I knew I shouldn't have told all my friends how groovy Tivo is...
This will lead to lots of publicity for pvr but more visibility for pvr's is not necessarily a Good Thing. Why? Because one thing that has prevented Them from cracking down is that the installed user base is so small.
But rest assured They will if Sony is successful, either by trying to ban pvr's as we know them outright, legislating for restrictive technology on the insides, or splattering movies, sports events, news, etc with commericals during the actual broadcast.
Assuming they actually do broadcast commercial announcements at, say, the bottom of the screen, the only way to fight back will be to mask off the screen with cardboard or some similar material.
I suspect there will be a change of biz model to a pay per use and it will happen so fast our heads will spin. So we'll end up paying for the cable and also paying for all content.And then it's only a matter of time until they add commercials to the content you've already paid for.
But even better would be colors and various styles of cross hatchings.
Again, it sounds silly until one is in dark light and you're trying to hook up red and green wires, or if you're an FBI guy (I'm not but you get the idea) trying to discern patterns of relationships between terrorists.
I know this sounds silly but it really isn't if you are amongst the afflicted, and one in six males has the condition.
I have fairly significant red/green colorblindness. In regards to the present charts, this made some of the "subtler" colors extremely difficult to discern and therefore some of the relationships amongst terrorists were impossible for me to understand and evaluate.
I hope that, when people make these kinds of organizational charts, they choose colors not for prettiness but for maximum contrast. It is a problem I've encountered many times and, considering how prevalent male color-blindness is, I find it very puzzling that color coding is as poorly thought out as it often seems to be.
Aside from that, an interesting article and a good first step towards a public understanding of the details of the 9/11 network.
1. I picked up Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution and I can assure anyone interested in the topic that it is, as Danny's review says, clear and detailed. Even more important, it is in fact an exciting read, assuming you like to read science.
2. The evolution/creation debate is really about competing moralities, not competing scientific paradigms. Don't waste your time responding to "christian scientific arguments" as they are not mainstream christian, remotely scientific, or even arguments. They exist merely to advance a rather dotty extremist social agenda. Rather, insist that the propagaters of such stuff come clean about the kind of society they are pushing. I'm sure that most Americans would not like to live like that.
And once again, there is no point in bothering to debate with creationists because the argument is not about the truth of evolution but about finding some way to force an extremely peculiar religious agenda upon the rest of us.Otherwise the science of evolution is like other modern theories, like those for complex numbers: too esoteric and too complex for non-specialists to get so passionate about refuting.
And for an indication of what creationists have in mind in terms of their society, I suggest checking out this url:
"I thought one of your main points were inacurracies in the Bible."
In this context, the bible's accuracy or lack therof is beside the point.
"Again you are correct many creationists strongly defend their position because evolution would mean they are wrong."
Well, yes, of course. But the only reason there are creationists is because they believe that, wrongly, evolution challenges their religious beliefs. It does not, for the vast majority of religious people.
"I believe young earth creation from a scientific viewpoint. "
What are your qualifications for holding this belief? I happen to believe in relativity, but I am certainly not qualified to have an opinion as I am not a physicist. On the other hand, I believe that Bach is a great composer, and my lifelong intensive study of music more than qualifies me to hold such a belief.
Regardless, creationist beliefs like "young earth" are held by a minority of qualified scientists, and is only given media significance because of its backing by religious extremists. And the only reason they are interested in creationism is to help push an ugly moral agenda that is rejected by most thoughtful people in this country and abroad.
"I don't have all the answers for the position because I wasn't there when God created the universe much like evolutionists weren't around to watch the varying viewpoints on evolution."
I have no idea what the point is here.
"By the way what is "mainstream" Christianity? That's a very vague term."
A partial definition: The vast majority of people calling themselves Christians of all denominations who recognize that the bible, all of it, is open to various valid interpretations, including contradictory ones and especially metaphorical/allegorical ones, and who recognize that the primary message of the new testament is mercy and tolerance of others as is true of all great religious traditions, regardless of the name of the deity and supporting actors.
These Christians see no reason to waste time in science classes to advance theories whose only reason for being is that somehow, mainstream science contradicts their religious belief and therefore questions their morality. These Christians see no problem with a wall between church and state and, indeed, recognize its importance for their religion. These Christians see no pressing reason to force their moral views on others who differ. These Christians recognize that human life and human morality is a vastly complex affair and that their religion must be supple enough not only to tolerate but *celebrate* ambiguity in moral affairs. These are people who believe in God and who also believe that the figure of Jesus is, among other things, a profound symbol of the human condition.
