If I organized a flash mob at my competitor's store and it effectively disabled their store (and didn't merely bring them a bunch of customers) would they have a case against me?
I'm not sure, especially if you did your best to pretend the disruption was an "accident". Sure is an interesting thought though!
All of that said, getting folks to click "refresh" is about as legal as suggesting that folks grab free brochures from a stand so as to exhaust the supply of brochures,
Good point. How illegal is that? (And would this kid be spending the night in jail if he stole all the "free" brochures from a counter in his school?)
This isn't wartime (maybe massacre time, but not war time) and this kid's principal is not the president.
As for saying "Go kill Jim Schmuck" we already have legal precedent for deciding when the line of collusion is crossed in murder cases, and crashing a website isn't exactly murder.
but that's only really as accurate as trying to separate legitimate city traffic from criminals by assuming that anyone on foot is a burglar.
Note: If you assumed foot-traffic was criminals you'd also instantly make things like public demonstration illegal...
Which is interesting, because having lots of people manually refresh a page is a lot more akin to asking a whole crowd of street people to come hang out in your school parking lot and make it impossible to park versus say throwing down caltrops.
Which one is illegal, and what constitutes a felony is something that needs some consideration. It seems quite clear that a DDoS using hijacked systems is far worse than what this kid did.
If your intent is to take the server down, that's illegal.
So, if I post a story to slashdot with the intent of taking out a server that makes it illegal? Quite a bold and interesting statement of law there. I'd sure like to hear your precedent.
Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?
Yes.
Perhaps you believe there are no fates worse than death. For the raw materials of procreation there are far far worse possibilities on the horizon.
Is it conceivable that you could create a normal (more or less) walking talking human out of cells that are never implanted? Numerous science fiction writers and other futurists seem to think this will someday be possible.
If so, would those created in such a manner be any less human?
By nurturing the cells along in development something closer to an actual human life is being created. Currently, in stem cell research what is created looks almost nothing at all like a human being. However if it is possible to grow fully normal humans from unimplanted embryos then isn't it also possible to create everything along the spectrum from biological waste to human being using the same raw materials and possibly even similar methods?
To me, this seems nothing if not rife with ethical dilemmas.
Who is going to watchdog the scientifically curious to be sure they do not create dog-boys for fun and brainless bodies to harvest for organs? And who decides whether and when dog-boys and brainless bodies are appropriate?
Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted.
Well, if you have a kid, then rip it's heart out for a transplant then I imagine quite a few people are going to object (even if the other parent agrees it's a good idea). A few less might complain if you clone yourself and do the same thing. Harvest some eggs and grow them into a heart plus a few organs minus any kind of brain and you'll be one better. Finally, if you're merely pulling a few cells out of your elbow and growing them into a heart with no fuss and no muss you'll hear far fewer complaints.
Bottom line: There's a bit of grey area yet in this kind of research and you can expect people to quit objecting to research involving the raw materials of procreation about the time you can expect the abortion debate to get resolved.
I thought dictionary attacks won't work with passwords of the form "concerned$citizen"? As I understand it to break this type of hashed password it is basically a brute-force approach against the whole field.
For that password, I make the possible combinations if just upper/lower case text, digits, and 10 punctuation symbols are possible at each position in a 13 character password at:
1,397,405,517,247,104,682,033,152 ((52+10+10)^13)
I think the problem is that in practice you'll see far fewer values.
1) Take every password in every system you can get your hands on, *especially* ones where people are trying to make *secure* passwords. 2) Look for patterns.
Now, I've not done this and I don't know the numbers, but I'm fairly certain you'll find the human brain (in most cases at least) isn't great at remembering huge diversity, and so the set that really needs searching is much much smaller. Even when using 1337 5P33K there are patterns... One study found that 8 character Unix passwords had an attack-space of only 2^23 (vs 2^49 according to your theoretical method). That's much much too small in today's world.
Of course, in practice some systems, like some people, will fold far more easily than others.
