ISP
.XXX site would at least have access to the same level of arbitration that .COM and .NET disputes.
I guess you could consider me an advocate of the
not in the regard of forcing companies to move to specific domains if they
do not want to.
Some would argue that it leaves little incentive for the current crop of
pron sites to want to move, until you point out that once you establish
a TLD specifically for a certain type of commerce, it actually makes it
more efficient for business of that type to establish themselves within
that plane of reference. The flaw of course is that didn't work out
so well for the
concerns only, to seperate infrastructure companies from their clients).
The bigger problem with this proposal, is that it sets government regulation
at the transport layer. And the government does not have a good track record
of correcting its position if needed when (not if) it puts a breast cancer
support site in the same network category as goatse?
A
is awarded
Believing that Allah created the earth is not bad for science, but I doubt
you meant for us to insert Allah, Yahweh, Maya, Ja, Osiris, or Odin in place
of G-d in that statement.
It is bad for science when the people that want to believe in _______ as
creator start to influence the decision making process surrounding scientific
exploration and discovery, not because of the validity of the scientific work
or the ethical implications of continuing down certain lines of research; but
because they want _______ as creator to have a controlling hand in the process.
Or more to the point, they want to have be that controlling hand by proxy, not
because they have proven themselves educated or experienced in the field, but
because they can claim to be on the side of _______.
"(They must have forgotten about the many great Christian scientists and thinkers throughout history...)"
We have not forgotten, we also remember those great scientists who were
persecuted throughout history for having ideas or discoveries that did not
jibe with established religous understanding.
Simple dislaimer:
The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools
made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those
other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times
to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.
Since we trust the tools used to build the body of evidence in evolution
are themselves factual in nature, we can honestly say that we have a
number of evolutionary "facts" available that can themselves be used as
tools to further the study of evolutionary theory.
Based on that understanding, unless the kids in question are in a special
honors course, we can honestly say that what is taught in schools as
evolutionary theory is as factually valid as biology, geology, botany,
and chemisty to name just a few.
End Simple disclaimer...
SO to answer your question from above: "Are you prepared to state that
Evolution is fact?", the answer is YES. I am also prepared to state that
there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully
explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other
"tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts
of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that
field of science that have yet to be discovered.
If you wish to challenge Evolution as a science, they you must do so by
addressing the existing facts about evolution that are supported by testing
and verification within other fields of science. Or you have to start
challenging those other fields of science as being invalid as tools to
use to support evolutionary ideas as fact.
"but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution
is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not
believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent."
No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is
actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it. We have
no problem with people wanting to challenge evolution, but the "Intelligent"
way to do so is to:
(A) Provide new evidence that causes a re-evaluation of existing facts.
(B) Show where the underlying tools are innaccurate, thus causing a
re-evaluation of the conclusions upon which the facts are based.
(C) Show how the conclusions can be changed using other equally valid, or
more valid tools; thus causing a re-evaluation...
You will note that none of those sentences addresses evolution specifically.
Because the basic structure of science requires that you be able to apply the
same thought process to any other field of science as a test.
To do any less would be defined as an unintelligent approach.
"When will you scientists and "scientists" eventually understand that ID advocates are usually not against science." When will you "ID proponents" and evangelists understand that ID advocates are very much against "science" because they refuse to play by scientific "rules" in thier attacks against what they see as flaws in Evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory (not Darwins Theory) has tons of evidence and over a hundred years of research and observation to back it up. ID has "We don't agree with the implications we percieve from the evidence and observations of evolutionary theory, so we want the whole structure thrown out to make room for our viewpoint"; meanwhile overlooking that the structure as a whole is based on the solid foundations of several other fields of science that are not being questioned along with evolutionary theory. But the real flaw in the arguement: "What the oposition says is that ID is currently of similar value as Darwin's theory and until any of them is actually proven, none has higher value and shouldn't be taught as fact. " ID offers no compelling evidence, experimental or thru observation, in support of its "theory". Plus it does nothing to explain any other conclusions (that still fit in the framework of known science) that address the existing body of evidence that has already been gathered thru other fields of science in support of evolution. "It is to call back to scientific virtues of proving rather than believing something..." ID's very foundation is rested on an unproven belief. And so far in the whole debate, ID has made NO scientifically valid attempt to offer any "proof" that contradicts evolution. Before you want to question the value of others beliefs, you need to have a few answers for your own.
You let all those users run as admin?
IIRC, if they are running as Limited User, when they run this CD, it will
bail out, because it cannot run at the level needed to install its filters.
Spyware? Yes, it hides in your systen and checks on your activites and
what other programs you have lauched are doing.
Malware? Probably, while it does not attempt to damage the system in and
of itself, it does use additional resources unnecessarily; which can
affect other applications like virus scanners and distributed computing
projects. And it has been shown to leave the computer in a vulnerable
state, and can even affect system stability if it is not removed properly.
