Very sorry to hear about your loss, Sam ..
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
.. but what you did here was really awesome.
Funerals and memorials should be about celebrating a person's life, not mourning a person's death. It appears that you and your brother both had a whimsical sense of humor, and that you were able to harness that and put together a very unique tribute that captured the essence of what he loved in life. I don't know how or when I'm going to go (nor do I want to) but when that time comes, I'd love to think that my family will be as creative and thoughtful as you were here.
Let me guess -- did you think that "Enemy of the State" was a documentary?
A bunch of spooks sitting around a room watching live feeds of Will Smith jumping from rooftop to rooftop might make for an exciting movie, but the reality is that not even the United States intelligence apparatus can do anything about the basic laws of optics or orbital mechanics.
Yes, but in order to accidentally break a bulb that has been stored for disposal, you would have to
1) accidentally take the sack off of the shelf 2) accidentally take the CFL package out of the sack 3) accidentally open the package and remove one (or more) burnt-out bulbs 4) accidentally drop the bulb on the floor
That's quite an accident! I would agree, however, that if a person is this clumsy, they should stay far away from CFLs (and sharp objects in general).
So you're storing dangerous amounts of hazardous waste in your home.
Storing burn-out CFLs in their original packaging to be disposed of at a later date is no more "dangerous" than keeping a Baggie of dead batteries to be properly disposed of at a later date.
You're kidding, right? Do you individually drive dead batteries down to the proper disposal facility when you replace them, too? This may sound a bit goofy (work with me here) but you understand that you do have the option of storing burnt-out CFLs yourself until you have enough to warrant a trip down to a recycling facility? I've got a paper grocery sack sitting on a shelf in my garage. When I replaced the bulbs in my house, I put the original CFL packaging in the sack. When they burn out (none have burnt out yet, after 1.5 years or so), I'll just replace them and store them in the sack. You're complaining about a trip that you should only have to make once every three years or so.
I'm all for a rational debate about the merits and demerits of CFLs, but sometimes it seems like people are just looking for excuses to complain about them -- hence all the "OMG MERCURY" and "disposal hassle" silliness.
The idea that big power companies want everybody to use as much electricity as possible is fallacious. Sure, high electricity use translates into a high monthly bills, but it's not like the power company generates the electricity from thin air. There are obvious costs involved with generating the electricity in the first place, and too much usage introduces bigger problems -- infrastructure upgrades, the need to build new plants, etc.
I would suspect that most electric providers would be quite pleased if all of their customers reduced their monthly usage by 30% or so. Around here, the electric companies are the biggest proponents of CFLs and other energy-saving measures.
And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it.
If this is what you believe the gameplay in GTA to be, then I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never played a GTA game before.
It doesn't matter if you're worried about a snooping government, script kiddies, nosy roommates or family members, or anybody else you don't want looking at your data. In this day and age, there really is no substitute for encryption, and there's also really no excuse to not be using it, given the amount of options (many of them free, as in speech and beer) available today. There's no reason to leave things like tax returns, sensitive work projects, etc. sitting out in the open.
One of the best things that I've done recently is to wipe and randomize a 40-gig partition on one of my drives and set up a 256-bit AES-encrypted ext3 filesystem. Unless I enter my lengthy passphrase, there is no way to mount the volume, much less look at its contents. Barring some unforseen weakness in AES, this is now data that nobody but me will ever see (unless I do something silly like forget to unmount it).
It is, in many ways, a brave new world, but people need to know that there are things they can do to protect themselves. This, of course, is not news to the Slashdot crowd, but it is something that the less-clueful public needs to hear about.
Anyone that believes that has a few screws loose and should be ignored.
No kidding, especially since the most reputable evidence that we have (Bishop Ussher's Annals of the World) clearly establishes an age of 6,000 years for the Earth. 14,000 is over double that! Over double the truth! Christianity is an awfully big tent, and even extreme liberals like these "14,000 years" fools are let into the show, but that does not mean that they're getting to see the final act. We can only hope that they discover some morality before it's too late.
However, if you believe that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old, as many extreme Christians do, then you could make the case that biological evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and the universe (although, in truth, the same could be said about pretty much any branch of natural science). The problem is that a lot of the afore-mentioned extreme Christians have done a pretty good job of passing along many of these misconceptions to their more modern and moderate brethren. The best solution to this is to make sure that people are continually educated (through posts like yours) about what evolution actually entails.