First off, don't get me wrong, you may have something here, it's just I don't see all the details laid out in plain view. (And you should be used to being asked to show more if you're a model...)
But finding out which two of the 5.000 pictures to select
I'm guessing the two that look random instead of like (hopefully totally hot!) GIF's, JPG's or compressable BMP's from a CCD.
and which 100 character pass phrase
Yes, it'd be nice if everyone used 100 character passwords, but is there a suggestion for us mortals? A good modern PBE implementation should even work with a half-way decent 100 character passphrase... Of course it doesn't hurt to scatter around a bunch of meaningless encrypted data (with differing sophistication levels) and truly random data as well. (It really helps to make em sweat and feel like they're missing something even if they have you over a barrel.)
Brute-force won't work with something like GPG/PGP, or (I'd guess) Apple's encryption.
The data is say, AES128 encrypted and you need a 32byte key with an optional 32byte IV (basically another key that's interleaved every few bytes during encryption so even the original key isn't enough to decrypt).
From what little I've read PBE is a lot more tricky than your understanding of it. Basically, if you're using a standard implementation, you've got a passphrase that will get you to a "secret key". Unfortunately once you get that secret key it is a one step process to verify whether or not it can successfully decrypt the data set. (PBE just makes it harder and more time-consuming to get to that key "per guess".)
As I understand it, with *any* standardized PBE system the number of tries is limited by the q-bits of the password itself by virtue of the algorithm being known. So, however long the iteration takes, you only have to run through once per possible password, and human minds are not usually good at making up and memorizing totally random data.
Now, non-standard algorithms and obscurity in general may get you further in some cases, but that's as much luck and indirection as anything else when it comes right down to it.
On a more everyday note, AES128 is great and all, but it won't make a damned bit of difference if there is a single hole in Apple's implementation, that lets someone bypass the encryption completely.
Actually, wouldn't an encrypted OS hard-drive typically boil down to some kind of Password Based Encryption (PBE) scheme anyways? These are notoriously easy to use dictionary attacks on, especially if you know something about the encrypted data (like it contains OS-X binaries for example...)
Of course if you can memorize a 1024-bit key more power to you. (Assuming you never get nailed with a key-logger or one of those audio-keystroke detection thingers.)
Is there anything that is not ridiculous to patent, in your opinion?
Ya, anything that someone working in the field goes "Hey, That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that." Or: "Wow that's amazing I'd have never thought of it!" But when half the industry goes "Gee, I made 5 of those last year but didn't consider any part of it worth the effort to patent." There's a good chance it isn't obvious...
I mean on the face of it my mind just boggles. "Variable speed wipers" isn't an invention, it's a requirement. Unless that sucker had to be dug out of a deep deep hole it just doesn't seem patent worthy. (Now, building the things could have been difficult at the time given a serious lack of methods and technology, it sure wouldn't be today.)
If so, what formal criteria could be used to separate the ridiculous ones from the non-ridiculous ones?
zip-lock baggies and velcro are hardly obvious. And neither is a simple and economical process for making sticky notes.
As an example: The Wright brothers didn't get a patent on flight, you were still free to make a lighter than air balloon or other contraption not based on their designs, they got a patent on heavier than air flying devices built in a certain manner. The goal of flying was very obvious, it was only the actual accomplishment and accompanying methods that were patentable.
And it really wasn't all that obvious how one would go about controlling such a thing and make it economical.
Well, maybe back then it really was tough to come up with a mechanism for the wipers, with today's technology it is painfully trivial. If there was something non-trivial and implementation specific about the wiper patent required in that day and age, then perhaps it makes some sense. Other wise it seems pretty obvious to me. (Kind of like nose-fins on a wakeboard, which I happen to have attached for fun in my own playing around long before one particular company tried to patent the concept...) If you work in a particular field, you'd be surprised how many things just drop right out of a little obvious design work or simple dinking around. Penalizing those who didn't happen to work on a particular area first seems kind of silly.
You're missing the point. I'm saying getting a patent on the entire notion of "variable speed wipers' is ridiculous. It's like single-click shopping carts, or deciding to put pickles and peanut butter on bread.