This is mainstream Christianity, as practiced by all but a few, who have the effrontery to try to force their narrow, intolerant, and ignorant beliefs on the rest of us.
I'd be happy to elaborate further, if the above is unclear.
"I have found that both camps (evolutionist and creationist)..."
There are indeed two camps, creationists and everyone else. There is only a small minority of religious people for whom the issue of evolution is of any importance whatsoever, and most people who take their faith seriously see no reason to erect "camps." Therefore, there is no reason to bother debating evolution with creationists or teaching it in public school as an "alternate theory."
"I personally use the Bible in exactly the manner in which you describe, ie. it is infallible with respect to science and history, as well as in its main purpose, revealing the character of God."
All religious people would probably agree that the bible's main purpose is to reveal the character of god.
Only a small minority of people need to believe the that the bible is *literally* infallible in respect to science and history, that every word in every sentence in every translation is absolutely correct in a literal, physical way. This is a marginal theological position.
"I do not, however propose to advance any moral agenda on anyone. "
Please forgive me, but if that were so, you would be the only person in the history of biblical exegesis who did not draw moral lessons from your bible reading. Whether you choose to advance your moral agenda here is another story and I, for one, am grateful that you are not doing so.
Likewise, I hope that you are also not advancing study of the bible as "infallible" in your local public schools or wasting the time of science students by demanding that the bible be discussed in science class.
It is a wonder that such a great and marvelous book as the bible (actually many books) has attracted such a mediocre and unimaginative attempt to understand it as the fundamentalist assertion of literal "infallibility."
As mentioned earlier, it was a mistake for me to mention this. I will not be drawn into a discussion as to whether the bible is or is not scientifically accurate.
It is irrelevant to the real issue which is that debating the scientific inaccuracies of the bible or the truth of evolution from the standpoint of creationism is merely a subterfuge of the extreme religious right. It merely helps obfuscate the agenda of the fundamentalist "christians" which is to impose an odious moral agenda on mainstream American schoolkids.
It is quite striking that there has not been a single post that I've read so far that focuses exclusively on my major point, which is that it is silly to even try to engage followers of this marginal "christian" theology in a scientific discussion.
As mentioned many times, there is only one small group of extremists who insist that their particular reading of the bible is the only valid one.
Again, it was a mistake on my part to bring up the inaccuracy (or accuracy) of the bible in the present context. If you would be willing to speak to my main point here, I will gladly reply in detail to the substance of your post either privately or on another forum.
"...why completely reasonable and rational minds can and do oppose Evolution on purely scientific grounds, without even ever raising religion as an argument. (Which is not to imply that it's not a vaild "
Again, the creationist argument is about challenges to a particular brand of morality derived from a particular brand of religious interpretation. Otherwise, the scientific validity of evolution would not trouble anyone any more than the scientific validity of astronomical observations. Evolution doesn't challenge the worldview of most practicing christians.
It is striking that variations of the above comments only elicit more and more attempts to frame the debate as about the merits of evolution.
Once more, the debate over the scientific merits of the theory is beside the point with fundamentalist "christians." Their only interest is in promulgating a particular, and very nasty, worldview that no one, except they, believe to be "christian."
Therefore, it is pointless to engage in a scientific debate with such people or to study evolution in such a context.
What IS relevant is to discuss the tactics used by these marginalized people to impose their worldview on the rest of us.And framing their argument as one about evolution and "equal time" is one they use time and again.
"the fact remains that a materialist agenda and world view is being imposed on school children NOW"
Possibly, but evolution plays no part in this debate, except in the minds of fundamentalist "christians."
Other than this small, vocal minority, evolution implies nothing at all culturally, just as the theory of quark flavors implies nothing culturally. Or, if you dislike categoricals, substitute "very little" for "nothing."
If you want to debate materialist versus non-material world views and their place in the classroom, fine. Let's discuss that somewhere else.
But, again, that has nothing to do with scientific theories and therefore the moral agenda debate should not take place under the rubrics of "equal time" for "alternate" explanations. And evolution should not be the punching bag.
