You know, it used to that the debate was about "is it ok for an individual to make a backup copy of their legally purchased software? vs. is it ok to make a copy of your legally purchased software for a friend to borrow?". However, for slashdotians who are incapable of thinking outside of their own box, it appears as though this has moved into "is it ok to steal software for personal use vs. is it ok to mass produce and distribute stolen software?"
The cost of computers today is roughly the same as it was 8 years ago when I upgraded my 1st 3d graphics card. However, the cost of a high end graphics card in particular has gone from about $200 to $500 over this same time period. What does that increase get you? The same thing, the ability to play the latest games at acceptable frame rates. That works out to an average 12 month generational cost increase of about 12.5% per generation. So yeah, I guess you can still say you're getting your money's worth today if you think the 35%ish performance gain does you any good. But the point is that that performance gain isn't nearly the same as the 100% performance gain that existed 8 years ago.
So while the computer industry as a whole has mangaged to offer vastly increased performance while keeping the price constant (or even decreasing), the video card industry has lapsed. Sure they provide the performance increases, but do you really need or want them? It's 3d game development really that is driving this industry. Compare your 3d gaming experience in the days of the V2 to what it is now. Was it worth the cost increase? I think the video card industry behaves according to the law of diminished returns, it just isn't providing the same value to it customers.
I remember when the V1 3d cards were first ccame into the market. They were easily top of the line and the best cards went for about $200. When the next generation V2's came out, I pre-purchased the very 1st V2 SLI card (actually 2 cards bridged together) at the incredibly expensive price of about $600. It was alot, but the card literally quadrupled the performance of the V1 I had and the price very quickly fell another $200 before the V3's were out. Today you pay $500 for a top of the line single GPU card that doesn't even double the previous generation's performance. It seems video cards are becoming a disproportionally expensive component of the PC and just aren't providing the same value.
This proves that with enough time and effort you can construct a cypher from which 'the meaning of life' tm. can be determined from last night's plate of spaghetti that your mom made you eat.
"Despite the overall poor performance, Lenovo has still not gained the mindshare or the respect that the ThinkPads command."
Perhaps if they inflated thier prices even more than IBM did, they would command greater market share and more respect than IBM did, well from ummm... from somebody anyway, I guess, maybe?
Actually I'd be surprised if MS recognizes 'need pirates' at all. If it were my company, I'd have the pirated OS boot into a DOS like interface and throw up a Lynx like program set to load the FBI's computer crimes division homepage. Maybe this is some kind of comprimise to address a problem that has grown out of control. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of Microsoft developers that pirated software for personal use while they were students.
IMHO, if people want free, well, that's what Linux is for. If they want to run Windows programs, then they can use an emulator like Wine.
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven
upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the
left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so
doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in
the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway
within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic
under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the
normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then
available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(c) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic
and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be
driven to the left of the center of the roadway except when
authorized by official traffic-control devices designating certain
lanes to the left of the center of the roadway for use by traffic
not otherwise permitted to use such lanes or except as permitted
under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section. However,
this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing
of the center of the roadway in making a left turn into or from an
alley, private road, or driveway.
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by
traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes,
provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent
vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of
congested traffic conditions.
Note specifically parts b and d. Interestingly enough, unlike Califoria, in Georgia according to this statute, you are violating the law for driving too slow in the left hand lane regardless of what speed your traveling at.
Anyone who has installed the beta can see that it has a long way to go before it reaches release quality. Vista is a fairly big update to the Windows code base, and the fact that it is not stable or speedy enough yet for day-to-day use at this late stage must be a factor in their decision to put it back.
If this is the case, then how come the business editions are being released this year? Same thing for security issues -- good enough for business users but not home users??? I don't think so. Vista has been in public beta for what... 2 years now? More likely they want to avoid the same issue they had when XP came out: no compelling reason for users to upgrade. My guess is that they are going to wait for Intel's first truely 64 bit architectures to come to market in order to insure that the driver support is there for cutting edge hardware that will make Vista shine in comparison to XP.
I'm sure many manufacturers will develop dual format drives. However, if there were only one standard, that would reduce the price of the hardware. Ultimately, the consumer ends up paying for multiple standards. Wether that's a good thing or not I suppose is debatable.