My recommendation would be: #1) Patent that idea ASAP. Better you than someone else. #2) Don't be an ass.
2a) Make sure it's not something ridiculous like single-click shopping carts.
2b) License it freely for non-commercial use.
2c) Be reasonable about licensing with competitors.
Or you could be even more sharing and kind with your brand new IP. In any case, you should at least be able to sleep at night if you follow #2.
Microsoft is a natural monopoly. It got there without the "ususal culprits" you describe.
Like say copyright?
From the great-grandparent: Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors.
And software developers even moreso it appears... Not everyone has to read the same book, but there's incredible pressure to do so with say operating systems.
...for the right to create variable speed windshield wipers? That certainly seems obvious and I know I'd never pay for such a ridiculous thing, merely on principal. (Unless of course I somehow couldn't figure out a mechanism and theirs worked well... but c'mon any halfway decent ME could figure this out in their sleep.)
Ya, I like speciation, and agree all your points here are good. We've begun to see the edges of it.
Why is macroevolution a priori a bad idea?
For one thing I see no evidence to show how evolution might explain the Cambrian Explosion. Claiming evolution explains the differences between single celled organisms and man seems a bit premature. Also, in reading about evolution and Geology I find some truly odd things that seem swept under the rug at times. Pushing for an older age so that evolution can have more time is one past example.
Some would interpret bad designs like these as evidence of "whatever works first" randomness, rather than careful and intelligent crafting of a pinnacle of creation.
I find your response very refreshing here, and it is well considered, though "pinnacle of creation" may be a straw-man.
Personally I wonder about the notion of a "reasonably intelligent designer" versus this "devinely intelligent designer" that appears to get bandied about. Engineers, scientists, and programmers are not perfect and do make mistakes. Design is an iterative process, in some ways much like evolution. Also there are tradeoffs and hidden reasons for things that are not always apparent on first, or even umpteenth inspection. (According to the Bible, even Jesus let one of his best friends die because he was busy elsewhere...)
Would a "reasonably intelligent human-like designer" actually have no place in any conceivable scientific theory regardless of any factual evidence? (I think you've already given me a "no" on this, but that's not a common answer from what I've seen. Usually it's: "ID cannot be a thoery, and even if it could here's one completely random example taken in isolation that collapses the whole thing." Often with a "So Nyah!" at the end.)
Macroevolution has pretty strong evidence in favour of it; I don't see why that's a challenge to your faith, though.
For one, I'm not exactly sure what I believe and/or have faith in myself. For another it really isn't my faith I worry about. It's more the battling, small-mindedness and ill behavior on both sides of the argument. (Which I've watched my whole life, and yes, sometimes even my own gut-reactions to things are very negative. This is a battle between worldviews, or may become one if we're not careful.)
Note: For someone who believes in a very real and active God, the creation story is very important. For one thing it is a key ingredient in several arguments against evil. I've personally rejected Christianity because of my personal psychology and certain events in my life, but I have many Christian friends who I do not consider "idiots" for their beliefs.
Those who hold doggedly to a literal interpretation of the Bible while glossing over the actual content of Jesus's message would likely get much the same treatment as the Pharisees.
Unfortunately doggedness and ignorance can be found on both sides of the debate. (And any claims for or against the personal virtues of one group or another seem more inflammatory than useful. You don't seem like the type to assume I'm a Pharisee before I've so much as thumped a bible or mentioned 6000 years.)
Actually, I thought the problem was that supporters of Evolution are unwilling to admit to any kind of dichotomy between macro and micro evolution. No cherry picking please, take it all or go stand in the corner wearing the dunce cap.
On the contrary, there is nothing to believe about evolution.
You have to believe in the "lesser of two evils" and the excluded middle. ie: That bad ideas are good ideas if none better can be found, and you have to believe it to great extreme.
However, at the moment, none of the data points to some intelligent designer, and on the contrary, points to a lot of random acts of mutation.
