This is my response to "Science Must Destroy Religion," posted on Page 7
While your argument is well intentioned and rational on the surface, its fatal flaw is the presumption that society is capable of behaving rationally rather than emotionally. You might as well argue that people stop eating candy. Further, the benefits of science versus religion are not as clear-cut as you presume.
Firstly, and most importantly, I'll address the aspect of human behavior. To assert that religion is dangerous is to imply that religion is an impetus for negative behavior rather than a channel through which such behavior may be expressed. Religion may be yet another division of people into groups who plot against one another, but to believe that such division would cease to exist without religion is fantastical. Religion exists because people form groups, not the other way around. Religion is a result, or at least a byproduct, of the human condition.
If religion is a symptom of the human psyche, then the elimination of religion is an exercise in futility, and the benefits of such elimination would be nonexistent. People will continue to create artificial divides, and conflict will result. Further, since religion predicates, or at least coincides with, the existence of science, it would appear to be one of the most basic of human constructs. Therefore, we can presume that new individuals will continue to invent the idea of a supreme being, regardless of what we teach them. In fact, many ideas spring from the opposition of established concepts and beliefs, so it's likely that any suppression of religion would only be a finger in the dyke, so to speak, since eliminating one source would only cause it to spring up elsewhere. The same creative power which fuels art will eventually convince someone, somewhere, that they have had contact with such a supreme being, and others will be inclined to believe them, because people are inclined to believe charismatic individuals. It is unrealistic to believe that the void in "knowledge," left by the absense of religion would remain unfilled.
Religion is, by definition, a non-disprovable idea. Further, by definition, it is impossible to eliminate a non-disprovable idea through logic. You may not directly promote, or even consciously acknowledge, that the elimination of religion would be violent, but such a scenario would be inevitable. Since religion is a belief, it is immune to the effects of logic and reason. If one cannot use reason to counter an opposing idea, the only alternative is to eliminate the source of that idea, which is the person harboring it. Therefore, the only way to deliberately eliminate religion is through force, which would be a greater wrong than allowing it to exist; to criminalize religion is to criminalize free thought. In addition, the use of force is, of course, a form of oppression, and oppression has historically resulted in a massive backlash through direct and sympathetic resistance. Of course, some religious groups are attempting to use force to further their cause, but that's their own mistake; there's no need to follow them on the path of failure.
You assert that the danger of religious fanatics obtaining nuclear weaponry is grounds for the elimination of religion, however a more accurate interpretation would be that it's grounds to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of fanatics, whether they support religion, democracy, communism, or purple dinosaurs. Using fanaticism as a basis to reject religion is a non sequitur. The fact is that religious fanaticism is a subset of fanaticism, not the other way around. Fanatics will always exist, and some will always adopt an attitude of "victory at all costs." Whether they are fighting for mindshare, land, oil, fissionable material, women, or clothes is irrelevant. Irrational behavior cannot be eliminated by eliminating irrational etablished belief systems, even if such a thing was possible.
You kill someone in your own group, then you get ostracized from the group which will lead to certain no-mating.
You're applying contemporary morals to historical situations.
Mortal comabat could have established or overthrown dominance, and most likely did if humans are anything like other pack animals. The loser either dies directly, or is ostracized and dies of starvation, unless he manages to find a new group to dominate. This behavior is observed in everything from lions to elephant seals. In most cases, the dominant male gets all the females, or the vast majority, and the other males get none unless they can sneak in a quick mating session while the dominant male isn't looking. That's been true for humans throughout most of recorded history; in fact, monogamy was often the law for serfs, while emporers and kings had harems. It's only very recently, in the past couple of centuries, that this has changed on a large scale.
Finally, OSX 10.4.9.3 rev.2 with 15% more plastic!
on
The Odds at Macworld
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Apple sucks.
Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to say: iJoke, iJoke..
People like bass. I doubt that this is because low notes are just really neat, but because they can *feel* the bass -- vibration and air pressure differences on their skin. A chair that has an embedded subwoofer could produce some of this effect.
It's all fun and games until they hit the brown note.
There are, of course, some warning signs to heed. If you have ringing in your ears, or notice a temporary hearing loss after using your headphones... they are way too loud.
