NTFS: Both OS X and XP can read it, but OS X can't write to it
From my perspective, this is a HUGE limitation in this whole scheme. The point of BootCamp seems to be to get WinXP people comfortable with the idea of buying a Mac. And then gradually weaning themselves off the Windows partition. But, you're really only going to do that if you can conveniently, seamlessly get at your Windows data, otherwise you'll constantly be: "okay, I want to edit that Word file, damn, gotta reboot." And if you've got to constantly be puttering around in a Windows environment, you're going to wonder if it was worth it to pay that Apple premium in the first place. Sure,you can copy the file you want to edit from the NTFS partition over to your HFS+ partition, or keep all your stuff on a networked fileserver, but that seems a hassle. I'm looking forward to buying my first Mac, but I'll wait until this NTFS problem gets ironed out first, even if it's an add-on driver or third-party solution.
One interesting thing is that this will throw all the Win/Mac marketshare discussions out of wack. It's no longer either/or, but both. Windows might achieve a 99% penetration at the same time that Macs have a 10% marketshare. MS might cautiously applaud the whole thing.
I've always felt that The Futurological Congress would make an excellent feature film, although its vision of a doped-up society, enthralled by the external appearance of a shiny future while things turn to rot within, is no longer a prophecy, but simply the way things are.
Offtopic, but I don't so much mind any particular level of privacy as I mind the privacy differential. While my privacy level is going down, the privacy of the government is going up. It's like Brin's worst-case scenario.
I'm as much asgainst DRM as much as anybody, but I'm going to have to say that historically, this doesn't seem to be the case. Hardware manufacturers tend to be the opposite -- they tend to roll out a DRM scheme and get less and less restrictive as time goes on, because, ultimately, they are not in the business of facilitating software restrictions -- they want to sell hardware.
My recollection is that when SanDisk's SD cards first came out, they were intended to prevent you from reuploading "protected" files from one machine to another machine. Yet, in practice, I have encountered few if any occasions where an SD card acted any different than a regular flash drive.
When DVD machines first came out, they were almost universally region-locked, but as time's gone by, more and more manufacturers have put in backdoor codes to bypass region encoding.
Now, as far as Intel's VIIV technology goes, I could be mistaken but it seems to be designed to restrict arbitrary binaries, not arbitrary data. I think the distinction is crucial. The average consumer will be helped by having rogue binaries stopped at the gates. But hands off our data.
Really? I would've thought that just shipping a few sheets of stapled paper as regular mail in a flat envelope would be much cheaper than shipping a CD and jewel case in a padded one. Well, never mind then. Your music is interesting, though. I may wind up getting something.
I admire you for sticking to your principles, but since you are freely sharing your music, have you thought about just selling the CD liner/insert material on its own and letting folks roll their own CD's? In other words, instead of offering:
CD = CDN$17
offer: ---- liner/insert for CD = CDN$10. Includes artwork, credits, etc.
If you want physical CD with hi-quality.cda files, add CDN$7 -----
Don't have much to add to that informative post except to say that I too have noticed pixellating while watching a digital projection. It reminded me of the first generation of digital cameras, in which the prints obviously did not compare to 35mm film. Nowadays a good digicam print is equal or superior to the average 35mm P&S print. So I'd imagine the problem of digital artifacts will be licked in the next generation of theater projectors as well.
The problem for large theaters is that flawless digital projections will eventually be their own death warrants. Because at that point, what's to stop boutique sized 100 seat microtheaters from opening up, and for a higher ticket price providing a much more pleasant user experience? What's to stop corporations from ordering "free" screenings for their executives? Point being that there is no limitation on the number of digital prints that a movie commpany can send out. And that will destroy the advantage that theater chains have over the rest of the world. They'll have no choice but to compete on price, the very concept of which puts fear in their hearts. (Before you say "economies of scale," look at the precarious situation of American automakers and airlines.)
If you're going to publish something for hundreds of thousands of people to read, why not use a dictionary?
Similarly, if hundreds of thousands of people might read your comments, why come off like a twit? You could've just as easily said, "The correct term is dynamism," and your response would've been graceful and elegant instead of smug.