How would data pointing to an intelligent designer differ from data pointing to randomness? One primary argument made against ID is that it *cannot* be tested against factual data. If you're trying to make a factual argument with me does that mean you don't agree with this assessment?
The most recent example is the appearance of the superbug, a.k.a. the antibiotic-resistant strains of microbes that posters have already discussed far above.
Ya, so given a few generations leopards can change their spots, birds can change color, and bacteria (who have some crazy genetics quite different from that of say mammals) can become resistant to antibiotics. If bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics were as simple for them as changing the locks on doors is for humans this would hardly be macro evolution. (Let alone macro evolution similar to that of multi cellular life forms)
Um... I was talking about mean and I fail to see your point.
If no one actually falls within the mean then exactly 50% are wrong. If one or more are within the mean, then more than 50% are wrong... In either case this would be *at least* 50% that *are not* above average.
Obviously this would require my assertion: "Everyone thinks they're above average." to be true. It's called hyperbole.
It is possible to believe that you have above average intelligence and be correct.
True, but this is neither MENSA nor the NBA, both of which have strict entry criteria. (Those folks would actually be elite snots, or just elites, as the case may be...)
Yes, so for you True is an unrelated set that may or may not overlap true. That I understand. The thing that perplexes me is why you don't care about the intersection between (your definition of)True and true.
(Note: I would have called these two things subjective vs objective truth and considered Truth to be the intersection of the two, but why bother defining terms before debating, that might weaken someone's argument...)
which generally implies it is built for a slightly above average in intelligence crowd
Above average intelligence is like above average driving skill. Everyone thinks they've got it and at least half of em are wrong. Being an elitist snot doesn't make you smart, it just makes you an elitist snot...
Slashdot Mirror
but I'm sure the Halo 2 PC version will add some new features that will make it better than the xbox version.
Ya, that being you get to fight against a bunch of people on consoles who can barely aim due to bad ergonomics... What could be easier?
Well, flash-mobbing certainly could be considered a hostile act at times, but I don't think any of it is clear cut legally.
I'd dearly love to watch comfortably from the sidelines with my popcorn and see how a case like this turned out...
If I organized a flash mob at my competitor's store and it effectively disabled their store (and didn't merely bring them a bunch of customers) would they have a case against me?
I'm not sure, especially if you did your best to pretend the disruption was an "accident". Sure is an interesting thought though!
All of that said, getting folks to click "refresh" is about as legal as suggesting that folks grab free brochures from a stand so as to exhaust the supply of brochures,
Good point. How illegal is that? (And would this kid be spending the night in jail if he stole all the "free" brochures from a counter in his school?)
This isn't wartime (maybe massacre time, but not war time) and this kid's principal is not the president.
As for saying "Go kill Jim Schmuck" we already have legal precedent for deciding when the line of collusion is crossed in murder cases, and crashing a website isn't exactly murder.
but that's only really as accurate as trying to separate legitimate city traffic from criminals by assuming that anyone on foot is a burglar.
Note: If you assumed foot-traffic was criminals you'd also instantly make things like public demonstration illegal...
Which is interesting, because having lots of people manually refresh a page is a lot more akin to asking a whole crowd of street people to come hang out in your school parking lot and make it impossible to park versus say throwing down caltrops.
Which one is illegal, and what constitutes a felony is something that needs some consideration. It seems quite clear that a DDoS using hijacked systems is far worse than what this kid did.
If your intent is to take the server down, that's illegal.
So, if I post a story to slashdot with the intent of taking out a server that makes it illegal? Quite a bold and interesting statement of law there. I'd sure like to hear your precedent.
Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?
Yes.
Perhaps you believe there are no fates worse than death. For the raw materials of procreation there are far far worse possibilities on the horizon.
Is it conceivable that you could create a normal (more or less) walking talking human out of cells that are never implanted? Numerous science fiction writers and other futurists seem to think this will someday be possible.
If so, would those created in such a manner be any less human?