Actually I still agree with Meyer in that ID offers the best explanation for what scientists have observed in naturally occuring systems. Irreducible complexity doesn't say that scientists can't take apart these machines in a lab, or develop the machine parts independently of natural organisms, or even find the individual parts in naturally ocurring organisms. What it says is that the best explanation for so many of these parts combining to serve a particular function is the product of intelligence rather than random processes. There was nothing in the article you referenced to refute that. In fact, pointing out that individual parts exist in nature, and giving credible evidence that these parts COULD be pieced together in a test tube actually does more harm to the darwinian theory which relies on natural selection by random evolution since scientists have been unable to find any evidence either in modern observation of completely natural systems, or in fossil records, that the intermediate forms ever existed.
As for point #2 of the counter claim you posted, is he trying to say that there are other machines in nature that perform the same function with 330 parts instead of 500? So what? I don't need to put a fuel injector in my engine either, nor would I want to, especially if I lived where the price of gas was extremely high. And yet, the Mazda RX-7 was a product of design every bit as much as the VW bug was... By similar reasoning, the third arguement was bogus. Mazda makes economy cars too.
Note that even as an arm-chair commentator I've managed to defend ID based entirely on natural observation, and logical analysis -- no aliens, no God, no far fetched theorizing... So I still think Meyers has a point about teaching ID as science. Also, since pharmaceuticals, agricultural biotechs, govt/military, etc. are currently doing ID and 'throwing it about where the wind has caught it' (even if its not being taught in public schools), I suspect that if we observe developing life forms that evolve extremely complex systems in the future, that won't necessarily provide convincing evidence against pre-biotech ID.
My guess is that Meyers hasn't adressed the arguements you cited because he doesn't consider them a credible threat to his scientific theories.
Its [IC] origin is clearly from the creationist realms - notice that there are just a handful of biologists (such as Behe (anyone other biologist?)) who are promoting it.
Unsupported conjecture; if ID is any indication, IC has considerable support among the scientific community. Plus I've yet to see any of the IC/ID naysayers claim that they have found natural organisms that prove ID theory is bogus. I think the problem is that disingenuous clowns are currently the most visible proponents of ID. I don't know which is worse, the ultra conservative 7 day creationists, or those who allow these religious zealots to whip them up into an anti-religous mindset that clouds their judgement and causes them to dismiss valid scientific arguements. And of course, the press isn't helping; these people would also have me believing in either the flying elephant or the striped hippopotamus. I believe a rational version of ID will find it's way into classrooms soon enough, and it might evolve from higher education programs developed to support corporate and/or govt. requirements rather than from the efforts of biblical creationists.
The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring.
That's such an excellent point, I'd mod you up if I had the points. For those who are open minded on the issue, I'm going to offer a challenge to what appears to me to be the conventional wisdom against ID as science.
Basically what he's saying is that darwinian evolution cannot account for the kind of irreducable complexity that scientist are currently observing in the field of biology. His arguments for ID are not at all religious, but based on scientific observation, that is observation of natural phenomena. I'll attempt to draw an analogy to what he said about finding irreducible complexity in nature. I think an automobile engine makes for an easily recognizable analogy. An automobile engine is composed of many parts that work simultaneously to accomplish a specific function. What they have found is that 'automobile engine' like structures naturally exist as whole units. That is to say that scientists cannot find any natural evidence suggesting that the many components of the engine have evolved, or evolve over time (as Darwin proposed due to 'random' or 'chance' mutations) into a functioning unit. "Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion" since there is no advantage gained for the organism as a result of the completion of any of the intermediate steps needed to form the engine.
I think the following quote sums up the author's thoughts on evolution and religion quite well:
"Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications."
My own personal opinion is that it's difficult to divorce the implications from the scientific theory. Personally I believe in God and a certain level of compatibility between creationism and evolution -- properly understood; even so, ID still doesn't prove God exists.
Of course, all that said, it's not all that relevent to the decision reached in the parent article. I'm actually glad the proposition was voted down. I think it would have dis-incentivized the development of proper curriculum which should identify the deficiencies where they exist rather than in some blanket statement issued at the beginning of the course.