Furthermore, this particular word is difficult in that if one goes through the trouble of looking up the word "dynamic" in an online dictionary, the response doesn't give you a clue regarding the formation of its abstract noun. (And surely you're not suggesting that people carry paper dictionaries with them every time they log on to a computer? It might reduce misspellings but it's hardly practical.) Which is probably one of the reasons why, in a perusal of the online world, you'll find such terms as *dyamicalness, *dynamicity, dynamicism (a real word, but inappropriate), along with *dynamicness. And if someone uses Google to look up a candidate-word, *dynamicalness, the response will be misleading:
And perhaps you are willing to wink at criminal behaviour so that you can secretly wire a few thousand quid to your mistress without having a few questions raised. I am not.
It totally blows my mind that there are people who think the way that you do. Personally, I can't distinguish that attitude from fascism. So help me out. I have an honest question for you. What is your bright line? At what point would you consider surveillance to be too much? Would you say that the government ought to monitor ALL financial transactions, no matter what amount? If not, what's an appropriate threshhold?
Would you advocate high-sensitivity anti-crime mechanisms in other aspects of daily life? Is it a good idea for cars to be outfitted with sensors that would report (and ticket) you if you change lanes without signalling, make a rolling stop, exceed the posted speed limit, etc. Should your computer be monitored to make sure you don't download unauthorized mp3's, forward newspaper articles without permission, save copyrighted photos, etc.
Is a society with no potential for illegal behavior whatsoever a good society?
This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors.
Although they don't compete for residential service, Lucent Technologies, formerly known as Bell Laboratories, is also one of the children of the original AT&T.
James: no, it's a Rio ____; it's just as good, and it has more features.
There's James's problem right there. At best he sounds like he's apologizing for having some off-brand machine. At worst he sounds like some Asperger's syndrome nerd who's getting ready to launch into a half-hour spiel about the difference between Ogg Vorbis and AAC.
This being New York, he's supposed to say something like, "Ipod? SNORT! Chinese prison labor much??? Besides, me and my bandmates got comped a whole bunch of these things. I still haven't got the hang of it, but hey, free is free, right?"
The idea is not to prevent all forms of piracy. They realize that will never happen. But if they can keep the full-rez, full-featured versions from out in the wild, the consumer will hopefully see value added in the purchase of an HD-DVD. You'll have a reason to plunk down your $29 even if you managed to snarf the image-constrained version off some pirate site. You'll also have a built-in reason to get a HDCP-shackled HDTV if you haven't gotten one already: Your new library will be instantly uprezzed with the purchase. So it's a win-win proposition for the hardware manufacturers, content producers and retailers. And we can shout at the top of our lungs that we consumers will lose our rights, but with the ability to still do an "unmanaged copy" at DVD resolution, it's hard to make that case to the average Joe. So they advance their DRM agenda while silencing the critics. Sweet! (For them, I mean.)
The "law" may not work like that, but the Internet works like that. Pretty much all of the content you access on the web is somebody else's content. What gives you the right to go to their web page? To cache their words and graphics on your browser? Their tacit assent, that's what. Now if they suddenly want to say, "You're not allowed to cache my stuff if you're a search engine, or if you are running IE, or if you are from Slashdotistan" that's fine. But they ought to indicate that in advance, not just after the fact decide you should be sued. On the other hand, they could simply not put their stuff on the Internet. Problem solved.
Think about it. From your argument, libraries should stop carrying controversial books as well, since there is a significant chance of those books being found by other patrons, including children. After all, for $5, you can go buy the book yourself at a used bookstore, why risk having Huckleberry Finn in the library where my child might come across it?
Also, it may surprise you, but there are a lot of people who can't get $10/month dialup connections because their credit is ruined, their phone keeps getting turned on and off, they have no checking account, etc. I agree with you that it is tacky to look at porn in a public place. But those porn viewers are not the ones "making this an issue." Most of them want nothing else than to look at their Red Hot Latin Transsexual Dwarfs unmolested. The reason this is an issue is because of so-called religious nutjobs objecting to those people exercising their rights. Your anger is displaced.
So which is it, that you would never ever hire a minority unless you were "forced," or that you're entirely color-blind in your dealings, but oops, too bad, there are no qualified minorities in the entire country?
There's this theory that, in monetary terms, things are worth what people will actually pay for them, not what some anonymous schmoe thinks they "ought" to be worth. In the case of.tv, if the domain was really worth much more than $20 million, then Tuvalu should've have said, "let's have an auction" and sold it for the gazillions that you think it should've went for. Or they could've leased it for a percentage of the revenues, or whatever.