"Give me one instance of errors of science in the Bible, and I'll explain it to you and show you it's not."
My mistake.My argument has nothing to do with inaccuracies in the bible (or accuracies).
Therefore, I will never debate the scientific accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible as it is irrelevant to the debate over teaching creationism. I shouldn't have lowered myself, even momentarily, to the provocation.
Again, creationists are only interested in evolution to the extent that they believe that evolution challenges their view of a particular religiously based morality. Otherwise they wouldn't expend such an extraordinary amount of energy on it.
Again, evolution implies nothing whatsoever about a religious belief or a system of morals. Except, of course, to a small minority of self-styled "christians" who push a very particular, and very ugly, moral agenda, many details of which are at odds with mainstream judeo/christian worship and theology.
"First, the Pope declared that christianity does not conflict with evolution as long as one recognizes that the process of evolution was an act of God. This definition of evolution pushes it outside the realm of natural science so it is fundamentally different from what theory of evolution actually claims."
You are absolutely right. But to continue your thought, this definition is also fundamentally different from creationism. It stands aside and apart from the conflict which is about the imposition of morality by a particular "christian" sect.
As mentioned above, there are only some "christians" who believe that evolution challenges an absolutist brand of morality.
Again, this is by no means a majority view held by religious christians, in this, or any other, country.
As to why it is so virulent a debate in the US, one would have to go back at least 100 years into the history of fundamentalism and the economics of mass media to begin to uderstand that.
The best response is to refuse to permit the debate to be framed as anything other than a debate over the imposition of a particular morality on an unwilling people. Scientific discourse within a creationist context is impossible.
"What bothers me most as a Christian is that the theory of evolution is presented as fact"
Nonsense.
What bothers you most as a christian is that you believe that somehow evolution implies something about the truth of your beliefs. Otherwise, it's such an esoteric and complicated theory you wouldn't waste your time coming up with examples.
For example, it is rare indeed to see a statement such as "what bothers me as a christian about the infectious theory of disease is..." or "what bothers me as a christian about the theory of musical harmony.."
Just like disease theories and musical theories, evolution implies nothing about either your religion or about how to behave and discussing the theories is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, attempts to argue the truth of evolution with someone arguing "as a christian" is pointless. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity as most people understand the religion.
However, what IS germane is to point out, over and over again, is that the argument for creationism is really about the effort to force a particular, and IMO very ugly, moral agenda into public schools. An agenda which, again, squares not at all with the moral agenda of most practicing religious people.
" Try this one on, the Bible states that the Earth was kept on ice(literal ice) for a very long period of time until God decided it was time for man to inhabit it. Now tell me that dosen't seem interesting from a scientific point of view...."
With all due respect, it is not interesting.
There are so many errors of science in the bible that finding one statement that is by happenstance scientifically correct (there are certainly more) means little.
And the point, again, is that only a small minority of the judeo/christian community finds it necessary to use the bible as a source for infallible scientific and historical truth. And the only reason they do so is to advance a moral agenda the particulars of which are rejected by the majority of devout christians.
This majority has a far more nuanced, and sensible, reading of the bible, informed by nearly 2000 years of exegesis.
Agreed, of course the most up to date evolutionary paradigm should be taught. That's what makes the book under discussion so intriguing.
"You have to realize that undermining the Creation myth does undermine something that is fundamental to the Christian faith. "
Not *necessarily* so. It is only fundamental to those "christians" who demand that the bible be taken with a particular brand of literalness that is far removed from the mainstream of christian theology faith.
Again, the majority of thoughtful people, of all faiths/non-faiths, recognize that evolution implies nothing about their religion or their moral beliefs. The only exceptions are the creationists, and they are a tiny minority within a highly diverse population of devout christian worshippers.
Even the Pope, for example, recognizes that there is no conflict between evolution and christianity.
They don't care about evolution but what it implies, which is, according to them, a weakening in the requirement to believe in god.
Without god, there are no moral absolutes, goes the argument. And without moral absolutes, why, what's to prevent all sorts of immorality?
Therefore, attempts to debate the theory of evolution with "christian" fundamentalists, or their fellow travelers, is pointless, because you are challenging their entire world view, not objectively evaluating competing scientific theories.
FWIW, almost all thinking non-fundamentalist Christians, as do most educated people regardless of religious belief/nonbelief, realize evolution is a scientific reality.
