Intelligent Design is not a Theory. At best, it is a Hypothesis, with the framework of science.
However, being completely untestable by any stretch of the scientific method, it is nothing more then a topic for philosophical discussion. It has no business being called a theory anymore then a paperclip has in being called the creator of all life.
So shouldn't we at least mention such shortcomings of science?
What exactly do you mean by this? Science acknowledges its shortcomings every single day. That's why there are the clear definitions behind what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, what a scientific law is and what a fact is and where facts are used in the supporting structure of science.
Things that cannot be tested within the confines of our existing technology can never be anything other then a hypothesis. It has been that way as long as science as existed with the clear seperation between hypothesis, theory and scientific law.
It has also been true that the use of 'Facts' are simply pieces of information that are discovered through the process of testing a hypothesis and are used to take that hypothesis and formulate a theory.
After becoming a theory, those facts are tested, retested to confirm or deny the validity of that theory. If the theory is deemed entirely invalid and false, it is tossed aside. If that theory is deemed valid but weakly defined/worded, then it is restructured to support the existing facts, which only strengthens the theory.
This is something that I learned when I was in elementary school in early science classes. This was further reinforced as I took additional mandatory science classes in Middle School.
I have no idea how anyone, who claims to have a High School Diploma, could also claim to have no idea what the difference between a Hypothesis, Theory and Scientific Law is. I am not a scientist, I do not deal with hypothesis, theories or scientific laws in my regular daily activities and still I know this.
These seem like possible first hypotheses. Not my belief but I don't see how you can _prove_ that the universe wasn't designed by transdimensional alien beings (a là Men In Black (the movie) at the end). Current physic-al theories breakdown at a temporally distant singularity after all.
Possible first hypothesis - yes; but since they are incapable of being tested at this point in our technological development, they are incapable of becoming theories and thus lay in the realm of the metaphysical and are little more then fodder for philosophy majors.
If at some point in the future we are capable of actually testing those hypothesis, then they can be worked up into theories.
However, the real issue is, what do we teach? You teach the fact, with respect for dissenting viewpoints, just like any other topic. If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question. Evolution and counter-evolutionists should work the same way. There are holes in the most complete theory of evolution. They should be addressed. You can point out it is a theory that is not able to entirely proven, like a mathematical equation might be.
Do you understand what a theory is? Let me put it to you simply, a Theory is not a fact, it is not a law, it is not the end of a discussion or scientific pursuit. In fact, it is only the beginning of a discussion or scientific pursuit.
At most, the only 'Facts' that come into play with a theory are things that support the theory, facts support theories, theories do not support nor are they facts themselves.
A Theory is simply a strongly supported idea that can be tested to be proven right or wrong. Everytime that theory is tested, the theory is either brushed aside, rewritten to support new evidence or is simply strengthened.
If that theory is strengthened enough, it could become a scientific law, for instance like The Law of Gravity. Even at that point, the Law could be proven incorrect or be broken, at which point it drops back down to the state of being a Theory.
If you are unable or unwilling to accept or even understand this simple fact about what a Theory is, then you have no business even entering this conversation.
Does a Fly know how a car runs? Hell no. A Fly has no capability, nor business understanding how an automobile operates. Neither do most humans.
It is a specialized knowledge that is becoming more and more specialized as time progresses. Each year we create more complicated and efficient automobiles as our understanding of physics, chemistry and electronics grows. In time, one may very well need a PhD in Autmobile Repair, just to fix a car.
I am nowhere near being able to call myself a mechanic. I have virtually no knowledge about how an automobile functions, beyond the bare foundation that the engine has an internal combustion process. I simply don't know much beyond that. I don't suddenly decide that it functions via 'magic' because I don't know how it works.
That's what proponents of Inteligent Design do. They decide that since they don't understand enough of the given topic, it must be all because of 'magic' and that is exactly all that Inteligent Design is. It is a metaphysical belief in a greater power that comes directly from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith. The faith in one God that 'inteligently designed' the entire world, all of its creatures and who sits back and laughs at how 'stupid' we humans are.