The problem with a nice set of large headphones is that they're a huge drain on battery life. The larger the magnet, the more power it takes to move it to produce the equivelant decible output. That's why most, if not all, portable devices cut corners by encouraging the use of earbuds. Ironically, it's not often that most people need to use headphones outside of a portable-player environment, which makes it sort of a catch-22 for headphone manufacturers. I'm not positive about the Bose headphones, since I haven't had cause to use headphones at all in the past few years, but I think their noise-cancelling line might have internal amplifiers to cut down on the power requirements from the device.
There's no reason to keep 286s around to read WordStar documents. Just because formats are updated and revised doesn't mean the data needs to be stored as such. Save the text as ASCII, and the images as png or another lossless format. In the unlikely event that png is updated in a way that isn't backward compatible, convert the old files over to the newer format. Every few years, copy the data from old media to newer media. If done regularly (rather than, say, waiting until there are 500,000 floppies to make the leap to DVD-R), it won't be much of a chore. Sure it's a headache, but that's why they call it work.
In the same vein, I've always wondered why power companies advertise. Who's the guy who says, "I think we can increase our customer base by a significant margin, if only more people knew about us! We must get the word out: Electricity is here!"
The car disassembly-reassembly prank has reached the point of urban legend. I'm sure it actually happened somewhere at some point, probably even multiple times, but according to rumor it's happened everywhere, and always by some upperclassmen who have since graduated.
And really, taking a car apart is like taking a computer apart: it's only impressive to those with little or no knowledge of how it's done.
You have been selected to moderate because preliminary indications are that you have little or no tolerance for opposing points of view and/or self depricating humor unless such humor regards getting "laid." Whatever that is.
Please check your parody sensors at the door. Microsoft often tries to pass off subverting FUD as parody, knowing full well that enough people will believe the post to throw Slashdot into a chaotic frey.
Just like a multiple choice test, you are encouraged to go with your first instinct. If you mull over your decision, so-called "thinking" about it, you're likely to moderate incorrectly. If the word bad is within 3 words of Linux, select "Flamebait" and move on to the next question before time expires.
As your final test, please choose the appropriate moderation from the list box below. You will be graded on accuracy, response time, and your ability to make it to the "Moderate" button without replying to any posts.
You don't consider teaching one particular sect's creation story in a science class support?
Yes I do. That's why an objective presentation is essential. I guess I should have been more specific: I don't think ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution, but only as a possibility for the genesis of life. It is possible that the existance of life is deliberate, however unlikely. I never suggested we stick the book of Genesis in a biology text and call it a day.
Except (by your own words) that it must be a being in the first place. That is a pretty specific claim
That was an oversight on my part. I'm not proposing I write the text. However, for something to be deliberate, it follows that a being or entity or whatever you want to call it, would have to be responsible. Defining "it" would be crossing the line.
All opinions are not equally valid in science. Only those opinions that can be tested in some way count. To blindly posit a hypothesis with no way to verify it and call it a theory is the (literal) definition of bad science in that it does not follow the scientific method.
That's incorrect. When presented with two options, eliminating the incorrect option is just as acceptable. We may not be able to prove that ID happened, but we may be able to prove that spontaneous generation did not. Or we could prove that it's possible, but so far (correct me if I'm wrong) that hasn't been done. ID is not the antithesis of evolution, except by the religious.
Sociology class is not Biology class. People would not be nearly so upset it they were suggesting it for the sociology curriculum.
I agree that religion does not belong in the Biology classroom. My post, however, was directed toward the constitutionality of teaching religion, and my point was that even if you can construe ID to be a religion, that alone doesn't make it unconstitutional to teach.
And converselty cannot wield powers that are specifically denied it. Of course, we are talking about the judiciary branch
Well, we're right about one thing: The judicial branch was involved. But we're talking about judicial review of a school board's action, which was determined to be unconstitutional. However, the only legal basis regarding the constitutionality of separation of church and state is a) the First Amendment, and b) the lack of any mention of religion in the body of the constitution. On the first point, the first amendment applies only to congress, as it says pretty much verbatim: "Congress shall make no law." Likewise the lack of mention of religion in the body of the constitution would indicate that religious matters are relegated to the sovreignty of each state. I don't think anyone disagrees that the desired result is that we have no national religion, nor shall the free excercise of religion be abridged.
re: the article. To get to the heart of the matter (FTA): We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion.
I agree on that point. I think it's a devious, underhanded effort to sneak religion into the classroom little by little. But being devious and underhanded is not, in and of itself, illegal, let alone unconstitutional. Law enforcement is devious and underhanded all the time. At best ID pushes into a grey area, but that doesn't mean we're going to wake up to find pulpits and hymnals in the classroom.