And we, the vast majority, further realize that evolution doesn't imply anything about morality, or the existence of god, one way or the other.
And therefore there is no reason to waste time in high school science classes teaching theories like creationism that are neither theologically nor scientifically interesting.
"Assuming the role of host, White asks me whether I can identify video games that fully meet my ideals and I yammer like an idiot." Henry Jenkins
"...and halfa my paper was gone.. And I was like... 'unhhh?' " Ellen Feiss
Jenkins is the head of comparative media studies at MIT and he's so clueless about how talk shows work that he gets manipulated by the Donahue producers into thinking he's gonna participate in Lincoln/Douglas Part Deux.
Then he goes to the trouble of writing a long tedious article that no one among the Great Unwashed will ever read..
Bummer
Clearly he's totally clueless about comparative media. Give him the hook, MIT. Today.
"The customer just has to be connected to the internet, then they can automatically restore their licenses just by playing the music files in question."
Does every music file have to be re-licensed individually? Can you imagine doing that with, say, 20 or 30 gigs of 3 minute long songs?
This simply will never work in the long run. Customers will give up in frustration and use some other way to listen to music.
If 5% of media customers boycotted a different medium one day a month for a couple of months, that would do the trick. That represents an incredible amount of lost income. That, too, seems a "fantastical" notion. But it's a realistic number, given enough publicity about the idea spread around to, say, colleges and other places where mass media are consumed in mass quantity.
And yes, millions of letters will help. But that requires more effort. It's easier not to lift a finger in the name of a good cause than to do something. Hence the effectiveness of boycotts, when they are organized and well publicized.
...at a Major Media Company back in the very early 80's, I asked for a meeting with the vp of my division. We had lunch.
I explained that the brand new technology of compact disk was a far more flexible medium than we knew, that it could hold any kind of information whatsoever, not only music, but computer data, movies, etc.
I spent a very long lunch trying to get this concept across. It was simply impossible for this vice president to wrap his mind around the notion that a CD could do a lot more than just deliver music.
The article is absolutely correct but doesn't go far enough. Entertainment execs not only just don't get it. They are not capable of getting it.
Not that they're dumb. They just are not capable of thinking about technology in terms of abstract possibilities. They think of gadgets only in terms of already available functions.
Therefore, in order to prevent the demise of the digital hub (because, after all, senators/congressmen have much the same skill set as entertainment execs,which includes an excessive will to power), no argument except a financial one will work.
I would suggest the following:
1. Hold a No CD Buying Day. The day after,
2. Hold a No Movies/Video Day. Next, of course
3. No TV Day
>P>
Use the time to hug a tree, talk to your loved one, surf the net, read a book, listen to your iPod, etc.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 every month with enough people and anti-Hub legislation will stop cold.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take just the facts, thank you very much, Mr. Hayden, and save your smartass writing style for that Great American Novel you'll never finish.
Oops, except once. I did in fact upgrade my 7100 with a g3 card so it could run an old pro tools system. Works fine.
This will lead to lots of publicity for pvr but more visibility for pvr's is not necessarily a Good Thing. Why? Because one thing that has prevented Them from cracking down is that the installed user base is so small.
But rest assured They will if Sony is successful, either by trying to ban pvr's as we know them outright, legislating for restrictive technology on the insides, or splattering movies, sports events, news, etc with commericals during the actual broadcast.
Assuming they actually do broadcast commercial announcements at, say, the bottom of the screen, the only way to fight back will be to mask off the screen with cardboard or some similar material.
I suspect there will be a change of biz model to a pay per use and it will happen so fast our heads will spin. So we'll end up paying for the cable and also paying for all content.And then it's only a matter of time until they add commercials to the content you've already paid for.
I'm going back to books.
Black
White
Bright Blue
Bright Yellow
Bright Orange
Bright Red
Light Blue
But even better would be colors and various styles of cross hatchings.
Again, it sounds silly until one is in dark light and you're trying to hook up red and green wires, or if you're an FBI guy (I'm not but you get the idea) trying to discern patterns of relationships between terrorists.
If 1/6 of all men were blind, it would be very foolish indeed to make it difficult for them to access important.