Furthermore, if you're going to look at this from an anti-capitalist perspective, you should consider the larger issue. Why is Tuvalu "entitled" to any revenue whatsoever for their TLD? They didn't invent it. It's not a natural right of the island to "own" the two letter sequence.tv. If some committee over at the ISO had had muffins instead of scones for breakfast, they might've come up with.tu or.ta, and then where would Tuvalu be? So they should count themselves fortunate that they wound up with a US$1700 per capita windfall due to what was nothing more than a fortuitous administrative accident. In a "moral" world, they'd have been entitled to their contribution, which was nothing.
I own this. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it. It works, but it slows down your entire system because the drive powers down after a couple of minutes, and then you can't read the directory until it powers up again. Also, even after it's all warmed up, it's extremely slow over the network. Plus, the SAN driver has to be separately installed on each machine that accesses the device. And finally, I don't think the filesystem it uses is compatible with anything else. I don't know how one would go about defragging the drives or anything like that. (Of course, these devices always say they don't need to be defragged. Just like NTFS.)
On the plus side, it's small and cute. Still, if I had to do it over again, I'd either get an Infrant system, or just plug a couple of drives into a SFF and run it as a Linux fileserver.
You didn't read further down, in the comments. Someone wrote:
"You _can_ upload pdf files, but it's not handled natively, just loads as a full page image (or something) and you can't zoom in, which makes it a bit useless."
Paint Shop Pro 10 (PSPX) now has color management features and can also do 16-bit per channel (with some limitations). It's no Photoshop but it's probably good enough for >90% of people.
From its "What's New" file:
Full support of 16-bit images allows professional photographers to work with their high-fidelity images without compromising quality. High-fidelity images, which use thousands of shades per color, are no longer subject to the 8-bit limit of 256 shades per color set by previous versions of the software.
Enhanced color-management features You can read and save color profile data in files and then use the data for better screen-to-print matching. This feature also supports saving images as CMYK files for output to commercial printers.
The Monitor Calibration command helps ensure that your monitor displays the most accurate colors possible.
That's "THE TIMES", a UK paper, not the NY Times, but otherwise a very informative post which shows that the press for once did a little research. Thank you.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but grandparent was about four years old when Reagan left office, so I doubt following the political climate was at the top of his priorities.
Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.
The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"
Except that the raison d'etre of ID (and similar teachings) is to achieve immunity from separation of church and state challenges. In other words, if we concede that it's ok to teach specific religious ideas as "truth" in public school, then there's no need for ID, the school could just teach right from the Bible. If we don't concede that, then we're back we're we started. We still have to determine whether ID falls under the general rubric of a religious teaching or not. That's why discussions as to the essence of ID vs. the essense of evolution are germane, although I'll admit some of them veer very much off-topic.
ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated.
Biology is about how life operates. Evolution is about the origin of species. ID claims the ground held by biogenesis and by evolution. It says that not only was life created primordially, but that variations in species can only be explained by supernatural causes. If ID were just about biogenesis, there wouldn't be the huge controversy that exists. The main webpage for ID states, "ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory." You can't get much more oppositional than that.
I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment.
You'd be right, but there is no law which says, "you must not teach ID." There is now a ruling which says, "You must not promote ID in (certain) public schools." The whole point being that a religious practice which is promulgated by THE GOVERNMENT is in violation of separation of Church and State. The same holds for the display of the 10 Commandments. Any private citizen do it. What has been opposed is for it to attain the color of public policy by being done by the Government.
When I was a child, I had a "record collection" of maybe 20 albums or so, at least half of which turned out to be crap or filler, the rest (the good ones!) being sratched and fuzzy from months of overplaying. A new album was worth my week's allowance because it represented a tremendous growth in my opportunity to own something of value. Suddenly my collection grew by five percent, in one swoop.
Now, the average young music fan probably easily has a few thousand mp3s at easy access, and not crap mp3's, but the cream of the crop, the best hits from the past 20 to 40 years, and in pristine digital quality to boot. So a new CD might add 3/10ths of 1 percent to the kid's collection. Not only does it contribute much less of value on a strictly numerical basis, but also the kid has a much wider range of past work to choose from. A new purchase is likely to sound approximately just like any number of old works already in the child's posession.
Also, there was value in the ownership of the music itself. After you tired of a record, if it was in good condition you might be able to sell it to a friend at half-price. Even a blank cassette tape, if used to bootleg would cost approximately a nickel a song (maybe 15 cents in today's money). But a the cost of a bootleg song now is 1 cent. So with that in mind, it makes it increasingly hard to justify spending fifteen dollars for a CD. Even if you are honest and don't illegally download, you still know that what you just paid for is barely "worth" anything in the sense of having an intrisic (resale) value.