Once again, I'm not advocating ID as an alternative to the fairly well established theory of evolution. In fact, I'm not advocating it at all; I don't think it happened. At best it's a weak explanation for the appearance of life millions of years ago, and it still begs the question of the origins of the designer. I just don't think it's unconstitutional to acknolwedge that it may have happened, and I think the worst thing to come of it would be that someone grows up determined to find out what really happened.
I don't believe in ID. That said, I don't at all agree that it's unconstitutional, or even improper. Perhaps it *should* be (although I don't think so), but I don't see anything to substantiate the argument that such prohibitions currently exist. The two arguments in favor of separation are as follows: 1) The constitution prevents the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, and 2) Congress has no power except that which is explicitly granted to it, therefore it can neither support nor discourage religion.
However, in order to say that teaching ID is unconstitutional, the following criteria must be met:
1) ID is religion 2) Teaching religion as theory is supporting religion 3) The classroom is a federal matter
On the first point, ID might be a pillar of some religions, but I do not believe that it is paramount to religion. A religion is a construct (or divine law, if that's what you believe) which usually centers around a higher power, but not always. It is, at the heart of it, a set of principles, values, and beliefs about how one should live one's life, and possibly why. The theory of ID on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it. It is the dichotomic (is that a word?) opposition of life arising by chance mingling of molecules. Either it happened by chance, or it didn't. Acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is not anti-science; rather it is the very foundation of science. To blindly follow any hypothesis or theory without regard to alternatives is the definition of bad science.
On the second point, sociology is science, and religion is part of sociology. Sociology is not hard science like chemistry or physics, but it's science nonetheless. Further, no science is an island, regardless of how much each branch may wish it were so. I do believe it's a slippery slope, but sheltering children from various ideas is the opposite of education. Acknowledging that religion exists is not at all the same as supporting it. Teaching politics is as much of a slippery slope, and maintaining an unbiased presentation (inasmuch as that is humanly possible) is obviously important. Because it is difficult does not mean it shouldn't be attempted.
On the third point, Congress only has powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are granted to the state, or the individual. As far as I know, States are in charge of their own curriculum. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is expressly prohibited from making any laws regarding religion, which would mean that such powers are relegated to the states by default. While it's not (to my knowledge) legal for any state to promote or discourage religion, such restrictions would logically be enacted on a state-by-state basis in their own constitutions. That, however, does not make it unconstitutional.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't particularly like the idea of teaching ID, but when I try to think about it objectively, I just can't reconcile its prohibition.
I find it ironic that we sit around arguing about the ethics as if it's somehow going to affect the outcome. Meanwhile, companies such as VesCell are already offering experimental treatment. I find no ethical quandry with allowing people access to experimental treatment if they're aware of the potential outcomes even if those potential outcomes are completely unknown. Whether or not treatment is successful, important knowledge will be gained. I think the idea of government as nanny has softened us to the point where we consider any significant risk to be unacceptable, despite the fact that taking risks is the only way society has advanced throughout history. To deny people the choice of what treatment they may undergo because of someone else's concept of ethics is, I believe, a true injustice.
We'll compare it to car crashes then. Oops, they've killed tons more people than HIV. In fact, let's just avoid making comparisons to fatal things or events altogether. Let's see, that rules out disease, famine, animals, people, fire, water, solid objects, plastic bags, pillows, piano wire, seat belts, the sun, gravity, food, drugs, over exertion, under exertion, sudden compression, sudden decompression, aging, and OH MY GOD, it's almost as if anything can be fatal. Let's just avoid referencing any of it and stick our heads in the sand. Oh wait...
1) I don't believe that it is/should be illegal to prevent the sales of violent games to minors, as determined by a rating system of either the industry or a government-appointed panel. It's illegal to sell booze, porn, and guns to minors, and two of those aren't particularly damaging, and one of them is necessary for life (although watching it isn't necessarily).
Whether or not violent games are detrimental to teens, it's the parents' decision, and this law helps to ensure that parents' wills won't be violated outside of their control.