When I indicated he tends to the left, I did not use or indicate the modifier "far".
Is this the same dazedNconfused that just said:
Thing is, much of the "right" is just as peeved at him as you are precisely because he is so far "left" he may as well put a (D) after his name.
(Emphasis mine.)
Thing is, that other 15% tends to cover the Really Big Issues. On most of the major hot-button litmus-test-type issues, McCain votes left.
What Really Big Issues? What hot-button litmus-test-type issues? On the issue of abortion (probably the biggest hot-button issue) McCain has repeatedly stated that he believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. On the issue of gay marriage, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but only because he philosophically believes that the issue should be decided by the states. (In this most recent election cycle, he supported his home state's ban on gay marriage, though the ban was voted down.) He supports a Constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. He's in favor of school prayer and posting the Ten Commandments in schools. He supports the display of the Confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse. About the only legitimate beef that I can see would be regarding his role in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which, while imperfect, is at least an attempt to fix a horribly broken system.
It seems to me that lots of people (both Democrats and Republicans) have formed some sort of image of John McCain based on what they see on the news and not on his actual voting record. McCain is not some sort of maverick liberal Republican (or even a moderate, for that matter). He's a garden-variety conservative with a garden-variety voting record. The fact that he occasionally likes to poke George W. Bush in the eye with a sharp stick does not change that.
McCain has an 85% strong conservative voting record. How in the world does that make him "far left"? Speaking from the left, I can tell you: We don't want him.
Somebody really should take it -- it has the makings for a great satire site (not to mention a thinly-veiled backhand slap at the intelligence folks who think that things like this are a good idea).
The one bright spot to all of this is that starting next year, you'll be able to log into www.FreeTerrorReport.com and get a free copy of your score from all three of the main terror bureaus.
Iraq's army was decimated in the 1991 Gulf War and had suffered over a decade of neglect since then. Nobody believed that it would present any sort of challenge to our military (and, of course, it didn't). What was ridiculed among the more educated segments of society was the notion that a Jeffersonian democracy would just spring up ex nihilo from the remnants of Saddam's regime.
I have visions in my head of a mile-long line of museum patrons wearing American flag bandanas, threadbare cotton jogging pants, and Dale Earnhardt T-shirts (with the sleeves ripped off, of course). I don't know if I'd have the patience.
It's not the direction that the compass is pointing in. It's the sheer distance of the object that it is pointing to.
There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There is, however, plenty wrong with being extreme (regardless of which extreme end of the political spectrum you reside in). In this particular instance, WorldNetDaily has long been known as an extreme right-wing rag with very questionable credentials. These are the people who, post 9-11, suggested that U.S. soldiers should dip all of their bullets in pork lard and that we should taint the water supplies of major Muslim population centers with pig's blood. They're constantly putting out stories clearly aimed at Americans with -- well, let's just say "slightly lower than average IQs", such as ridiculous claims involving an Iranian superweapon that could take the entire U.S. "back to the Stone Age".
If this is the reality that you live in, then you have no right to complain when people question your ability to accurately represent something that is anywhere near reality. I pity those poor souls who get all of their news from sites like WorldNetDaily, much as I pity those poor souls who rely on places like MichaelMoore.com for all of their information on world events.
I think the fact that you're (apparently) unwilling to accept "open criticism" of the American government says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about Jon Stewart.
Not only what are we going to do to stop it, but why are we allowing this in the first place?
If some pimply-faced grocery clerk gave me a hard time because I was buying a peach, I'd tell him to go fuck his mother. Crude, vulgar, and obnoxious? Sure it is, but it's no less crude, vulgar, and obnoxious than the state of affairs that's being visited upon us by the elected officials that we've chosen to represent us. If you believe in freedom but your representatives in Washington do not, then it's time to kick them to the curb and vote for somebody who does -- while you still have a chance.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have
fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such
laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock
happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles
-- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous.
Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to
intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is
evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of
our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any
further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State
have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of
surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy
on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun
Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms
from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next
time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment
rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough
to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when
they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the
address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed
at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night?
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent
nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that
particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear
reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting
trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members
of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the
country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950.
That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy,
at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the
moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather
balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was
the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional
rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our
government when the sun goes down.
(Hey, I've seen enough people plagiarize this piece over the years, I thought I might as well post it myself for old time's sake.)