If Inteligent Design was something other then the belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, then those proponents would be spouting out endless theories as to who that Inteligent Designer was/is. There would be groups solidly believing that Aliens did it. There would be groups solidly believing that Zeus did it. There would be groups solidly believing that the planet Earth is actually the Inteligent Designer. There would be groups that would be believing that a machine inteligence from another dimension broke into ours, or created our dimension and inteligently designed all of us.
The only thing in that ID Camp is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Nothing else is suggested, just one single supreme being. What else could that be? No ID proponent can answer that with a straight face. They desperately try to ignore the question or brush it off.
I don't believe this particular design is 'inteligent' enough to support the ability to understand or even reason through the "3 Laws".
It is basically an Aibo on steroids. Which is to say that the unit isn't much farther along then being able to dance, follow humans around, spit out preprogrammed responses and recognize some human faces.
The robot would have to be sufficiently advanced enough to be capable of coming to its own conclusions in order to be capable of following the "3 Laws". That technology is still quite a bit out of our existing technological capabilities.
..I mean Television got full color and growth continued. Television has gotten cable television with hundreds of channels and yet growth is still continuing.
Television now has Digital High Definition and TV still is growing.
It's called entertainment. There doesn't need to be endless advances for people to want to escape from their reality for a short bit here and there. The only thing that needs to exist is the entertainment itself.
I have trouble seeing how your entire post is called 'Insightful'.
Domain Controller -> Samba, works excellently in this capability.
Active Directory -> OpenLDAP, which is more open then MS Active Directory.
Exchange Server -> I haven't had need to set a Linux version of this up in our office, but I have heard of more then a few Exchange-like services available for Linux. They just aren't on the tip of my tongue right now.
If the fans can come up with enough money to film one season of a Trek series, the fans could come up with enough money to fully finance their own series and if that series can be sold, it can be become a self-perpetuating series.
With modern computer graphics, the costs involved in filming shuttlepod landings could be fairly easily handled.
Who says the starship needs to be some kind of large traditional Starfleet type vessel?
You don't even really need to describe much about the FTL system. You could go the "Firefly" approach and just never explain it, just have some interesting effect take place and go from there.
When I was watching the coverage of the Democratic and then Republican National Conventions, all I saw were Canon Cameras and Lenses in the Photographer's booths.
There might have been one or two Kodak camera bodies, but those use Canon Lenses too...
My 300D only takes about 2 to 5 Seconds. (I don't really count.)
I can't recall missing any really important shots, but if I am expecting something excellent to come up, I always turn the Auto Power down feature off until that time is passed.
...but from what I understand, a large majority of hardcore professional photographers use Canon equipment anyway and Canon's RAW format is supported by Photoshop, The Gimp and likely other photo editing software as well.
...create their own positive thinking fictional future universe based upon the ideals of Gene's vision, but removing all of the trappings of Star Trek.
They could create a new series that can captivate audiences, tell stories in a new world that starts sometime 100 to 200 years from now. Sure, they couldn't use much of the Star Trek hardware; no Transporters, no Warp Drive, but is all of that really necesary to tell a SciFi story along the lines of Gene's vision?
For me, (and I live within 5 miles of multiple PC stores), buying RAM, taking it home, installing it, finding it to be bad (After running a 45 minute or longer Memtest86) and then returning it to the store would more then cost me more then my average hourly rate at the office.
I would rather pay the few extra dollars, get home and have an extremely low chance of installing bad RAM into my PC, then have the possibility of spending the whole day driving back and forth to the PC store to eventually find a good working stick of RAM.
Why is this news? Dell using AMD is just as possible as MS embracing Open Source methodologies and freely giving away all of their sourcecode.
Both are a possibility, but until either company is losing significant marketshare by staying the course they have traveled for so long... It won't happen.
