According to Lou Gerstner, IBM was dangerously close to the edge. Read (about) his book about getting elephants to dance; you can find enough info on the web, for instance here.
nice quote: "Gerstner says that few people even understood how perilously close the firm was to running out of cash."
Aren't there machines out there where the C compiler specifically defines NULL as value that is not equal to 0? I recall reading that somewhere, and that was my reason for using ==NULL instead of !. My C days are long gone though...
Any time any code works in one browser but not the other, regardless of how simple or complex the code, it's an example of one of the browsers either not supporting it's supposed to or supporting something unnecessary.
Bollocks. I do not know if current IE versions still have the tendency to interpret and display & as if it were &, but older versions most definitively did (or was it nbsp?). The question raised is simple: should other browser makers follow the documented standards, or should they implement the bugs in other browsers? If I were to write a page in erroneous html that renders ok on IE only, then I, and the possibly MS, are to blame for it not working in other browsers; not the other browser makers who cleanly implement the specs.
The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Patents were introduced to keep inventions from oblivion; if someone would invent something and keep the secret of the invention to himself, it would die with the inventor. In order to preserve inventions for society, the inventor could get a (temporary) legal (royal, whatever) monopoly on using his invention (he would have the same anyway if he just kept his finding private); in exchange he had to fully document his finding.
It is not about letting the inventor make money; that is only a means to reach the real goal: not having inventions forgotten.
About 100 people on this earth really have a clue what string theory is all about; the numbers do not make the message less relevant.
Corporations love Linux because it's cost effective, not because they feel their freedoms are protected by it.
Then tell me: why is linux more and more used by all sorts of hardware manufacturers? Why not Windows Embedded? Why not BSD? Simple: Microsoft cannot be trusted, and the BSD route has been walked on before and has failed: every unix supplier supplied their closed source version of unix. By taking the linux route manufacturers know that the playing ground is equal: no one can keep improvements to the software to themselves, they have to compete in other ways. And besides, the GPL protects the end-users freedoms, not the manufacturers freedom. The manufacturers are here only for one thing: make stuff people want to buy and use.
You're obviously not someone who's ever had to actually live off their ability to write software, so everything you're saying is just regurgitated propaganda anyways.
I have been writing software since 1988, and my income depends on it since 1999. My wife and me have a house and a mortgage: your assumption failes, and even if it did not, is one only entitled an opinion when he depends on the outcome of that opinion? Should it be called regurgitated propaganda if not? You're on a slippery slope here...
Come talk to me when you have actually -tried- to make money selling your shiny new open source project.
Right now I am writing a piece of software for the Leiden University freshmen introductionary commission. It is GPL. I am getting paid to do it. Note that I am not writing something in the hope that someone might buy it: I am actually writing software that someone asks for.
And even if I were to write a decent piece of software in the hope people would pay me for it afterwards: ever heard of Bram Cohen? He is the author of BitTorrent (MIT license, free download). He accepts PayPal donations. He and his family live off these donations. Proof enough?
Hans Reiser. Red Hat. IBM. Mandrake. Many others. And yes, me as well: I have been paid to write GPL software. In fact, when people ask me to write software for them, I prefer to deliver it to them under the GPL. It is far from nonsense. Your response is nonsense. You expect to do something once and get paid for it over and over again. Getting paid for _writing_ software makes very much sense, thank you very much.
Also, do not forget that only 10% of all software is shrink-wrapped, all the rest is custom-made.
Jesus, you talk about the man like he's... well, Jesus.
You have seen his picture, right?;-)
I tend to be a devil's advocate or take an extreme standpoint just to get a clear view of where the 'borders of truth' are.
Of course, It would be just as much an oppression of my "freedom" to not allow me to create and sell a closed source software product as it would be for you to not get it for free, but try not to think about that little paradox too much....
There is no paradox: you can create closed s/w, RMS urges end-users not to use closed software, and ask for free s/w. Again, the FSF is not calling for laws to prohibit closed source; laws can easily be changed. The general population has to see the benefits of free software.
Anyways, it's 3:00am and I'm installing Solaris 10 on my Ultra2. No, I don't have the source code.
Soon you can have the source;-). Good luck with the installation.
Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?
I'm sorry, but this is a nonsense argument. Red Hat gives you sources, so does Mandrake, Hans Reiser, the Apache foundation, IBM, even Sun. They all make money. One should be paid for _writing_ software, not for _reproducing_ it.
(...)-you- won't be able to join me in the market a month later because you stood on my shoulders.
But that is what advance in society is all about! Working on/with the results of others to improve the whole. Evolution works that way, capitalism works that way. What gives you the right to hold back developments that benefit the whole society just for your personal gain? If you made something, but are exploiting it badly, someone else should be able to step in and compete with you. Competition lowers prices, adds incentives to be better and is better for the end-users.
Nobody complains that musicians don't distribute their CD's complete with the original multitrack masters.... this is no different.
Yes, it is. Music is an art form. Software is functional. Big difference. And your comparison fails also: no one is calling for a CVS dump of a project, just the actual end-product.
Code is like music (or any art) (...)
Art is almost by definition non-functional. Software is by definition functional. Big, big difference.
If you don't want it because I won't give you the code, then don't take it... but don't cry about it.,
RMS does not want your software if it is not free. He doesn't cry about it, he simply voices his opinion that non-free software is unethical, and is holding back society as a whole.
On the other side of the coin, why SHOULD it be mandatory for users to have these rights?
No one is stopping you from making money writing free software.
You're right... things evolve. Things change... but you're insane to really think that a 100% OSS world is where it's evolving to.
One simularity in visionaries is that in their time they are called insane by the ones who do not understand them or fail to see the logical flow of things. The world has already been 100% open source, until software writers closed their source to limit their end-users' freedom (to change to another hardware provider for instance). The world will be open source again, as soon as end-users demand it.