Trojan Horse? Unlikely, although it is a hidden payload, you are supposedly
given token notice of it in the form of the EULA. EULAs notwithstanding,
you should be allowed to find out what is being installed before you agree to that happening.
Virus? No. It doesn't attempt to propogate itself thru the system or to
other systems, it does not attempt to modify other system files or executables
(without permission); and it is not specifically designed to
expose vulnerabilities in the system, to damage the system files or data,
or to utilize the system for some other (possibly illegal) purpose.
IANAL either...
While the XCP software can probably be argued as a form of malware, I think
Sony lawyers would be able to mount an effective enough defense against
claiming it as a virus that it would not be worth attempting a lawsuit.
Raising awareness, and leaving it in the court of public opinion could be
just as effective a form of litigation under the circumstances.
Fair enough, let the label raise the price of the CD, and claim it as
...
...
a software title. Then me, you, and every other computer user can legally
review it as a piece of software:
"So I purchased this game called
the soundtrack is pretty good, but the gaming experience frankly, sucked.
All it really seemed to do was let me hide a few files from prying eyes.
Then I went an purchased (with my hard earned money)
Again the soundtrack was decent, and the kind of stuff I would buy
on a CD all by itself if I could; but would you believe they put an
almost exact version of the same game as before? It wouldn't even
install because it saw another version already on the system. It
did patch a couple of files so it could send information back to the
home office more efficiently, but that is not what I'd call "online play".
Between the lackluster performance of the first title, and what basically
amounted to me buying a service pack on the second, I really cannot recommend
this "rootkitter" gaming series. I've contacted the company to see if they
might consider releasing the soundtrack as a music CD instead.
I also asked if they had plans on improving gameplay for the Linux port,
but they don't seem to know about alternative OSes at all. "
Good question...
The keyboard that you typed that question on is a product of science.
The screen that displays your question, my reply, and the comments of
thousands of other people... is a product of science.
The Internet connection... the servers that Slashdot runs on, the
HTML formatting... etc, etc. all come from various scientific
discoveries or developments based on an understandig of science.
Just an immediate example of the relationship you have with science.
It may not be as personal as your relationship with God, but
the relationship is very much there in ways you seem to take for granted.
Your position is not Anti-Science, but the determination of some people
to have God smite ideas they are personally not comfortable with is.
Dogma is what religions produce, the static belief that X must be true because the
powers that be tell you it is true.
People are not starting to question it, the purpose of science has been to question
it all along. And so far, it has stood up to scientific analysis, which is why
it is considered valid enough to be true.
"evolution as the reson we are here is not proven"
Evolution has nothing to do with questioning the reason we are here,
it is asking the much simpler question: "How did we get here". It attempts
to answer that question by looking are where we (animals) came from, and where
they are now.
Tell that to all the creationists that are pushing for intelligent design to be taught
alongside evolution, without also requiring the rigors of scientific review.
s/a lot/not really all that much/
I have noticed that when they perform an experiment that has been done on
Mythbusters they at least take thier own interesting turn on it.
And they do approach quite a few ideas that the Mythbusters would never
think to cover (Walking on Custard).
Plus, I can't help but think that Jamie would love the show simply for
the gratuitous excuses to blow stuff up they keep coming up with.
...you are correct. The mod that was created does not represent the game that Mr. Thompson actually described to be built.
However, Jack Thompson's reaction is the most telling part of this. As I understand it, instead of doing as you have done, and logically pointing out the flaws in the comparisonbetween his design specs and what was created; he is backpedalling and
saying that his original proposal was meant to be satire. Thereby giving tacit
acceptance that the mod created indeed does live up to his goal.
i.e. He could have just as easily said: "Sorry, that doesn't live up to the game
idea I outlined earlier"
By not saying that, he undermines his own arguement, by giving the impression that
he was BSing all along.
All religions and philosophies expect a person
to be willing to examine and modify thier lifestyle in
order to achieve some higher level of enlightenment.
But most religions do not expect you to pay your
way to paradise in cash. Or to have to pay to
gain the teachings of the faithful.
In fact, much like Open Source, most religions
are perfectly happy with giving away their
teachings to anyone interested in learning more.
Also like Open Source, it can be open for abuse by
those who do not accurately apply what they have learned,
or attempt to modify what is available in less beneficial
ways.
Not all distributions of Religion expect you to act,
Love, or Hate in the same way. Some want you to
abide by thier CodeBase, and reject strange and
unusual package management tools. Others allow
you to roll your own, and encourage the expression
of ideas and exploration into new areas of application.
And some are based on a foundation of mutual trust
and respect, with the goal of being totally free and
beneficial to all who come to build on the community.
Blindly challenging everything is not belief, it is a
lack of Scientific Detachment.