The miles per gallon on an airship is amazing and the time it takes to travel in a straight-line is much lower then it would be for an automobile that must contend with traffic and the fact that most roads aren't straight-line paths for cross country or cross state travel. They can also carry a significantly higher weight of cargo then comparable size/purpose aircraft are capable of.
Also on the plus side, Rigid Airships are actually safer then most aircar designs, since you are in less trouble if you run out of fuel for your motive power. You could, if you wanted, coast to a 'safe' spot and slowly let your bouyant gas seep from its containers.
...on what constitutes Mall Security. In my years of working retail, I had some working relationships with the security teams of several department stores.
More then a few of them were quite effective, ex-military and reservists that enjoyed providing protection, whether it was to people, goods or property. They weren't morons incapable of rational or deep philosophical conversations. They just ended up where they ended up and felt comfortable where they were.
He is simply being weak. A strong person wouldn't fear being typecast because he/she would use their strength to push out of being typecast for any role.
Patrick Stewart is an excellent example of this. He has pulled off some rather impressive roles since leaving his Capt. Picard jumpsuit at the Paramount lot. He played a convincing villain in that movie "Conspiracy Theory", he did a great job as Professor X in "X-Men". (Although to be fair, that was a role similar to being Capt. Picard...) He has done an exemplary job in several voice-over works as well.
Another decent example is Brent Spiner, while he hasn't been incredibly active (AFAIK) outside of Star Trek, he played a plethora of personalities within the series, that each stood entirely on their own, lending just his face to the various characters.
The only thing you aren't taking into acount is that us scrawny bastards will be hungrier quicker and more willing to chase you down and turn you into an arrogant fatty samich.
Of course, being fat, you won't have anywhere near the endurance or speed us scrawny people have. So, we wouldn't have to waste much energy chasing you down. In fact, you might even fall over from a sudden fatal heart attack, making us feel less guilty, since we won't end up being the ones to kill you for food...
...that a group, made up of companies that stand to 'lose the most' by rampant Linux acceptance and adoption, would believe that people will cheerfully accept that they say Linux is 'teh Suxx0r' as the whole actual truth.
...the first step would be to make certain that the information is received at the correct office in those corporations. People at booths might be nothing more then outside marketing firm people paid to look pretty, knod their heads and sell the product.
US Mail Certified letters to those corporations US Legal Departments is the best place to start...
...the proper 3D Drivers installed for your video card or is the Linux version of the game just that sloppy?
I have noticed that I tend to get better FPS and smoother performance with same version releases of commercial Windows and Linux games, like Quake 3, when running Linux as opposed to running Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
However, being completely untestable by any stretch of the scientific method, it is nothing more then a topic for philosophical discussion. It has no business being called a theory anymore then a paperclip has in being called the creator of all life.
What exactly do you mean by this? Science acknowledges its shortcomings every single day. That's why there are the clear definitions behind what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, what a scientific law is and what a fact is and where facts are used in the supporting structure of science.
Things that cannot be tested within the confines of our existing technology can never be anything other then a hypothesis. It has been that way as long as science as existed with the clear seperation between hypothesis, theory and scientific law.
It has also been true that the use of 'Facts' are simply pieces of information that are discovered through the process of testing a hypothesis and are used to take that hypothesis and formulate a theory.
After becoming a theory, those facts are tested, retested to confirm or deny the validity of that theory. If the theory is deemed entirely invalid and false, it is tossed aside. If that theory is deemed valid but weakly defined/worded, then it is restructured to support the existing facts, which only strengthens the theory.
This is something that I learned when I was in elementary school in early science classes. This was further reinforced as I took additional mandatory science classes in Middle School.
I have no idea how anyone, who claims to have a High School Diploma, could also claim to have no idea what the difference between a Hypothesis, Theory and Scientific Law is. I am not a scientist, I do not deal with hypothesis, theories or scientific laws in my regular daily activities and still I know this.