Slashdot Mirror
NTFS: Both OS X and XP can read it, but OS X can't write to it
From my perspective, this is a HUGE limitation in this whole scheme. The point of BootCamp seems to be to get WinXP people comfortable with the idea of buying a Mac. And then gradually weaning themselves off the Windows partition. But, you're really only going to do that if you can conveniently, seamlessly get at your Windows data, otherwise you'll constantly be: "okay, I want to edit that Word file, damn, gotta reboot." And if you've got to constantly be puttering around in a Windows environment, you're going to wonder if it was worth it to pay that Apple premium in the first place. Sure,you can copy the file you want to edit from the NTFS partition over to your HFS+ partition, or keep all your stuff on a networked fileserver, but that seems a hassle. I'm looking forward to buying my first Mac, but I'll wait until this NTFS problem gets ironed out first, even if it's an add-on driver or third-party solution.
One interesting thing is that this will throw all the Win/Mac marketshare discussions out of wack. It's no longer either/or, but both. Windows might achieve a 99% penetration at the same time that Macs have a 10% marketshare. MS might cautiously applaud the whole thing.
I've always felt that The Futurological Congress would make an excellent feature film, although its vision of a doped-up society, enthralled by the external appearance of a shiny future while things turn to rot within, is no longer a prophecy, but simply the way things are.
Offtopic, but I don't so much mind any particular level of privacy as I mind the privacy differential. While my privacy level is going down, the privacy of the government is going up. It's like Brin's worst-case scenario.
I'm as much asgainst DRM as much as anybody, but I'm going to have to say that historically, this doesn't seem to be the case. Hardware manufacturers tend to be the opposite -- they tend to roll out a DRM scheme and get less and less restrictive as time goes on, because, ultimately, they are not in the business of facilitating software restrictions -- they want to sell hardware.
My recollection is that when SanDisk's SD cards first came out, they were intended to prevent you from reuploading "protected" files from one machine to another machine. Yet, in practice, I have encountered few if any occasions where an SD card acted any different than a regular flash drive.
When DVD machines first came out, they were almost universally region-locked, but as time's gone by, more and more manufacturers have put in backdoor codes to bypass region encoding.
Now, as far as Intel's VIIV technology goes, I could be mistaken but it seems to be designed to restrict arbitrary binaries, not arbitrary data. I think the distinction is crucial. The average consumer will be helped by having rogue binaries stopped at the gates. But hands off our data.
Really? I would've thought that just shipping a few sheets of stapled paper as regular mail in a flat envelope would be much cheaper than shipping a CD and jewel case in a padded one. Well, never mind then. Your music is interesting, though. I may wind up getting something.
I admire you for sticking to your principles, but since you are freely sharing your music, have you thought about just selling the CD liner/insert material on its own and letting folks roll their own CD's? In other words, instead of offering:
.cda files, add CDN$7
CD = CDN$17
offer:
----
liner/insert for CD = CDN$10. Includes artwork, credits, etc.
If you want physical CD with hi-quality
-----
Don't have much to add to that informative post except to say that I too have noticed pixellating while watching a digital projection. It reminded me of the first generation of digital cameras, in which the prints obviously did not compare to 35mm film. Nowadays a good digicam print is equal or superior to the average 35mm P&S print. So I'd imagine the problem of digital artifacts will be licked in the next generation of theater projectors as well.
The problem for large theaters is that flawless digital projections will eventually be their own death warrants. Because at that point, what's to stop boutique sized 100 seat microtheaters from opening up, and for a higher ticket price providing a much more pleasant user experience? What's to stop corporations from ordering "free" screenings for their executives? Point being that there is no limitation on the number of digital prints that a movie commpany can send out. And that will destroy the advantage that theater chains have over the rest of the world. They'll have no choice but to compete on price, the very concept of which puts fear in their hearts. (Before you say "economies of scale," look at the precarious situation of American automakers and airlines.)
If you're going to publish something for hundreds of thousands of people to read, why not use a dictionary?
Similarly, if hundreds of thousands of people might read your comments, why come off like a twit? You could've just as easily said, "The correct term is dynamism," and your response would've been graceful and elegant instead of smug.