You are trying to set up a distinction between scientific claims about the past and about the present which just doesn't exist. Scientific claims about the present aren't any more "proven" than anything else.
I'm not talking mearly about scientific claims regarding the observed, past or present. I'm talking about theories, theories can also attempt to explain the future, or the unobserved. There are theories that are more 'proven' than others. The earth was flat, because as best as could be determined in the past, it was observed to be so. We know the earth isn't flat today because we have the ability and/or technology to get the data that proves it.
I'd like high speed for downloading Microsoft's bloated patches (why are these things always 15 MB? for a "few" fixes?)
That's for the one-time only stuff like direct-x, windows service packs, media-player... once you get those installed, the monthly security updates and whatnot are almost always less than 1MB. So what I do when I want to re-install Windows is just take a trip to the local coffee shop and d/l all that stuff over wireless. 56K is more than adequate for everything else, except maybe d/l'ing new distro's to test out, which can be addicting anyway.
Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?
This is really pretty simple, and the fact that this seems to be lost on the current generation is, I suspect, afirmation of the author's theory that intellectualism is generally under attack in this country today.
A theory is constructed based on scientific observation. Theories, such as some of those you mentioned, often attempt to explain or predict phenomenon that extend beyond the boundaries of that which is actually observed. This is different from "proven science" which restricts itself to observed results. Take for example the 'flat earth' theory that was widely held up until about 500-600 years ago. New observations, or data aquired in extended boundaries are capable of effecting major revisions in theories.
In the UK, there is no constitutional requirement on the separation of church and state to spark the controversy.
That's probably because the Anglican Church, in response to the influence of Catholisicm, was established as a state sponsored church, back during the reformation. Incidentally, this in turn is probably also why the modern British colony of northern Ireland is very much anti-Catholic.
In fact, far from the UK having a problem with people who "want to teach religion as science", we have more of an issue with some poor quality science teachers who "want to teach science as history"
Britain is somewhat of a social pioneer for the US. My guess is we will start seeing this here pretty soon too. Already I've read complaints regarding the current administration and supposed attempts to apply non-scientific criteria in choosing to reference scientific resources to support political adgenda's. It seems to me that science and rationality in general are starting to come under fire.
I'm happy to report that the situation in the US is also not as dire as some slashdot'ers (and much of the popular media) would like you to believe it is. Fortunately, the religious fundamentalists are being held in check by both public opinion and the courts, the extreme anti-evolutionist camp has been and IMHO will be kept out of the classrooms. ID, while currently not widely taught in public classrooms, will likely survive the current backlash it is recieving because its most progressive proponents are giving it a bad rep by pitting it against evolution.
It's worth noting that in the recent Dover court case the presiding judge who ruled against the school board's institution of ID in the science curriculuum did so not because he thought ID itself was not suitable for the classroom, but because it could not be considered a science. In his opinion, judge Jones specifically suggested that ID would be suitable for the classroom if taught as a different subject, like philosophy. Furthermore, there was significant evidence suggesting that the school board in question was using it's version of ID (which was really creationism in disguise) to supplant the teaching of evolution.
In my opinion, ID is eventually going to find it's way into the public curriculuum. Initially at least, it will probably be as an elective option, and probably challenged in local school boards as is currently the case. However, if ID is to become mandatory, and it may evolve that way;), that will take some time. I am sure that national educational standards will need to be developed.
It's like my dad told me when I was in high school: believe 80% of what you see, 50% of what you read, and 20% of what you hear. Good sense always prevails in the end.
A parable is meant to be a learning tool -- a method of expressing a concept in a simple manner that everyone can understand. [snip] There would be no purpose to adding additional hidden meanings, because they would not express a concept in a simple manner that everyone could understand.
Evidently they are not always simple to understand, otherwise I suspect we would not be having this conversation.
There are fundamental matters of the faith that need to be plainly understood and thus clearly explained, but there are other matters of the faith which we consider to be mysteries which are not plainly understood, nor are they clearly revealed. But mysteries are meant to be solved. As it is, parables, can be a source of joy in the power of the Holy Spirit for those of faith, or, they can be like stumbling blocks for those with hardened hearts. So it was that Jesus said regarding the Pharisees: 'I speak to them in parables that they might not understand' and also Jesus's own disciples did not understand many of the things he did or the parables he told until the Spirit came upon them.