Possible first hypothesis - yes; but since they are incapable of being tested at this point in our technological development, they are incapable of becoming theories and thus lay in the realm of the metaphysical and are little more then fodder for philosophy majors.
If at some point in the future we are capable of actually testing those hypothesis, then they can be worked up into theories.
Do you understand what a theory is? Let me put it to you simply, a Theory is not a fact, it is not a law, it is not the end of a discussion or scientific pursuit. In fact, it is only the beginning of a discussion or scientific pursuit.
At most, the only 'Facts' that come into play with a theory are things that support the theory, facts support theories, theories do not support nor are they facts themselves.
A Theory is simply a strongly supported idea that can be tested to be proven right or wrong. Everytime that theory is tested, the theory is either brushed aside, rewritten to support new evidence or is simply strengthened.
If that theory is strengthened enough, it could become a scientific law, for instance like The Law of Gravity. Even at that point, the Law could be proven incorrect or be broken, at which point it drops back down to the state of being a Theory.
If you are unable or unwilling to accept or even understand this simple fact about what a Theory is, then you have no business even entering this conversation.
Can you create more of a strawman argument?
Does a Fly know how a car runs? Hell no. A Fly has no capability, nor business understanding how an automobile operates. Neither do most humans.
It is a specialized knowledge that is becoming more and more specialized as time progresses. Each year we create more complicated and efficient automobiles as our understanding of physics, chemistry and electronics grows. In time, one may very well need a PhD in Autmobile Repair, just to fix a car.
I am nowhere near being able to call myself a mechanic. I have virtually no knowledge about how an automobile functions, beyond the bare foundation that the engine has an internal combustion process. I simply don't know much beyond that. I don't suddenly decide that it functions via 'magic' because I don't know how it works.
That's what proponents of Inteligent Design do. They decide that since they don't understand enough of the given topic, it must be all because of 'magic' and that is exactly all that Inteligent Design is. It is a metaphysical belief in a greater power that comes directly from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith. The faith in one God that 'inteligently designed' the entire world, all of its creatures and who sits back and laughs at how 'stupid' we humans are.
If Inteligent Design was something other then the belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, then those proponents would be spouting out endless theories as to who that Inteligent Designer was/is. There would be groups solidly believing that Aliens did it. There would be groups solidly believing that Zeus did it. There would be groups solidly believing that the planet Earth is actually the Inteligent Designer. There would be groups that would be believing that a machine inteligence from another dimension broke into ours, or created our dimension and inteligently designed all of us.
The only thing in that ID Camp is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Nothing else is suggested, just one single supreme being. What else could that be? No ID proponent can answer that with a straight face. They desperately try to ignore the question or brush it off.
I don't believe this particular design is 'inteligent' enough to support the ability to understand or even reason through the "3 Laws".
It is basically an Aibo on steroids. Which is to say that the unit isn't much farther along then being able to dance, follow humans around, spit out preprogrammed responses and recognize some human faces.
The robot would have to be sufficiently advanced enough to be capable of coming to its own conclusions in order to be capable of following the "3 Laws". That technology is still quite a bit out of our existing technological capabilities.
Television now has Digital High Definition and TV still is growing.
It's called entertainment. There doesn't need to be endless advances for people to want to escape from their reality for a short bit here and there. The only thing that needs to exist is the entertainment itself.
I have trouble seeing how your entire post is called 'Insightful'.
Domain Controller -> Samba, works excellently in this capability.
Active Directory -> OpenLDAP, which is more open then MS Active Directory.
Exchange Server -> I haven't had need to set a Linux version of this up in our office, but I have heard of more then a few Exchange-like services available for Linux. They just aren't on the tip of my tongue right now.
If the fans can come up with enough money to film one season of a Trek series, the fans could come up with enough money to fully finance their own series and if that series can be sold, it can be become a self-perpetuating series.
With modern computer graphics, the costs involved in filming shuttlepod landings could be fairly easily handled.
Who says the starship needs to be some kind of large traditional Starfleet type vessel?