I have fairly significant red/green colorblindness. In regards to the present charts, this made some of the "subtler" colors extremely difficult to discern and therefore some of the relationships amongst terrorists were impossible for me to understand and evaluate.
I hope that, when people make these kinds of organizational charts, they choose colors not for prettiness but for maximum contrast. It is a problem I've encountered many times and, considering how prevalent male color-blindness is, I find it very puzzling that color coding is as poorly thought out as it often seems to be.
Aside from that, an interesting article and a good first step towards a public understanding of the details of the 9/11 network.
2. The evolution/creation debate is really about competing moralities, not competing scientific paradigms. Don't waste your time responding to "christian scientific arguments" as they are not mainstream christian, remotely scientific, or even arguments. They exist merely to advance a rather dotty extremist social agenda. Rather, insist that the propagaters of such stuff come clean about the kind of society they are pushing. I'm sure that most Americans would not like to live like that.
And once again, there is no point in bothering to debate with creationists because the argument is not about the truth of evolution but about finding some way to force an extremely peculiar religious agenda upon the rest of us.Otherwise the science of evolution is like other modern theories, like those for complex numbers: too esoteric and too complex for non-specialists to get so passionate about refuting.
And for an indication of what creationists have in mind in terms of their society, I suggest checking out this url:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/florid a.child.agency.ap/index.html
In this context, the bible's accuracy or lack therof is beside the point.
"Again you are correct many creationists strongly defend their position because evolution would mean they are wrong."
Well, yes, of course. But the only reason there are creationists is because they believe that, wrongly, evolution challenges their religious beliefs. It does not, for the vast majority of religious people.
"I believe young earth creation from a scientific viewpoint. "
What are your qualifications for holding this belief? I happen to believe in relativity, but I am certainly not qualified to have an opinion as I am not a physicist. On the other hand, I believe that Bach is a great composer, and my lifelong intensive study of music more than qualifies me to hold such a belief.
Regardless, creationist beliefs like "young earth" are held by a minority of qualified scientists, and is only given media significance because of its backing by religious extremists. And the only reason they are interested in creationism is to help push an ugly moral agenda that is rejected by most thoughtful people in this country and abroad.
"I don't have all the answers for the position because I wasn't there when God created the universe much like evolutionists weren't around to watch the varying viewpoints on evolution."
I have no idea what the point is here.
"By the way what is "mainstream" Christianity? That's a very vague term."
A partial definition: The vast majority of people calling themselves Christians of all denominations who recognize that the bible, all of it, is open to various valid interpretations, including contradictory ones and especially metaphorical/allegorical ones, and who recognize that the primary message of the new testament is mercy and tolerance of others as is true of all great religious traditions, regardless of the name of the deity and supporting actors.
These Christians see no reason to waste time in science classes to advance theories whose only reason for being is that somehow, mainstream science contradicts their religious belief and therefore questions their morality. These Christians see no problem with a wall between church and state and, indeed, recognize its importance for their religion. These Christians see no pressing reason to force their moral views on others who differ. These Christians recognize that human life and human morality is a vastly complex affair and that their religion must be supple enough not only to tolerate but *celebrate* ambiguity in moral affairs. These are people who believe in God and who also believe that the figure of Jesus is, among other things, a profound symbol of the human condition.
This is mainstream Christianity, as practiced by all but a few, who have the effrontery to try to force their narrow, intolerant, and ignorant beliefs on the rest of us.
I'd be happy to elaborate further, if the above is unclear.
There are indeed two camps, creationists and everyone else. There is only a small minority of religious people for whom the issue of evolution is of any importance whatsoever, and most people who take their faith seriously see no reason to erect "camps." Therefore, there is no reason to bother debating evolution with creationists or teaching it in public school as an "alternate theory."
"I personally use the Bible in exactly the manner in which you describe, ie. it is infallible with respect to science and history, as well as in its main purpose, revealing the character of God."
All religious people would probably agree that the bible's main purpose is to reveal the character of god.
Only a small minority of people need to believe the that the bible is *literally* infallible in respect to science and history, that every word in every sentence in every translation is absolutely correct in a literal, physical way. This is a marginal theological position.
"I do not, however propose to advance any moral agenda on anyone. "
Please forgive me, but if that were so, you would be the only person in the history of biblical exegesis who did not draw moral lessons from your bible reading. Whether you choose to advance your moral agenda here is another story and I, for one, am grateful that you are not doing so.