2) I agree that there are more important things to work on, but this is not a zero-sum game. We don't work on any single problem to the exclusion of all others. On the contrary, working on any one problem, no matter how noble it may be, is even more dangerous. I believe, however, that teens should be pushing for more important rights, such as the right to vote at ~15, or even earlier. If teens can be tried as adults for the violation of any law, then they should be a part of the process that creates those laws. It's a vivid example of people who are subject to a government in which they have no voice; something that would be untolerable in most situations.. at least, before the current administration.
3) As long as there is an economy, poverty can never be eliminated. There are many reasons why this is true, but I'll list a couple:
a) History shows us that regardless of government, economy, society, religion, resources, or circumstance, across time and borders, 3% of the population controls 97% of the wealth (or thereabout). The only possible explanation for this is through the consent of the population. 97% of the population is satisfied with its situation, or believes either that it can't, or that it's not worth making an effort to rise from their situation. There are very few examples of people who fail despite a determined, sustained effort to better their situation. The exceptions are called tragedies, and they're the subject of books, movies, and plays.
b) Some people (not all of course, but some) will always waste and squander what they have. This would be true whether they had $1,000 or $1,000,000. In fact, the more easily they obtain money, the less likely they are to be responsible with it. Like the friend who constantly asks to borrow money, there is no amount of help that can fix these people until they fix themselves. We are a society of wasters and spenders (consumers) though. We save almost nothing, and most people's net worth is negative, or at best balanced by their home equity. It's an example of financial imprudence on a national scale. There are very few situations in which people could not afford to cut costs, but people tend to live right up to (and often beyond) their means. If our paychecks stopped tomorrow, many of us would be on skid row from lack of planning. We cannot help those worse off if we ourselves don't even know how to manage our money.
I forgot to mention the obvious.. anyone who's working with that volume of data is probably doing incremental backups (PBs of data don't just appear out of nowhere), and if compression is involved, it's probably incorporated into the FS and/or the nightly backup. That didn't seem to be the theme of the article and summary though.
Slashdot Mirror
This is my response to "Science Must Destroy Religion," posted on Page 7
While your argument is well intentioned and rational on the surface, its fatal flaw is the presumption that society is capable of behaving rationally rather than emotionally. You might as well argue that people stop eating candy. Further, the benefits of science versus religion are not as clear-cut as you presume.
Firstly, and most importantly, I'll address the aspect of human behavior. To assert that religion is dangerous is to imply that religion is an impetus for negative behavior rather than a channel through which such behavior may be expressed. Religion may be yet another division of people into groups who plot against one another, but to believe that such division would cease to exist without religion is fantastical. Religion exists because people form groups, not the other way around. Religion is a result, or at least a byproduct, of the human condition.
If religion is a symptom of the human psyche, then the elimination of religion is an exercise in futility, and the benefits of such elimination would be nonexistent. People will continue to create artificial divides, and conflict will result. Further, since religion predicates, or at least coincides with, the existence of science, it would appear to be one of the most basic of human constructs. Therefore, we can presume that new individuals will continue to invent the idea of a supreme being, regardless of what we teach them. In fact, many ideas spring from the opposition of established concepts and beliefs, so it's likely that any suppression of religion would only be a finger in the dyke, so to speak, since eliminating one source would only cause it to spring up elsewhere. The same creative power which fuels art will eventually convince someone, somewhere, that they have had contact with such a supreme being, and others will be inclined to believe them, because people are inclined to believe charismatic individuals. It is unrealistic to believe that the void in "knowledge," left by the absense of religion would remain unfilled.
Religion is, by definition, a non-disprovable idea. Further, by definition, it is impossible to eliminate a non-disprovable idea through logic. You may not directly promote, or even consciously acknowledge, that the elimination of religion would be violent, but such a scenario would be inevitable. Since religion is a belief, it is immune to the effects of logic and reason. If one cannot use reason to counter an opposing idea, the only alternative is to eliminate the source of that idea, which is the person harboring it. Therefore, the only way to deliberately eliminate religion is through force, which would be a greater wrong than allowing it to exist; to criminalize religion is to criminalize free thought. In addition, the use of force is, of course, a form of oppression, and oppression has historically resulted in a massive backlash through direct and sympathetic resistance. Of course, some religious groups are attempting to use force to further their cause, but that's their own mistake; there's no need to follow them on the path of failure.