You don't even really need to describe much about the FTL system. You could go the "Firefly" approach and just never explain it, just have some interesting effect take place and go from there.
I am in the US. I spend a significant amount of time on a site called dpchallenge. Most of the people there refer to the Digital Rebel as the 300D.
When I was watching the coverage of the Democratic and then Republican National Conventions, all I saw were Canon Cameras and Lenses in the Photographer's booths.
There might have been one or two Kodak camera bodies, but those use Canon Lenses too...
My 300D only takes about 2 to 5 Seconds. (I don't really count.)
I can't recall missing any really important shots, but if I am expecting something excellent to come up, I always turn the Auto Power down feature off until that time is passed.
They could create a new series that can captivate audiences, tell stories in a new world that starts sometime 100 to 200 years from now. Sure, they couldn't use much of the Star Trek hardware; no Transporters, no Warp Drive, but is all of that really necesary to tell a SciFi story along the lines of Gene's vision?
First off, the difference isn't 80%.
Secondly, how much is your time really worth?
For me, (and I live within 5 miles of multiple PC stores), buying RAM, taking it home, installing it, finding it to be bad (After running a 45 minute or longer Memtest86) and then returning it to the store would more then cost me more then my average hourly rate at the office.
I would rather pay the few extra dollars, get home and have an extremely low chance of installing bad RAM into my PC, then have the possibility of spending the whole day driving back and forth to the PC store to eventually find a good working stick of RAM.
Why is this news? Dell using AMD is just as possible as MS embracing Open Source methodologies and freely giving away all of their sourcecode.
Both are a possibility, but until either company is losing significant marketshare by staying the course they have traveled for so long... It won't happen.
BT means "Bit Torrent", not 'British Telecom'.
It is a very understandable mistake though.
The miles per gallon on an airship is amazing and the time it takes to travel in a straight-line is much lower then it would be for an automobile that must contend with traffic and the fact that most roads aren't straight-line paths for cross country or cross state travel. They can also carry a significantly higher weight of cargo then comparable size/purpose aircraft are capable of.
Also on the plus side, Rigid Airships are actually safer then most aircar designs, since you are in less trouble if you run out of fuel for your motive power. You could, if you wanted, coast to a 'safe' spot and slowly let your bouyant gas seep from its containers.
More then a few of them were quite effective, ex-military and reservists that enjoyed providing protection, whether it was to people, goods or property. They weren't morons incapable of rational or deep philosophical conversations. They just ended up where they ended up and felt comfortable where they were.
When I first say that bit, laying on his back, I half expected him to start singing about how he was "a bill on a hill"...
Very awesome.
He is simply being weak. A strong person wouldn't fear being typecast because he/she would use their strength to push out of being typecast for any role.
Patrick Stewart is an excellent example of this. He has pulled off some rather impressive roles since leaving his Capt. Picard jumpsuit at the Paramount lot. He played a convincing villain in that movie "Conspiracy Theory", he did a great job as Professor X in "X-Men". (Although to be fair, that was a role similar to being Capt. Picard...) He has done an exemplary job in several voice-over works as well.
Another decent example is Brent Spiner, while he hasn't been incredibly active (AFAIK) outside of Star Trek, he played a plethora of personalities within the series, that each stood entirely on their own, lending just his face to the various characters.
The only thing you aren't taking into acount is that us scrawny bastards will be hungrier quicker and more willing to chase you down and turn you into an arrogant fatty samich.
Of course, being fat, you won't have anywhere near the endurance or speed us scrawny people have. So, we wouldn't have to waste much energy chasing you down. In fact, you might even fall over from a sudden fatal heart attack, making us feel less guilty, since we won't end up being the ones to kill you for food...
US Mail Certified letters to those corporations US Legal Departments is the best place to start...
I have noticed that I tend to get better FPS and smoother performance with same version releases of commercial Windows and Linux games, like Quake 3, when running Linux as opposed to running Windows.