Yes, that's very similar to what I learned regarding the meaning of the poor widow's donation, and there is truth to it as well. However, I believe that Jesus intended for his disciples to understand far more about this parable than might initially meet the eye. Think about what a widow is, and why this may have been significant to Jesus and his Jewish followers at that time. What did Jesus tell his disciples early on about the poor and consequently what they might have to offer? Also, there are other parables in which Jesus uses coins to make a point. What do the coins symbolize, and what does Jesus say about recieving and giving them?
I struggeled with the same issues for quite some time. I never in the past was a very good giver, nobody really taught me to be one.
As for Jesus, well, there are as many different opinions of Jesus out there as there are different churches. Most churches just don't get Jesus (nor do they give Jesus). Any church that teaches that Jesus demands complete control over one's life is Christian only in name.
As for Bill Gates, I agree that credit should be given where credit is due. Any improvement should be recognized however minor. However, Robin Hood worked for a band of brigands and robbers, but two wrongs do not a right make. True charity proceeds from a system of repentance from sin and making reparation for sins by ones own life example. To often it seems people look at charity as a publicity event in a system where it buys one the licence to continue down paths of sin. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the phrase that comes to mind as many Protestants tend to build thier own faith systems by pulling from Paul outside of consideration of the context of the fullness of the faith.
Personally, I contribute mostly to Catholic Relief Services -- they are the Catholic Church's version of the International Red Cross, except that I know CRS does some very good work with little to no waste in overhead.
In the US, electricians and mechanics are considered technicians. Engineers in the US are trained to solve problems, usually technical problems. Engineers have to have at least some familiarity with the technical side of thier field, but they also deal in areas of 'higher learning' where they apply problem solving concepts to the design and modification of systems. Technicians on the other hand are more highly specialized in thier field and are better capable of dealing with the more practical nuts and bolts fix-it jobs in thier field.
Engineers are generally more adaptable to work outside of thier field then are technicians. However, engineers are also a higher pay grade of personnel. In todays market, that means that the jobs people with engineering degrees are often forced to fill pay below the level of thier expectations and capabilities.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. As a research assistant on the project in question, I can tell you that what wasn't reported is even more interesting. After the tests were completed, both the chimp and the baby were given a banana as a reward for completing the tests. After the research team left, I noticed the chimp proceded to neatly peel the banana into 5 identical sections before eating the banana. The baby however, threw the banana on the floor and accidentally squished one end of the banana causing the peel to split in two. The baby then proceded to eat both the peel and the banana.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it used to that the debate was about "is it ok for an individual to make a backup copy of their legally purchased software? vs. is it ok to make a copy of your legally purchased software for a friend to borrow?". However, for slashdotians who are incapable of thinking outside of their own box, it appears as though this has moved into "is it ok to steal software for personal use vs. is it ok to mass produce and distribute stolen software?"
goooood shlashdotian. now just thrown in a few curse words and watch your credibility skyrocket!
Insightful??? ROFL!!!
Yup, and dial-up ISP's will tank, and the telco's will complain about about a monopoly... try to claim infrastructure, and... rewind...play...
The cost of computers today is roughly the same as it was 8 years ago when I upgraded my 1st 3d graphics card. However, the cost of a high end graphics card in particular has gone from about $200 to $500 over this same time period. What does that increase get you? The same thing, the ability to play the latest games at acceptable frame rates. That works out to an average 12 month generational cost increase of about 12.5% per generation. So yeah, I guess you can still say you're getting your money's worth today if you think the 35%ish performance gain does you any good. But the point is that that performance gain isn't nearly the same as the 100% performance gain that existed 8 years ago.
So while the computer industry as a whole has mangaged to offer vastly increased performance while keeping the price constant (or even decreasing), the video card industry has lapsed. Sure they provide the performance increases, but do you really need or want them? It's 3d game development really that is driving this industry. Compare your 3d gaming experience in the days of the V2 to what it is now. Was it worth the cost increase? I think the video card industry behaves according to the law of diminished returns, it just isn't providing the same value to it customers.