Furthermore, this particular word is difficult in that if one goes through the trouble of looking up the word "dynamic" in an online dictionary, the response doesn't give you a clue regarding the formation of its abstract noun. (And surely you're not suggesting that people carry paper dictionaries with them every time they log on to a computer? It might reduce misspellings but it's hardly practical.) Which is probably one of the reasons why, in a perusal of the online world, you'll find such terms as *dyamicalness, *dynamicity, dynamicism (a real word, but inappropriate), along with *dynamicness. And if someone uses Google to look up a candidate-word, *dynamicalness, the response will be misleading:
Did you mean: dynamicness .
I suppose one of the saving graces of Windows Live is that it gives you no such unhelpful hints.
And perhaps you are willing to wink at criminal behaviour so that you can secretly wire a few thousand quid to your mistress without having a few questions raised. I am not.
It totally blows my mind that there are people who think the way that you do. Personally, I can't distinguish that attitude from fascism. So help me out. I have an honest question for you. What is your bright line? At what point would you consider surveillance to be too much? Would you say that the government ought to monitor ALL financial transactions, no matter what amount? If not, what's an appropriate threshhold?
Would you advocate high-sensitivity anti-crime mechanisms in other aspects of daily life? Is it a good idea for cars to be outfitted with sensors that would report (and ticket) you if you change lanes without signalling, make a rolling stop, exceed the posted speed limit, etc. Should your computer be monitored to make sure you don't download unauthorized mp3's, forward newspaper articles without permission, save copyrighted photos, etc.
Is a society with no potential for illegal behavior whatsoever a good society?
This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors.
Although they don't compete for residential service, Lucent Technologies, formerly known as Bell Laboratories, is also one of the children of the original AT&T.
James: no, it's a Rio ____; it's just as good, and it has more features.
There's James's problem right there. At best he sounds like he's apologizing for having some off-brand machine. At worst he sounds like some Asperger's syndrome nerd who's getting ready to launch into a half-hour spiel about the difference between Ogg Vorbis and AAC.
This being New York, he's supposed to say something like, "Ipod? SNORT! Chinese prison labor much??? Besides, me and my bandmates got comped a whole bunch of these things. I still haven't got the hang of it, but hey, free is free, right?"
The idea is not to prevent all forms of piracy. They realize that will never happen. But if they can keep the full-rez, full-featured versions from out in the wild, the consumer will hopefully see value added in the purchase of an HD-DVD. You'll have a reason to plunk down your $29 even if you managed to snarf the image-constrained version off some pirate site. You'll also have a built-in reason to get a HDCP-shackled HDTV if you haven't gotten one already: Your new library will be instantly uprezzed with the purchase. So it's a win-win proposition for the hardware manufacturers, content producers and retailers. And we can shout at the top of our lungs that we consumers will lose our rights, but with the ability to still do an "unmanaged copy" at DVD resolution, it's hard to make that case to the average Joe. So they advance their DRM agenda while silencing the critics. Sweet! (For them, I mean.)
The "law" may not work like that, but the Internet works like that. Pretty much all of the content you access on the web is somebody else's content. What gives you the right to go to their web page? To cache their words and graphics on your browser? Their tacit assent, that's what. Now if they suddenly want to say, "You're not allowed to cache my stuff if you're a search engine, or if you are running IE, or if you are from Slashdotistan" that's fine. But they ought to indicate that in advance, not just after the fact decide you should be sued. On the other hand, they could simply not put their stuff on the Internet. Problem solved.
Think about it. From your argument, libraries should stop carrying controversial books as well, since there is a significant chance of those books being found by other patrons, including children. After all, for $5, you can go buy the book yourself at a used bookstore, why risk having Huckleberry Finn in the library where my child might come across it?
Also, it may surprise you, but there are a lot of people who can't get $10/month dialup connections because their credit is ruined, their phone keeps getting turned on and off, they have no checking account, etc. I agree with you that it is tacky to look at porn in a public place. But those porn viewers are not the ones "making this an issue." Most of them want nothing else than to look at their Red Hot Latin Transsexual Dwarfs unmolested. The reason this is an issue is because of so-called religious nutjobs objecting to those people exercising their rights. Your anger is displaced.
So which is it, that you would never ever hire a minority unless you were "forced," or that you're entirely color-blind in your dealings, but oops, too bad, there are no qualified minorities in the entire country?