By nurturing the cells along in development something closer to an actual human life is being created. Currently, in stem cell research what is created looks almost nothing at all like a human being. However if it is possible to grow fully normal humans from unimplanted embryos then isn't it also possible to create everything along the spectrum from biological waste to human being using the same raw materials and possibly even similar methods?
To me, this seems nothing if not rife with ethical dilemmas.
Who is going to watchdog the scientifically curious to be sure they do not create dog-boys for fun and brainless bodies to harvest for organs? And who decides whether and when dog-boys and brainless bodies are appropriate?
Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted.
Well, if you have a kid, then rip it's heart out for a transplant then I imagine quite a few people are going to object (even if the other parent agrees it's a good idea). A few less might complain if you clone yourself and do the same thing. Harvest some eggs and grow them into a heart plus a few organs minus any kind of brain and you'll be one better. Finally, if you're merely pulling a few cells out of your elbow and growing them into a heart with no fuss and no muss you'll hear far fewer complaints.
Bottom line: There's a bit of grey area yet in this kind of research and you can expect people to quit objecting to research involving the raw materials of procreation about the time you can expect the abortion debate to get resolved.
I thought dictionary attacks won't work with passwords of the form "concerned$citizen"? As I understand it to break this type of hashed password it is basically a brute-force approach against the whole field.
For that password, I make the possible combinations if just upper/lower case text, digits, and 10 punctuation symbols are possible at each position in a 13 character password at:
1,397,405,517,247,104,682,033,152 ((52+10+10)^13)
I think the problem is that in practice you'll see far fewer values.
1) Take every password in every system you can get your hands on, *especially* ones where people are trying to make *secure* passwords.
2) Look for patterns.
Now, I've not done this and I don't know the numbers, but I'm fairly certain you'll find the human brain (in most cases at least) isn't great at remembering huge diversity, and so the set that really needs searching is much much smaller. Even when using 1337 5P33K there are patterns... One study found that 8 character Unix passwords had an attack-space of only 2^23 (vs 2^49 according to your theoretical method). That's much much too small in today's world.
Of course, in practice some systems, like some people, will fold far more easily than others.
First off, don't get me wrong, you may have something here, it's just I don't see all the details laid out in plain view. (And you should be used to being asked to show more if you're a model...)
But finding out which two of the 5.000 pictures to select
I'm guessing the two that look random instead of like (hopefully totally hot!) GIF's, JPG's or compressable BMP's from a CCD.
and which 100 character pass phrase
Yes, it'd be nice if everyone used 100 character passwords, but is there a suggestion for us mortals? A good modern PBE implementation should even work with a half-way decent 100 character passphrase... Of course it doesn't hurt to scatter around a bunch of meaningless encrypted data (with differing sophistication levels) and truly random data as well. (It really helps to make em sweat and feel like they're missing something even if they have you over a barrel.)
Brute-force won't work with something like GPG/PGP, or (I'd guess) Apple's encryption.
The data is say, AES128 encrypted and you need a 32byte key with an optional 32byte IV (basically another key that's interleaved every few bytes during encryption so even the original key isn't enough to decrypt).
From what little I've read PBE is a lot more tricky than your understanding of it. Basically, if you're using a standard implementation, you've got a passphrase that will get you to a "secret key". Unfortunately once you get that secret key it is a one step process to verify whether or not it can successfully decrypt the data set. (PBE just makes it harder and more time-consuming to get to that key "per guess".)
As I understand it, with *any* standardized PBE system the number of tries is limited by the q-bits of the password itself by virtue of the algorithm being known. So, however long the iteration takes, you only have to run through once per possible password, and human minds are not usually good at making up and memorizing totally random data.
Now, non-standard algorithms and obscurity in general may get you further in some cases, but that's as much luck and indirection as anything else when it comes right down to it.
On a more everyday note, AES128 is great and all, but it won't make a damned bit of difference if there is a single hole in Apple's implementation, that lets someone bypass the encryption completely.
Actually, wouldn't an encrypted OS hard-drive typically boil down to some kind of Password Based Encryption (PBE) scheme anyways? These are notoriously easy to use dictionary attacks on, especially if you know something about the encrypted data (like it contains OS-X binaries for example...)