I remember when the V1 3d cards were first ccame into the market. They were easily top of the line and the best cards went for about $200. When the next generation V2's came out, I pre-purchased the very 1st V2 SLI card (actually 2 cards bridged together) at the incredibly expensive price of about $600. It was alot, but the card literally quadrupled the performance of the V1 I had and the price very quickly fell another $200 before the V3's were out. Today you pay $500 for a top of the line single GPU card that doesn't even double the previous generation's performance. It seems video cards are becoming a disproportionally expensive component of the PC and just aren't providing the same value.
This proves that with enough time and effort you can construct a cypher from which 'the meaning of life' tm. can be determined from last night's plate of spaghetti that your mom made you eat.
"Despite the overall poor performance, Lenovo has still not gained the mindshare or the respect that the ThinkPads command."
Perhaps if they inflated thier prices even more than IBM did, they would command greater market share and more respect than IBM did, well from ummm... from somebody anyway, I guess, maybe?
Actually I'd be surprised if MS recognizes 'need pirates' at all. If it were my company, I'd have the pirated OS boot into a DOS like interface and throw up a Lynx like program set to load the FBI's computer crimes division homepage. Maybe this is some kind of comprimise to address a problem that has grown out of control. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of Microsoft developers that pirated software for personal use while they were students.
IMHO, if people want free, well, that's what Linux is for. If they want to run Windows programs, then they can use an emulator like Wine.
Anyone who has installed the beta can see that it has a long way to go before it reaches release quality. Vista is a fairly big update to the Windows code base, and the fact that it is not stable or speedy enough yet for day-to-day use at this late stage must be a factor in their decision to put it back.
If this is the case, then how come the business editions are being released this year? Same thing for security issues -- good enough for business users but not home users??? I don't think so. Vista has been in public beta for what... 2 years now? More likely they want to avoid the same issue they had when XP came out: no compelling reason for users to upgrade. My guess is that they are going to wait for Intel's first truely 64 bit architectures to come to market in order to insure that the driver support is there for cutting edge hardware that will make Vista shine in comparison to XP.
I'm sure many manufacturers will develop dual format drives. However, if there were only one standard, that would reduce the price of the hardware. Ultimately, the consumer ends up paying for multiple standards. Wether that's a good thing or not I suppose is debatable.
As for point #2 of the counter claim you posted, is he trying to say that there are other machines in nature that perform the same function with 330 parts instead of 500? So what? I don't need to put a fuel injector in my engine either, nor would I want to, especially if I lived where the price of gas was extremely high. And yet, the Mazda RX-7 was a product of design every bit as much as the VW bug was... By similar reasoning, the third arguement was bogus. Mazda makes economy cars too.
Note that even as an arm-chair commentator I've managed to defend ID based entirely on natural observation, and logical analysis -- no aliens, no God, no far fetched theorizing... So I still think Meyers has a point about teaching ID as science. Also, since pharmaceuticals, agricultural biotechs, govt/military, etc. are currently doing ID and 'throwing it about where the wind has caught it' (even if its not being taught in public schools), I suspect that if we observe developing life forms that evolve extremely complex systems in the future, that won't necessarily provide convincing evidence against pre-biotech ID.
My guess is that Meyers hasn't adressed the arguements you cited because he doesn't consider them a credible threat to his scientific theories. Unsupported conjecture; if ID is any indication, IC has considerable support among the scientific community. Plus I've yet to see any of the IC/ID naysayers claim that they have found natural organisms that prove ID theory is bogus. I think the problem is that disingenuous clowns are currently the most visible proponents of ID. I don't know which is worse, the ultra conservative 7 day creationists, or those who allow these religious zealots to whip them up into an anti-religous mindset that clouds their judgement and causes them to dismiss valid scientific arguements. And of course, the press isn't helping; these people would also have me believing in either the flying elephant or the striped hippopotamus. I believe a rational version of ID will find it's way into classrooms soon enough, and it might evolve from higher education programs developed to support corporate and/or govt. requirements rather than from the efforts of biblical creationists.