Likewise, I hope that you are also not advancing study of the bible as "infallible" in your local public schools or wasting the time of science students by demanding that the bible be discussed in science class.
It is a wonder that such a great and marvelous book as the bible (actually many books) has attracted such a mediocre and unimaginative attempt to understand it as the fundamentalist assertion of literal "infallibility."
It is irrelevant to the real issue which is that debating the scientific inaccuracies of the bible or the truth of evolution from the standpoint of creationism is merely a subterfuge of the extreme religious right. It merely helps obfuscate the agenda of the fundamentalist "christians" which is to impose an odious moral agenda on mainstream American schoolkids.
It is quite striking that there has not been a single post that I've read so far that focuses exclusively on my major point, which is that it is silly to even try to engage followers of this marginal "christian" theology in a scientific discussion.
As mentioned many times, there is only one small group of extremists who insist that their particular reading of the bible is the only valid one.
Again, it was a mistake on my part to bring up the inaccuracy (or accuracy) of the bible in the present context. If you would be willing to speak to my main point here, I will gladly reply in detail to the substance of your post either privately or on another forum.
Again, the creationist argument is about challenges to a particular brand of morality derived from a particular brand of religious interpretation. Otherwise, the scientific validity of evolution would not trouble anyone any more than the scientific validity of astronomical observations. Evolution doesn't challenge the worldview of most practicing christians.
It is striking that variations of the above comments only elicit more and more attempts to frame the debate as about the merits of evolution.
Once more, the debate over the scientific merits of the theory is beside the point with fundamentalist "christians." Their only interest is in promulgating a particular, and very nasty, worldview that no one, except they, believe to be "christian."
Therefore, it is pointless to engage in a scientific debate with such people or to study evolution in such a context.
What IS relevant is to discuss the tactics used by these marginalized people to impose their worldview on the rest of us.And framing their argument as one about evolution and "equal time" is one they use time and again.
Possibly, but evolution plays no part in this debate, except in the minds of fundamentalist "christians."
Other than this small, vocal minority, evolution implies nothing at all culturally, just as the theory of quark flavors implies nothing culturally. Or, if you dislike categoricals, substitute "very little" for "nothing."
If you want to debate materialist versus non-material world views and their place in the classroom, fine. Let's discuss that somewhere else.
But, again, that has nothing to do with scientific theories and therefore the moral agenda debate should not take place under the rubrics of "equal time" for "alternate" explanations. And evolution should not be the punching bag.
My mistake.My argument has nothing to do with inaccuracies in the bible (or accuracies).
Therefore, I will never debate the scientific accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible as it is irrelevant to the debate over teaching creationism. I shouldn't have lowered myself, even momentarily, to the provocation.
Again, creationists are only interested in evolution to the extent that they believe that evolution challenges their view of a particular religiously based morality. Otherwise they wouldn't expend such an extraordinary amount of energy on it.
Again, evolution implies nothing whatsoever about a religious belief or a system of morals. Except, of course, to a small minority of self-styled "christians" who push a very particular, and very ugly, moral agenda, many details of which are at odds with mainstream judeo/christian worship and theology.
You are absolutely right. But to continue your thought, this definition is also fundamentally different from creationism. It stands aside and apart from the conflict which is about the imposition of morality by a particular "christian" sect.
Again, this is by no means a majority view held by religious christians, in this, or any other, country.
As to why it is so virulent a debate in the US, one would have to go back at least 100 years into the history of fundamentalism and the economics of mass media to begin to uderstand that.
The best response is to refuse to permit the debate to be framed as anything other than a debate over the imposition of a particular morality on an unwilling people. Scientific discourse within a creationist context is impossible.
Nonsense.
What bothers you most as a christian is that you believe that somehow evolution implies something about the truth of your beliefs. Otherwise, it's such an esoteric and complicated theory you wouldn't waste your time coming up with examples.
For example, it is rare indeed to see a statement such as "what bothers me as a christian about the infectious theory of disease is..." or "what bothers me as a christian about the theory of musical harmony.."
Just like disease theories and musical theories, evolution implies nothing about either your religion or about how to behave and discussing the theories is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, attempts to argue the truth of evolution with someone arguing "as a christian" is pointless. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity as most people understand the religion.