Of course if you can memorize a 1024-bit key more power to you. (Assuming you never get nailed with a key-logger or one of those audio-keystroke detection thingers.)
Is there anything that is not ridiculous to patent, in your opinion?
Ya, anything that someone working in the field goes "Hey, That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that." Or: "Wow that's amazing I'd have never thought of it!" But when half the industry goes "Gee, I made 5 of those last year but didn't consider any part of it worth the effort to patent." There's a good chance it isn't obvious...
I mean on the face of it my mind just boggles. "Variable speed wipers" isn't an invention, it's a requirement. Unless that sucker had to be dug out of a deep deep hole it just doesn't seem patent worthy. (Now, building the things could have been difficult at the time given a serious lack of methods and technology, it sure wouldn't be today.)
If so, what formal criteria could be used to separate the ridiculous ones from the non-ridiculous ones?
Well, non-obviousness can be approached in a number of ways.
zip-lock baggies and velcro are hardly obvious. And neither is a simple and economical process for making sticky notes.
As an example: The Wright brothers didn't get a patent on flight, you were still free to make a lighter than air balloon or other contraption not based on their designs, they got a patent on heavier than air flying devices built in a certain manner. The goal of flying was very obvious, it was only the actual accomplishment and accompanying methods that were patentable.
And it really wasn't all that obvious how one would go about controlling such a thing and make it economical.
Well, maybe back then it really was tough to come up with a mechanism for the wipers, with today's technology it is painfully trivial. If there was something non-trivial and implementation specific about the wiper patent required in that day and age, then perhaps it makes some sense. Other wise it seems pretty obvious to me. (Kind of like nose-fins on a wakeboard, which I happen to have attached for fun in my own playing around long before one particular company tried to patent the concept...) If you work in a particular field, you'd be surprised how many things just drop right out of a little obvious design work or simple dinking around. Penalizing those who didn't happen to work on a particular area first seems kind of silly.
You're missing the point. I'm saying getting a patent on the entire notion of "variable speed wipers' is ridiculous. It's like single-click shopping carts, or deciding to put pickles and peanut butter on bread.
My recommendation would be:
#1) Patent that idea ASAP. Better you than someone else.
#2) Don't be an ass.
2a) Make sure it's not something ridiculous like single-click shopping carts.
2b) License it freely for non-commercial use.
2c) Be reasonable about licensing with competitors.
Or you could be even more sharing and kind with your brand new IP. In any case, you should at least be able to sleep at night if you follow #2.
Microsoft is a natural monopoly. It got there without the "ususal culprits" you describe.
Like say copyright?
From the great-grandparent:
Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors.
And software developers even moreso it appears... Not everyone has to read the same book, but there's incredible pressure to do so with say operating systems.
...for the right to create variable speed windshield wipers? That certainly seems obvious and I know I'd never pay for such a ridiculous thing, merely on principal. (Unless of course I somehow couldn't figure out a mechanism and theirs worked well... but c'mon any halfway decent ME could figure this out in their sleep.)
Define "macro" and "micro".
Ya, I like speciation, and agree all your points here are good. We've begun to see the edges of it.
Why is macroevolution a priori a bad idea?
For one thing I see no evidence to show how evolution might explain the Cambrian Explosion. Claiming evolution explains the differences between single celled organisms and man seems a bit premature. Also, in reading about evolution and Geology I find some truly odd things that seem swept under the rug at times. Pushing for an older age so that evolution can have more time is one past example.
Some would interpret bad designs like these as evidence of "whatever works first" randomness, rather than careful and intelligent crafting of a pinnacle of creation.
I find your response very refreshing here, and it is well considered, though "pinnacle of creation" may be a straw-man.
Personally I wonder about the notion of a "reasonably intelligent designer" versus this "devinely intelligent designer" that appears to get bandied about. Engineers, scientists, and programmers are not perfect and do make mistakes. Design is an iterative process, in some ways much like evolution. Also there are tradeoffs and hidden reasons for things that are not always apparent on first, or even umpteenth inspection. (According to the Bible, even Jesus let one of his best friends die because he was busy elsewhere...)