If you want a good idea of why actual scientists involved in developing ID theory believe it is a valid topic for scientific study, here is a good article written by a scientist who claims to be "one of the architects of the theory": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml
Basically what he's saying is that darwinian evolution cannot account for the kind of irreducable complexity that scientist are currently observing in the field of biology. His arguments for ID are not at all religious, but based on scientific observation, that is observation of natural phenomena. I'll attempt to draw an analogy to what he said about finding irreducible complexity in nature. I think an automobile engine makes for an easily recognizable analogy. An automobile engine is composed of many parts that work simultaneously to accomplish a specific function. What they have found is that 'automobile engine' like structures naturally exist as whole units. That is to say that scientists cannot find any natural evidence suggesting that the many components of the engine have evolved, or evolve over time (as Darwin proposed due to 'random' or 'chance' mutations) into a functioning unit. "Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion" since there is no advantage gained for the organism as a result of the completion of any of the intermediate steps needed to form the engine.
I think the following quote sums up the author's thoughts on evolution and religion quite well:
"Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications."
My own personal opinion is that it's difficult to divorce the implications from the scientific theory. Personally I believe in God and a certain level of compatibility between creationism and evolution -- properly understood; even so, ID still doesn't prove God exists.
Of course, all that said, it's not all that relevent to the decision reached in the parent article. I'm actually glad the proposition was voted down. I think it would have dis-incentivized the development of proper curriculum which should identify the deficiencies where they exist rather than in some blanket statement issued at the beginning of the course.
You are trying to set up a distinction between scientific claims about the past and about the present which just doesn't exist. Scientific claims about the present aren't any more "proven" than anything else.
I'm not talking mearly about scientific claims regarding the observed, past or present. I'm talking about theories, theories can also attempt to explain the future, or the unobserved. There are theories that are more 'proven' than others. The earth was flat, because as best as could be determined in the past, it was observed to be so. We know the earth isn't flat today because we have the ability and/or technology to get the data that proves it.
Am I making an arbitrary disctinction? Tell me then, how is string theory proven science?
Not if the data could still be recovered by employing a peta-detective.
I'd like high speed for downloading Microsoft's bloated patches (why are these things always 15 MB? for a "few" fixes?)
That's for the one-time only stuff like direct-x, windows service packs, media-player... once you get those installed, the monthly security updates and whatnot are almost always less than 1MB. So what I do when I want to re-install Windows is just take a trip to the local coffee shop and d/l all that stuff over wireless. 56K is more than adequate for everything else, except maybe d/l'ing new distro's to test out, which can be addicting anyway.
Can you explain how a "theory" differs from "proven science"?
This is really pretty simple, and the fact that this seems to be lost on the current generation is, I suspect, afirmation of the author's theory that intellectualism is generally under attack in this country today.
A theory is constructed based on scientific observation. Theories, such as some of those you mentioned, often attempt to explain or predict phenomenon that extend beyond the boundaries of that which is actually observed. This is different from "proven science" which restricts itself to observed results. Take for example the 'flat earth' theory that was widely held up until about 500-600 years ago. New observations, or data aquired in extended boundaries are capable of effecting major revisions in theories.
In the UK, there is no constitutional requirement on the separation of church and state to spark the controversy.
;), that will take some time. I am sure that national educational standards will need to be developed.
That's probably because the Anglican Church, in response to the influence of Catholisicm, was established as a state sponsored church, back during the reformation. Incidentally, this in turn is probably also why the modern British colony of northern Ireland is very much anti-Catholic.
In fact, far from the UK having a problem with people who "want to teach religion as science", we have more of an issue with some poor quality science teachers who "want to teach science as history"
Britain is somewhat of a social pioneer for the US. My guess is we will start seeing this here pretty soon too. Already I've read complaints regarding the current administration and supposed attempts to apply non-scientific criteria in choosing to reference scientific resources to support political adgenda's. It seems to me that science and rationality in general are starting to come under fire.
I'm happy to report that the situation in the US is also not as dire as some slashdot'ers (and much of the popular media) would like you to believe it is. Fortunately, the religious fundamentalists are being held in check by both public opinion and the courts, the extreme anti-evolutionist camp has been and IMHO will be kept out of the classrooms. ID, while currently not widely taught in public classrooms, will likely survive the current backlash it is recieving because its most progressive proponents are giving it a bad rep by pitting it against evolution.