You assert that the danger of religious fanatics obtaining nuclear weaponry is grounds for the elimination of religion, however a more accurate interpretation would be that it's grounds to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of fanatics, whether they support religion, democracy, communism, or purple dinosaurs. Using fanaticism as a basis to reject religion is a non sequitur. The fact is that religious fanaticism is a subset of fanaticism, not the other way around. Fanatics will always exist, and some will always adopt an attitude of "victory at all costs." Whether they are fighting for mindshare, land, oil, fissionable material, women, or clothes is irrelevant. Irrational behavior cannot be eliminated by eliminating irrational etablished belief systems, even if such a thing was possible.
To extol the benefits
You kill someone in your own group, then you get ostracized from the group which will lead to certain no-mating.
You're applying contemporary morals to historical situations.
Mortal comabat could have established or overthrown dominance, and most likely did if humans are anything like other pack animals. The loser either dies directly, or is ostracized and dies of starvation, unless he manages to find a new group to dominate. This behavior is observed in everything from lions to elephant seals. In most cases, the dominant male gets all the females, or the vast majority, and the other males get none unless they can sneak in a quick mating session while the dominant male isn't looking. That's been true for humans throughout most of recorded history; in fact, monogamy was often the law for serfs, while emporers and kings had harems. It's only very recently, in the past couple of centuries, that this has changed on a large scale.
Apple sucks.
Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to say: iJoke, iJoke..
People like bass. I doubt that this is because low notes are just really neat, but because they can *feel* the bass -- vibration and air pressure differences on their skin. A chair that has an embedded subwoofer could produce some of this effect.
It's all fun and games until they hit the brown note.
There are, of course, some warning signs to heed. If you have ringing in your ears, or notice a temporary hearing loss after using your headphones... they are way too loud.
What about bleeding from the ears? Is that bad?
The problem with a nice set of large headphones is that they're a huge drain on battery life. The larger the magnet, the more power it takes to move it to produce the equivelant decible output. That's why most, if not all, portable devices cut corners by encouraging the use of earbuds. Ironically, it's not often that most people need to use headphones outside of a portable-player environment, which makes it sort of a catch-22 for headphone manufacturers. I'm not positive about the Bose headphones, since I haven't had cause to use headphones at all in the past few years, but I think their noise-cancelling line might have internal amplifiers to cut down on the power requirements from the device.
There's no reason to keep 286s around to read WordStar documents. Just because formats are updated and revised doesn't mean the data needs to be stored as such. Save the text as ASCII, and the images as png or another lossless format. In the unlikely event that png is updated in a way that isn't backward compatible, convert the old files over to the newer format. Every few years, copy the data from old media to newer media. If done regularly (rather than, say, waiting until there are 500,000 floppies to make the leap to DVD-R), it won't be much of a chore. Sure it's a headache, but that's why they call it work.
In the same vein, I've always wondered why power companies advertise. Who's the guy who says, "I think we can increase our customer base by a significant margin, if only more people knew about us! We must get the word out: Electricity is here!"
I think the real prank was making us read 5 paragraphs of setup and then.. nothing.
Good one.
Your insolence has been noted on your permanent record.
Exactly.. life is a sine wave.
The car disassembly-reassembly prank has reached the point of urban legend. I'm sure it actually happened somewhere at some point, probably even multiple times, but according to rumor it's happened everywhere, and always by some upperclassmen who have since graduated.
And really, taking a car apart is like taking a computer apart: it's only impressive to those with little or no knowledge of how it's done.
Details of the prank at http://www.harvardsucks.org/.
Although the joke might be on Yale if the insightful comments there are any indication.
From the Moderation Guide:
You have been selected to moderate because preliminary indications are that you have little or no tolerance for opposing points of view and/or self depricating humor unless such humor regards getting "laid." Whatever that is.
Please check your parody sensors at the door. Microsoft often tries to pass off subverting FUD as parody, knowing full well that enough people will believe the post to throw Slashdot into a chaotic frey.
Just like a multiple choice test, you are encouraged to go with your first instinct. If you mull over your decision, so-called "thinking" about it, you're likely to moderate incorrectly. If the word bad is within 3 words of Linux, select "Flamebait" and move on to the next question before time expires.
As your final test, please choose the appropriate moderation from the list box below. You will be graded on accuracy, response time, and your ability to make it to the "Moderate" button without replying to any posts.
You don't consider teaching one particular sect's creation story in a science class support?
Yes I do. That's why an objective presentation is essential. I guess I should have been more specific: I don't think ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution, but only as a possibility for the genesis of life. It is possible that the existance of life is deliberate, however unlikely. I never suggested we stick the book of Genesis in a biology text and call it a day.