However, what IS germane is to point out, over and over again, is that the argument for creationism is really about the effort to force a particular, and IMO very ugly, moral agenda into public schools. An agenda which, again, squares not at all with the moral agenda of most practicing religious people.
With all due respect, it is not interesting.
There are so many errors of science in the bible that finding one statement that is by happenstance scientifically correct (there are certainly more) means little.
And the point, again, is that only a small minority of the judeo/christian community finds it necessary to use the bible as a source for infallible scientific and historical truth. And the only reason they do so is to advance a moral agenda the particulars of which are rejected by the majority of devout christians.
This majority has a far more nuanced, and sensible, reading of the bible, informed by nearly 2000 years of exegesis.
Agreed, of course the most up to date evolutionary paradigm should be taught. That's what makes the book under discussion so intriguing.
Not *necessarily* so. It is only fundamental to those "christians" who demand that the bible be taken with a particular brand of literalness that is far removed from the mainstream of christian theology faith.
Again, the majority of thoughtful people, of all faiths/non-faiths, recognize that evolution implies nothing about their religion or their moral beliefs. The only exceptions are the creationists, and they are a tiny minority within a highly diverse population of devout christian worshippers.
Even the Pope, for example, recognizes that there is no conflict between evolution and christianity.
Without god, there are no moral absolutes, goes the argument. And without moral absolutes, why, what's to prevent all sorts of immorality?
Therefore, attempts to debate the theory of evolution with "christian" fundamentalists, or their fellow travelers, is pointless, because you are challenging their entire world view, not objectively evaluating competing scientific theories.
FWIW, almost all thinking non-fundamentalist Christians, as do most educated people regardless of religious belief/nonbelief, realize evolution is a scientific reality.
And we, the vast majority, further realize that evolution doesn't imply anything about morality, or the existence of god, one way or the other.
And therefore there is no reason to waste time in high school science classes teaching theories like creationism that are neither theologically nor scientifically interesting.
"Assuming the role of host, White asks me whether I can identify video games that fully meet my ideals and I yammer like an idiot." Henry Jenkins
"...and halfa my paper was gone.. And I was like... 'unhhh?' " Ellen Feiss
Jenkins is the head of comparative media studies at MIT and he's so clueless about how talk shows work that he gets manipulated by the Donahue producers into thinking he's gonna participate in Lincoln/Douglas Part Deux.
Then he goes to the trouble of writing a long tedious article that no one among the Great Unwashed will ever read..
Bummer
Clearly he's totally clueless about comparative media. Give him the hook, MIT. Today.
Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep!
will they be unable to get press passes to Macworld SF?
Does every music file have to be re-licensed individually? Can you imagine doing that with, say, 20 or 30 gigs of 3 minute long songs?
This simply will never work in the long run. Customers will give up in frustration and use some other way to listen to music.
If 5% of media customers boycotted a different medium one day a month for a couple of months, that would do the trick. That represents an incredible amount of lost income. That, too, seems a "fantastical" notion. But it's a realistic number, given enough publicity about the idea spread around to, say, colleges and other places where mass media are consumed in mass quantity.
And yes, millions of letters will help. But that requires more effort. It's easier not to lift a finger in the name of a good cause than to do something. Hence the effectiveness of boycotts, when they are organized and well publicized.
I explained that the brand new technology of compact disk was a far more flexible medium than we knew, that it could hold any kind of information whatsoever, not only music, but computer data, movies, etc.
I spent a very long lunch trying to get this concept across. It was simply impossible for this vice president to wrap his mind around the notion that a CD could do a lot more than just deliver music.
The article is absolutely correct but doesn't go far enough. Entertainment execs not only just don't get it. They are not capable of getting it.
Not that they're dumb. They just are not capable of thinking about technology in terms of abstract possibilities. They think of gadgets only in terms of already available functions.
Therefore, in order to prevent the demise of the digital hub (because, after all, senators/congressmen have much the same skill set as entertainment execs,which includes an excessive will to power), no argument except a financial one will work.
I would suggest the following:
1. Hold a No CD Buying Day. The day after,
2. Hold a No Movies/Video Day. Next, of course
3. No TV Day >P> Use the time to hug a tree, talk to your loved one, surf the net, read a book, listen to your iPod, etc.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 every month with enough people and anti-Hub legislation will stop cold.
Nothing else will work.