Would a "reasonably intelligent human-like designer" actually have no place in any conceivable scientific theory regardless of any factual evidence? (I think you've already given me a "no" on this, but that's not a common answer from what I've seen. Usually it's: "ID cannot be a thoery, and even if it could here's one completely random example taken in isolation that collapses the whole thing." Often with a "So Nyah!" at the end.)
Macroevolution has pretty strong evidence in favour of it; I don't see why that's a challenge to your faith, though.
For one, I'm not exactly sure what I believe and/or have faith in myself. For another it really isn't my faith I worry about. It's more the battling, small-mindedness and ill behavior on both sides of the argument. (Which I've watched my whole life, and yes, sometimes even my own gut-reactions to things are very negative. This is a battle between worldviews, or may become one if we're not careful.)
Note: For someone who believes in a very real and active God, the creation story is very important. For one thing it is a key ingredient in several arguments against evil. I've personally rejected Christianity because of my personal psychology and certain events in my life, but I have many Christian friends who I do not consider "idiots" for their beliefs.
Those who hold doggedly to a literal interpretation of the Bible while glossing over the actual content of Jesus's message would likely get much the same treatment as the Pharisees.
Unfortunately doggedness and ignorance can be found on both sides of the debate. (And any claims for or against the personal virtues of one group or another seem more inflammatory than useful. You don't seem like the type to assume I'm a Pharisee before I've so much as thumped a bible or mentioned 6000 years.)
How many are above average? The "50% are above and 50% are below" only applies when the distribution curve is smooth.
Well, if there's a non-normalized scale used to judge driving skill I stand corrected.
Actually, I thought the problem was that supporters of Evolution are unwilling to admit to any kind of dichotomy between macro and micro evolution. No cherry picking please, take it all or go stand in the corner wearing the dunce cap.
On the contrary, there is nothing to believe about evolution.
You have to believe in the "lesser of two evils" and the excluded middle. ie: That bad ideas are good ideas if none better can be found, and you have to believe it to great extreme.
However, at the moment, none of the data points to some intelligent designer, and on the contrary, points to a lot of random acts of mutation.
How would data pointing to an intelligent designer differ from data pointing to randomness? One primary argument made against ID is that it *cannot* be tested against factual data. If you're trying to make a factual argument with me does that mean you don't agree with this assessment?
The most recent example is the appearance of the superbug, a.k.a. the antibiotic-resistant strains of microbes that posters have already discussed far above.
Ya, so given a few generations leopards can change their spots, birds can change color, and bacteria (who have some crazy genetics quite different from that of say mammals) can become resistant to antibiotics. If bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics were as simple for them as changing the locks on doors is for humans this would hardly be macro evolution. (Let alone macro evolution similar to that of multi cellular life forms)
Um... I was talking about mean and I fail to see your point.
If no one actually falls within the mean then exactly 50% are wrong. If one or more are within the mean, then more than 50% are wrong... In either case this would be *at least* 50% that *are not* above average.
Obviously this would require my assertion: "Everyone thinks they're above average." to be true. It's called hyperbole.
It is possible to believe that you have above average intelligence and be correct.
True, but this is neither MENSA nor the NBA, both of which have strict entry criteria. (Those folks would actually be elite snots, or just elites, as the case may be...)
Yes, so for you True is an unrelated set that may or may not overlap true. That I understand. The thing that perplexes me is why you don't care about the intersection between (your definition of)True and true.
(Note: I would have called these two things subjective vs objective truth and considered Truth to be the intersection of the two, but why bother defining terms before debating, that might weaken someone's argument...)
which generally implies it is built for a slightly above average in intelligence crowd
Above average intelligence is like above average driving skill. Everyone thinks they've got it and at least half of em are wrong. Being an elitist snot doesn't make you smart, it just makes you an elitist snot...