Except (by your own words) that it must be a being in the first place. That is a pretty specific claim
That was an oversight on my part. I'm not proposing I write the text. However, for something to be deliberate, it follows that a being or entity or whatever you want to call it, would have to be responsible. Defining "it" would be crossing the line.
All opinions are not equally valid in science. Only those opinions that can be tested in some way count. To blindly posit a hypothesis with no way to verify it and call it a theory is the (literal) definition of bad science in that it does not follow the scientific method.
That's incorrect. When presented with two options, eliminating the incorrect option is just as acceptable. We may not be able to prove that ID happened, but we may be able to prove that spontaneous generation did not. Or we could prove that it's possible, but so far (correct me if I'm wrong) that hasn't been done. ID is not the antithesis of evolution, except by the religious.
Sociology class is not Biology class. People would not be nearly so upset it they were suggesting it for the sociology curriculum.
I agree that religion does not belong in the Biology classroom. My post, however, was directed toward the constitutionality of teaching religion, and my point was that even if you can construe ID to be a religion, that alone doesn't make it unconstitutional to teach.
And converselty cannot wield powers that are specifically denied it. Of course, we are talking about the judiciary branch
Well, we're right about one thing: The judicial branch was involved. But we're talking about judicial review of a school board's action, which was determined to be unconstitutional. However, the only legal basis regarding the constitutionality of separation of church and state is a) the First Amendment, and b) the lack of any mention of religion in the body of the constitution. On the first point, the first amendment applies only to congress, as it says pretty much verbatim: "Congress shall make no law." Likewise the lack of mention of religion in the body of the constitution would indicate that religious matters are relegated to the sovreignty of each state. I don't think anyone disagrees that the desired result is that we have no national religion, nor shall the free excercise of religion be abridged.
re: the article. To get to the heart of the matter (FTA): We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion.
I agree on that point. I think it's a devious, underhanded effort to sneak religion into the classroom little by little. But being devious and underhanded is not, in and of itself, illegal, let alone unconstitutional. Law enforcement is devious and underhanded all the time. At best ID pushes into a grey area, but that doesn't mean we're going to wake up to find pulpits and hymnals in the classroom.
Once again, I'm not advocating ID as an alternative to the fairly well established theory of evolution. In fact, I'm not advocating it at all; I don't think it happened. At best it's a weak explanation for the appearance of life millions of years ago, and it still begs the question of the origins of the designer. I just don't think it's unconstitutional to acknolwedge that it may have happened, and I think the worst thing to come of it would be that someone grows up determined to find out what really happened.
I agree, and to start the ball rolling:
I don't believe in ID. That said, I don't at all agree that it's unconstitutional, or even improper. Perhaps it *should* be (although I don't think so), but I don't see anything to substantiate the argument that such prohibitions currently exist. The two arguments in favor of separation are as follows: 1) The constitution prevents the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, and 2) Congress has no power except that which is explicitly granted to it, therefore it can neither support nor discourage religion.
However, in order to say that teaching ID is unconstitutional, the following criteria must be met:
1) ID is religion
2) Teaching religion as theory is supporting religion
3) The classroom is a federal matter
On the first point, ID might be a pillar of some religions, but I do not believe that it is paramount to religion. A religion is a construct (or divine law, if that's what you believe) which usually centers around a higher power, but not always. It is, at the heart of it, a set of principles, values, and beliefs about how one should live one's life, and possibly why. The theory of ID on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it. It is the dichotomic (is that a word?) opposition of life arising by chance mingling of molecules. Either it happened by chance, or it didn't. Acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is not anti-science; rather it is the very foundation of science. To blindly follow any hypothesis or theory without regard to alternatives is the definition of bad science.
On the second point, sociology is science, and religion is part of sociology. Sociology is not hard science like chemistry or physics, but it's science nonetheless. Further, no science is an island, regardless of how much each branch may wish it were so. I do believe it's a slippery slope, but sheltering children from various ideas is the opposite of education. Acknowledging that religion exists is not at all the same as supporting it. Teaching politics is as much of a slippery slope, and maintaining an unbiased presentation (inasmuch as that is humanly possible) is obviously important. Because it is difficult does not mean it shouldn't be attempted.