The problem with teaching "Intelligent Design" as some kind of scientific theory is that it really doesn't say anything concrete about the origin of species. It offers no observable or falsifiable hypothesis to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth. The foundation of ID is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which basically says that there are structures found in organisms today that are too complicated to have come about through purely natural processes.
Now, the vast majority of molecular biologists would probably dispute this, but that is neither here nor there. The interesting thing is that ID, even if you accept the notion of irreducible complexity, says absolutely nothing that would refute or falsify evolutionary common descent. ID cannot be used to say that evolution did not happen; it can only be used to say that evolution without an intelligent designer did not happen. So in that respect, it can be said that the vast majority of ID proponents are, in fact, "evolutionists." (I hate that word, but it's probably as good as any.)
However, even though proponents of ID can hide behind the eminently reasonable position of theistic evolution, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of them are, in fact, full-blown creationists. (By this, I mean that they subscribe to absurd notions such as a 6,000 year-old Universe, dinosaur fossils and distant starlight being tests of our faith, etc.)
And herein lies the problem with "intelligent design." The concepts of ID can be used to theorize that the Universe is billions of years old, that the Earth accreted from debris surrounding our proto-Sun, and that evolutionary common descent (all of this guided by God) is the vehicle for the biodiversity we observe on Earth today. The concepts of ID can also be used to theorize that the Earth was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago in its current form. Any "theory" which says these two things at the same time is so vague as to be completely useless, particularly in the field of natural sciences.
And to top it off, throwing the concept of an Intelligent Designer (who, by definition, cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise described) completely contradicts the purpose and methods of natural science.
It's been a while since I actually cared about any of this "debate", but the last time I checked, most people believed in both God and evolution. And the biggest lie that the "creationist/ID" movement is telling is that there is somehow something wrong with this. Leave the "what, when, and how" questions to science and the "who and why" questions to religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Attempting to combine them is just asking for trouble, but that's what the ID folks are trying to do.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life.
Biological evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's all that it is. Note that this implies that life has to exist in order for evolution to occur. Contrary to popular opinion, biological evolution says nothing -- repeat, nothing about the origin of life. Faulting evolution on this basis is like faulting organic chemistry because it failed to predict the outcome of Super Bowl XXVII. If you want to debate theories like abiogenesis or panspermia, then say so. Conflating them with evolution does not exactly inspire confidence in your basic grasp of the concepts at hand.
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it?
I think the big difference between "evolutionists" and creationists is that the former have never claimed to have all the answers.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's freedom?
I'm freedom, that's who.
.. but what you did here was really awesome.
Funerals and memorials should be about celebrating a person's life, not mourning a person's death. It appears that you and your brother both had a whimsical sense of humor, and that you were able to harness that and put together a very unique tribute that captured the essence of what he loved in life. I don't know how or when I'm going to go (nor do I want to) but when that time comes, I'd love to think that my family will be as creative and thoughtful as you were here.
Let me guess -- did you think that "Enemy of the State" was a documentary?
A bunch of spooks sitting around a room watching live feeds of Will Smith jumping from rooftop to rooftop might make for an exciting movie, but the reality is that not even the United States intelligence apparatus can do anything about the basic laws of optics or orbital mechanics.
And the Nobel prize for Tolling goes to...
The Florida Turnpike?
Yes, but in order to accidentally break a bulb that has been stored for disposal, you would have to
1) accidentally take the sack off of the shelf
2) accidentally take the CFL package out of the sack
3) accidentally open the package and remove one (or more) burnt-out bulbs
4) accidentally drop the bulb on the floor
That's quite an accident! I would agree, however, that if a person is this clumsy, they should stay far away from CFLs (and sharp objects in general).
Storing burn-out CFLs in their original packaging to be disposed of at a later date is no more "dangerous" than keeping a Baggie of dead batteries to be properly disposed of at a later date.
You're kidding, right? Do you individually drive dead batteries down to the proper disposal facility when you replace them, too? This may sound a bit goofy (work with me here) but you understand that you do have the option of storing burnt-out CFLs yourself until you have enough to warrant a trip down to a recycling facility? I've got a paper grocery sack sitting on a shelf in my garage. When I replaced the bulbs in my house, I put the original CFL packaging in the sack. When they burn out (none have burnt out yet, after 1.5 years or so), I'll just replace them and store them in the sack. You're complaining about a trip that you should only have to make once every three years or so.