There's this theory that, in monetary terms, things are worth what people will actually pay for them, not what some anonymous schmoe thinks they "ought" to be worth. In the case of .tv, if the domain was really worth much more than $20 million, then Tuvalu should've have said, "let's have an auction" and sold it for the gazillions that you think it should've went for. Or they could've leased it for a percentage of the revenues, or whatever.
.tv. If some committee over at the ISO had had muffins instead of scones for breakfast, they might've come up with .tu or .ta, and then where would Tuvalu be? So they should count themselves fortunate that they wound up with a US$1700 per capita windfall due to what was nothing more than a fortuitous administrative accident. In a "moral" world, they'd have been entitled to their contribution, which was nothing.
Furthermore, if you're going to look at this from an anti-capitalist perspective, you should consider the larger issue. Why is Tuvalu "entitled" to any revenue whatsoever for their TLD? They didn't invent it. It's not a natural right of the island to "own" the two letter sequence
I own this. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it. It works, but it slows down your entire system because the drive powers down after a couple of minutes, and then you can't read the directory until it powers up again. Also, even after it's all warmed up, it's extremely slow over the network. Plus, the SAN driver has to be separately installed on each machine that accesses the device. And finally, I don't think the filesystem it uses is compatible with anything else. I don't know how one would go about defragging the drives or anything like that. (Of course, these devices always say they don't need to be defragged. Just like NTFS.)
On the plus side, it's small and cute. Still, if I had to do it over again, I'd either get an Infrant system, or just plug a couple of drives into a SFF and run it as a Linux fileserver.
You didn't read further down, in the comments. Someone wrote:
"You _can_ upload pdf files, but it's not handled natively, just loads as a full page image (or something) and you can't zoom in, which makes it a bit useless."
From its "What's New" file:
SLaSHDyOTeDs.
That's 0.5%, not .005%.
That's "THE TIMES", a UK paper, not the NY Times, but otherwise a very informative post which shows that the press for once did a little research. Thank you.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but grandparent was about four years old when Reagan left office, so I doubt following the political climate was at the top of his priorities.
Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.
The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"
Except that the raison d'etre of ID (and similar teachings) is to achieve immunity from separation of church and state challenges. In other words, if we concede that it's ok to teach specific religious ideas as "truth" in public school, then there's no need for ID, the school could just teach right from the Bible. If we don't concede that, then we're back we're we started. We still have to determine whether ID falls under the general rubric of a religious teaching or not. That's why discussions as to the essence of ID vs. the essense of evolution are germane, although I'll admit some of them veer very much off-topic.
ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated.
Biology is about how life operates. Evolution is about the origin of species. ID claims the ground held by biogenesis and by evolution. It says that not only was life created primordially, but that variations in species can only be explained by supernatural causes. If ID were just about biogenesis, there wouldn't be the huge controversy that exists. The main webpage for ID states, "ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory." You can't get much more oppositional than that.
I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment.
You'd be right, but there is no law which says, "you must not teach ID." There is now a ruling which says, "You must not promote ID in (certain) public schools." The whole point being that a religious practice which is promulgated by THE GOVERNMENT is in violation of separation of Church and State. The same holds for the display of the 10 Commandments. Any private citizen do it. What has been opposed is for it to attain the color of public policy by being done by the Government.
When I was a child, I had a "record collection" of maybe 20 albums or so, at least half of which turned out to be crap or filler, the rest (the good ones!) being sratched and fuzzy from months of overplaying. A new album was worth my week's allowance because it represented a tremendous growth in my opportunity to own something of value. Suddenly my collection grew by five percent, in one swoop.
Now, the average young music fan probably easily has a few thousand mp3s at easy access, and not crap mp3's, but the cream of the crop, the best hits from the past 20 to 40 years, and in pristine digital quality to boot. So a new CD might add 3/10ths of 1 percent to the kid's collection. Not only does it contribute much less of value on a strictly numerical basis, but also the kid has a much wider range of past work to choose from. A new purchase is likely to sound approximately just like any number of old works already in the child's posession.
Also, there was value in the ownership of the music itself. After you tired of a record, if it was in good condition you might be able to sell it to a friend at half-price. Even a blank cassette tape, if used to bootleg would cost approximately a nickel a song (maybe 15 cents in today's money). But a the cost of a bootleg song now is 1 cent. So with that in mind, it makes it increasingly hard to justify spending fifteen dollars for a CD. Even if you are honest and don't illegally download, you still know that what you just paid for is barely "worth" anything in the sense of having an intrisic (resale) value.