On the third point, Congress only has powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are granted to the state, or the individual. As far as I know, States are in charge of their own curriculum. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is expressly prohibited from making any laws regarding religion, which would mean that such powers are relegated to the states by default. While it's not (to my knowledge) legal for any state to promote or discourage religion, such restrictions would logically be enacted on a state-by-state basis in their own constitutions. That, however, does not make it unconstitutional.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't particularly like the idea of teaching ID, but when I try to think about it objectively, I just can't reconcile its prohibition.
I find it ironic that we sit around arguing about the ethics as if it's somehow going to affect the outcome. Meanwhile, companies such as VesCell are already offering experimental treatment. I find no ethical quandry with allowing people access to experimental treatment if they're aware of the potential outcomes even if those potential outcomes are completely unknown. Whether or not treatment is successful, important knowledge will be gained. I think the idea of government as nanny has softened us to the point where we consider any significant risk to be unacceptable, despite the fact that taking risks is the only way society has advanced throughout history. To deny people the choice of what treatment they may undergo because of someone else's concept of ethics is, I believe, a true injustice.
Cannibals? Don't forget about us..
-Bears
We'll compare it to car crashes then. Oops, they've killed tons more people than HIV. In fact, let's just avoid making comparisons to fatal things or events altogether. Let's see, that rules out disease, famine, animals, people, fire, water, solid objects, plastic bags, pillows, piano wire, seat belts, the sun, gravity, food, drugs, over exertion, under exertion, sudden compression, sudden decompression, aging, and OH MY GOD, it's almost as if anything can be fatal. Let's just avoid referencing any of it and stick our heads in the sand. Oh wait...
The only News here is that the News Service has been dead for some time.
Wouldn't that not be news? Olds, maybe..
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
There is no dichotomy between a formal education and ignorance, only between a degree and a lack thereof.
This is slashdot, buddy. Most of us have more than twio digits in our IQs.
I'm glad to see you're not intimidated by that. Welcome!
My response:
1) I don't believe that it is/should be illegal to prevent the sales of violent games to minors, as determined by a rating system of either the industry or a government-appointed panel. It's illegal to sell booze, porn, and guns to minors, and two of those aren't particularly damaging, and one of them is necessary for life (although watching it isn't necessarily).
Whether or not violent games are detrimental to teens, it's the parents' decision, and this law helps to ensure that parents' wills won't be violated outside of their control.
2) I agree that there are more important things to work on, but this is not a zero-sum game. We don't work on any single problem to the exclusion of all others. On the contrary, working on any one problem, no matter how noble it may be, is even more dangerous. I believe, however, that teens should be pushing for more important rights, such as the right to vote at ~15, or even earlier. If teens can be tried as adults for the violation of any law, then they should be a part of the process that creates those laws. It's a vivid example of people who are subject to a government in which they have no voice; something that would be untolerable in most situations.. at least, before the current administration.
3) As long as there is an economy, poverty can never be eliminated. There are many reasons why this is true, but I'll list a couple:
a) History shows us that regardless of government, economy, society, religion, resources, or circumstance, across time and borders, 3% of the population controls 97% of the wealth (or thereabout). The only possible explanation for this is through the consent of the population. 97% of the population is satisfied with its situation, or believes either that it can't, or that it's not worth making an effort to rise from their situation. There are very few examples of people who fail despite a determined, sustained effort to better their situation. The exceptions are called tragedies, and they're the subject of books, movies, and plays.
b) Some people (not all of course, but some) will always waste and squander what they have. This would be true whether they had $1,000 or $1,000,000. In fact, the more easily they obtain money, the less likely they are to be responsible with it. Like the friend who constantly asks to borrow money, there is no amount of help that can fix these people until they fix themselves. We are a society of wasters and spenders (consumers) though. We save almost nothing, and most people's net worth is negative, or at best balanced by their home equity. It's an example of financial imprudence on a national scale. There are very few situations in which people could not afford to cut costs, but people tend to live right up to (and often beyond) their means. If our paychecks stopped tomorrow, many of us would be on skid row from lack of planning. We cannot help those worse off if we ourselves don't even know how to manage our money.
In Soviet Russia, when it's too late, jokes crack you!
I forgot to mention the obvious.. anyone who's working with that volume of data is probably doing incremental backups (PBs of data don't just appear out of nowhere), and if compression is involved, it's probably incorporated into the FS and/or the nightly backup. That didn't seem to be the theme of the article and summary though.