I'm all for a rational debate about the merits and demerits of CFLs, but sometimes it seems like people are just looking for excuses to complain about them -- hence all the "OMG MERCURY" and "disposal hassle" silliness.
The idea that big power companies want everybody to use as much electricity as possible is fallacious. Sure, high electricity use translates into a high monthly bills, but it's not like the power company generates the electricity from thin air. There are obvious costs involved with generating the electricity in the first place, and too much usage introduces bigger problems -- infrastructure upgrades, the need to build new plants, etc.
I would suspect that most electric providers would be quite pleased if all of their customers reduced their monthly usage by 30% or so. Around here, the electric companies are the biggest proponents of CFLs and other energy-saving measures.
It doesn't matter if you're worried about a snooping government, script kiddies, nosy roommates or family members, or anybody else you don't want looking at your data. In this day and age, there really is no substitute for encryption, and there's also really no excuse to not be using it, given the amount of options (many of them free, as in speech and beer) available today. There's no reason to leave things like tax returns, sensitive work projects, etc. sitting out in the open.
One of the best things that I've done recently is to wipe and randomize a 40-gig partition on one of my drives and set up a 256-bit AES-encrypted ext3 filesystem. Unless I enter my lengthy passphrase, there is no way to mount the volume, much less look at its contents. Barring some unforseen weakness in AES, this is now data that nobody but me will ever see (unless I do something silly like forget to unmount it).
It is, in many ways, a brave new world, but people need to know that there are things they can do to protect themselves. This, of course, is not news to the Slashdot crowd, but it is something that the less-clueful public needs to hear about.
No kidding, especially since the most reputable evidence that we have (Bishop Ussher's Annals of the World) clearly establishes an age of 6,000 years for the Earth. 14,000 is over double that! Over double the truth! Christianity is an awfully big tent, and even extreme liberals like these "14,000 years" fools are let into the show, but that does not mean that they're getting to see the final act. We can only hope that they discover some morality before it's too late.
This is, of course, completely true.
However, if you believe that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old, as many extreme Christians do, then you could make the case that biological evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and the universe (although, in truth, the same could be said about pretty much any branch of natural science). The problem is that a lot of the afore-mentioned extreme Christians have done a pretty good job of passing along many of these misconceptions to their more modern and moderate brethren. The best solution to this is to make sure that people are continually educated (through posts like yours) about what evolution actually entails.
Is this the same dazedNconfused that just said:
(Emphasis mine.)
What Really Big Issues? What hot-button litmus-test-type issues? On the issue of abortion (probably the biggest hot-button issue) McCain has repeatedly stated that he believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. On the issue of gay marriage, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but only because he philosophically believes that the issue should be decided by the states. (In this most recent election cycle, he supported his home state's ban on gay marriage, though the ban was voted down.) He supports a Constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. He's in favor of school prayer and posting the Ten Commandments in schools. He supports the display of the Confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse. About the only legitimate beef that I can see would be regarding his role in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which, while imperfect, is at least an attempt to fix a horribly broken system.
It seems to me that lots of people (both Democrats and Republicans) have formed some sort of image of John McCain based on what they see on the news and not on his actual voting record. McCain is not some sort of maverick liberal Republican (or even a moderate, for that matter). He's a garden-variety conservative with a garden-variety voting record. The fact that he occasionally likes to poke George W. Bush in the eye with a sharp stick does not change that.
McCain has an 85% strong conservative voting record. How in the world does that make him "far left"? Speaking from the left, I can tell you: We don't want him.
Somebody really should take it -- it has the makings for a great satire site (not to mention a thinly-veiled backhand slap at the intelligence folks who think that things like this are a good idea).
The one bright spot to all of this is that starting next year, you'll be able to log into www.FreeTerrorReport.com and get a free copy of your score from all three of the main terror bureaus.
Iraq's army was decimated in the 1991 Gulf War and had suffered over a decade of neglect since then. Nobody believed that it would present any sort of challenge to our military (and, of course, it didn't). What was ridiculed among the more educated segments of society was the notion that a Jeffersonian democracy would just spring up ex nihilo from the remnants of Saddam's regime.
I have visions in my head of a mile-long line of museum patrons wearing American flag bandanas, threadbare cotton jogging pants, and Dale Earnhardt T-shirts (with the sleeves ripped off, of course). I don't know if I'd have the patience.