It's worth noting that in the recent Dover court case the presiding judge who ruled against the school board's institution of ID in the science curriculuum did so not because he thought ID itself was not suitable for the classroom, but because it could not be considered a science. In his opinion, judge Jones specifically suggested that ID would be suitable for the classroom if taught as a different subject, like philosophy. Furthermore, there was significant evidence suggesting that the school board in question was using it's version of ID (which was really creationism in disguise) to supplant the teaching of evolution.
In my opinion, ID is eventually going to find it's way into the public curriculuum. Initially at least, it will probably be as an elective option, and probably challenged in local school boards as is currently the case. However, if ID is to become mandatory, and it may evolve that way
It's like my dad told me when I was in high school: believe 80% of what you see, 50% of what you read, and 20% of what you hear. Good sense always prevails in the end.
A parable is meant to be a learning tool -- a method of expressing a concept in a simple manner that everyone can understand.
[snip]
There would be no purpose to adding additional hidden meanings, because they would not express a concept in a simple manner that everyone could understand.
Evidently they are not always simple to understand, otherwise I suspect we would not be having this conversation.
There are fundamental matters of the faith that need to be plainly understood and thus clearly explained, but there are other matters of the faith which we consider to be mysteries which are not plainly understood, nor are they clearly revealed. But mysteries are meant to be solved. As it is, parables, can be a source of joy in the power of the Holy Spirit for those of faith, or, they can be like stumbling blocks for those with hardened hearts. So it was that Jesus said regarding the Pharisees: 'I speak to them in parables that they might not understand' and also Jesus's own disciples did not understand many of the things he did or the parables he told until the Spirit came upon them.
Yes, that's very similar to what I learned regarding the meaning of the poor widow's donation, and there is truth to it as well. However, I believe that Jesus intended for his disciples to understand far more about this parable than might initially meet the eye. Think about what a widow is, and why this may have been significant to Jesus and his Jewish followers at that time. What did Jesus tell his disciples early on about the poor and consequently what they might have to offer? Also, there are other parables in which Jesus uses coins to make a point. What do the coins symbolize, and what does Jesus say about recieving and giving them?
I struggeled with the same issues for quite some time. I never in the past was a very good giver, nobody really taught me to be one.
c e/charity-watchdogs-1205.htm
As for Jesus, well, there are as many different opinions of Jesus out there as there are different churches. Most churches just don't get Jesus (nor do they give Jesus). Any church that teaches that Jesus demands complete control over one's life is Christian only in name.
As for Bill Gates, I agree that credit should be given where credit is due. Any improvement should be recognized however minor. However, Robin Hood worked for a band of brigands and robbers, but two wrongs do not a right make. True charity proceeds from a system of repentance from sin and making reparation for sins by ones own life example. To often it seems people look at charity as a publicity event in a system where it buys one the licence to continue down paths of sin. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the phrase that comes to mind as many Protestants tend to build thier own faith systems by pulling from Paul outside of consideration of the context of the fullness of the faith.
As to finding a charity to give to, that can require some research. Here is an article you might find usefull in that regard: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/personal-finan
Personally, I contribute mostly to Catholic Relief Services -- they are the Catholic Church's version of the International Red Cross, except that I know CRS does some very good work with little to no waste in overhead.
In the US, electricians and mechanics are considered technicians. Engineers in the US are trained to solve problems, usually technical problems. Engineers have to have at least some familiarity with the technical side of thier field, but they also deal in areas of 'higher learning' where they apply problem solving concepts to the design and modification of systems. Technicians on the other hand are more highly specialized in thier field and are better capable of dealing with the more practical nuts and bolts fix-it jobs in thier field.
Engineers are generally more adaptable to work outside of thier field then are technicians. However, engineers are also a higher pay grade of personnel. In todays market, that means that the jobs people with engineering degrees are often forced to fill pay below the level of thier expectations and capabilities.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. As a research assistant on the project in question, I can tell you that what wasn't reported is even more interesting. After the tests were completed, both the chimp and the baby were given a banana as a reward for completing the tests. After the research team left, I noticed the chimp proceded to neatly peel the banana into 5 identical sections before eating the banana. The baby however, threw the banana on the floor and accidentally squished one end of the banana causing the peel to split in two. The baby then proceded to eat both the peel and the banana.