It's not the direction that the compass is pointing in. It's the sheer distance of the object that it is pointing to.
There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There is, however, plenty wrong with being extreme (regardless of which extreme end of the political spectrum you reside in). In this particular instance, WorldNetDaily has long been known as an extreme right-wing rag with very questionable credentials. These are the people who, post 9-11, suggested that U.S. soldiers should dip all of their bullets in pork lard and that we should taint the water supplies of major Muslim population centers with pig's blood. They're constantly putting out stories clearly aimed at Americans with -- well, let's just say "slightly lower than average IQs", such as ridiculous claims involving an Iranian superweapon that could take the entire U.S. "back to the Stone Age".
If this is the reality that you live in, then you have no right to complain when people question your ability to accurately represent something that is anywhere near reality. I pity those poor souls who get all of their news from sites like WorldNetDaily, much as I pity those poor souls who rely on places like MichaelMoore.com for all of their information on world events.
I think the fact that you're (apparently) unwilling to accept "open criticism" of the American government says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about Jon Stewart.
Not only what are we going to do to stop it, but why are we allowing this in the first place?
If some pimply-faced grocery clerk gave me a hard time because I was buying a peach, I'd tell him to go fuck his mother. Crude, vulgar, and obnoxious? Sure it is, but it's no less crude, vulgar, and obnoxious than the state of affairs that's being visited upon us by the elected officials that we've chosen to represent us. If you believe in freedom but your representatives in Washington do not, then it's time to kick them to the curb and vote for somebody who does -- while you still have a chance.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next
time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment
rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough
to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when
they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the
address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed
at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night?
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent
nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that
particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear
reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting
trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members
of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the
country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
(Hey, I've seen enough people plagiarize this piece over the years, I thought I might as well post it myself for old time's sake.)
The problem with teaching "Intelligent Design" as some kind of scientific theory is that it really doesn't say anything concrete about the origin of species. It offers no observable or falsifiable hypothesis to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth. The foundation of ID is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which basically says that there are structures found in organisms today that are too complicated to have come about through purely natural processes.
Now, the vast majority of molecular biologists would probably dispute this, but that is neither here nor there. The interesting thing is that ID, even if you accept the notion of irreducible complexity, says absolutely nothing that would refute or falsify evolutionary common descent. ID cannot be used to say that evolution did not happen; it can only be used to say that evolution without an intelligent designer did not happen. So in that respect, it can be said that the vast majority of ID proponents are, in fact, "evolutionists." (I hate that word, but it's probably as good as any.)
However, even though proponents of ID can hide behind the eminently reasonable position of theistic evolution, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of them are, in fact, full-blown creationists. (By this, I mean that they subscribe to absurd notions such as a 6,000 year-old Universe, dinosaur fossils and distant starlight being tests of our faith, etc.)
And herein lies the problem with "intelligent design." The concepts of ID can be used to theorize that the Universe is billions of years old, that the Earth accreted from debris surrounding our proto-Sun, and that evolutionary common descent (all of this guided by God) is the vehicle for the biodiversity we observe on Earth today. The concepts of ID can also be used to theorize that the Earth was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago in its current form. Any "theory" which says these two things at the same time is so vague as to be completely useless, particularly in the field of natural sciences.
And to top it off, throwing the concept of an Intelligent Designer (who, by definition, cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise described) completely contradicts the purpose and methods of natural science.
It's been a while since I actually cared about any of this "debate", but the last time I checked, most people believed in both God and evolution. And the biggest lie that the "creationist/ID" movement is telling is that there is somehow something wrong with this. Leave the "what, when, and how" questions to science and the "who and why" questions to religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Attempting to combine them is just asking for trouble, but that's what the ID folks are trying to do.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life.
Biological evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's all that it is. Note that this implies that life has to exist in order for evolution to occur. Contrary to popular opinion, biological evolution says nothing -- repeat, nothing about the origin of life. Faulting evolution on this basis is like faulting organic chemistry because it failed to predict the outcome of Super Bowl XXVII. If you want to debate theories like abiogenesis or panspermia, then say so. Conflating them with evolution does not exactly inspire confidence in your basic grasp of the concepts at hand.
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it?
I think the big difference between "evolutionists" and creationists is that the former have never claimed to have all the answers.