Is it ideal that you can acquire these rights? Of course, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
RMS is not calling for laws to make it mandatory; he wants to *educate* end-users, so they know that running free software is better for them.
Using Z to prove A never makes any sense.
I should have been more clear: I brought the patents stuff up because it is equally important. Back to my original question: would you wire your brain to a piece of closed source software?
(...)but don't acquire binaries you don't have the rights to and then turn around and complain about not having the code.
That is not what RMS is doing; he will simply not run proprietary software on his machines.
(...)the open source movement argues(...)
RMS is a spearhead for the _free_ software movement; it is about freedom for the end-user, choice follows out of freedom. RMS thinks that simply open sourcing software does not free the end user. There is a big difference between open source and free software.
I would not call a person who fights for the freedom of all people 'wacky'.
You lost me with the "now all code should be free without exceptions" bit.
Why? Does not everybody have a right to study and modify the software they run? In our lifetimes we will probably see direct neural interfaces between men and computers; do you want to connect your brain to a piece of software that only the manufacturer knows of what it does? Do you want to be told you cannot 'think' certain thoughts, because they have been patented? These are the things RMS keeps in mind! There is no compromise possible; a user should have certain rights to the code he is running. It's either that, or we might end up being Borg.
Just like you should have unlimited access to what is under the hood of your car, you should have access to what is under the gui of your applications.
'I talk of freedom, you talk of the flag.' White Discussion - Live.
IMHO (I'm european) it is dangerous to put too much weight on that flag. 'The ideals it represents', well, that is mainly the constitution, isn't it? Is burning the constitution (text) also highly offensive? What about half of the text. Or one sentence. One word?
A flag is a piece of cloth. Period. It often seems to me that neocons would love the US public to 'unite behind the flag' instead of 'unite behind the constitution', so that the flag becomes more important than the constitution and they can put their own definition on what the flag stands for.
The second of the ten christian commandments is that you should not make a representation of JHWH; IMHO simply for the fact that the representation could become more important than JHWH himself; one should not worship a golden animal.
Putting a national flag on a pedestool (sp?) has the same risks as putting 'Blut und Boden' on a pedestool.
Please do not use forward or backward slashes; use java.io.File.separator in string concatenations or use new java.io.File(File parent, String child).getAbsoluteFile() (or.getAbsolutePath()) for 'path additions'.
Communism, which you're preaching, does away with incentives. Look at all of the wonderful innovations of this century. How much of it came from communist countries?
Let's see. Laika? Yuri Gagarin? Sputnik? Mir? The most reliable means of earth-to-orbit transportation ? There are incentives in communism as well as in kapitalism. Kapitalism unfortunately focuses on greed, communism states we should all earn the same. Both are wrong. The right way is in the middle; the strongest shoulders should carry the most weight. The weak are entitled to lead a productive life; they could in the former CCCP. In the kapitalistic US the weak are in fact worse of than their counterparts in the CCCP.
Hint #1: Microsoft is found guilty of abusing monopoly powers, i.e. MS broke the law. Hint #2: He could give away 95% of his total belongings and still would not have to worry about spending too much for the next 500 years.
Now, on the other hand, I have something against Darwinian Evolution. I find it hard to believe that mere "random mutations" and a couple millions years have managed to create symbiosis and parasitosis. You know, an organism depending upon another (and possibly supporting it).
Dogs and homo sapiens?
You refer to Discovery Channel; I have seen a documentary there about dolphins in the wild. Somewhere (Brazil IIRC) there is a bay where dolphins gather and drive all the fish in a certain location. When the fish are driven together a dolphin jumps out of the water in a special way and the fishermen that are also in the bay immediately cast out their nets. Those nets are of course filled with fish. A large number of the fish that try to escape make a good meal for the dolphins.
This is clearly an example of symbiosis between species. Who started it? We can only guess now, but I can image a few dolphins gathering in the bay, one jumping out of the water for fun and one of the fishermen thought it was a sign from his god and cast his net. The dolphins detected the nets as well as the fleeing fish which were an easy target. Dolphins are not stupid, so they could find out the link between jumping out of the water and the nets being cast (Pavlov). Over time the dolphins and the fishermen would become more tuned to each other and exactly know where the nets should be.
This hypothesis can of course not be proven or dismissed, but certainly fits the facts. Anyway, it is a clear case of symbiosis. Given enough time and environmental stress, I can see the advantage for both species becoming a necessaty where both actually need the other species to survive.
On Discovery there was also something about a symbiotic relation which was sort of changing to a parasitic one; something with birds eating both tics and blood from large mammels or something like that.
Symbiosis means SYNCHRONIZED evolution, and I don't think that random mutations can do that.
Unfortunately, in a scientific discussion, what you think has less weight than what the facts state.
Furthermore, HOW are these mutations produced?
Radiation and chemicals have been proven to change DNA, both in and outside labs. Changes in DNA can easily cause mutations. These are hard facts.
I rather think that possible mutations are already hardwired into DNA, and there are some ways to trigger specific changes - genetic memory or something.
Unlikely. There is no genetic memory; DNA is a blueprint and hence can be seen as the memory. Having all possible mutations already encoded in DNA would mean that DNA would have severe restrictions in adapting. Besides, if DNA has hardwired which mutations are possible, then that hardwired information would also be in DNA. Would we then also have hardwired information on how the hardwired information on mutations can mutate?
(And I do believe God designed DNA:)
That is religion. As it is impossible to scientifically (dis)prove the existence of an omnipotent superbeing I cannot and will not scientifically comment on that. IMHO you are free to believe whatever you want, as long as you do not hinder other people in their beliefs or hinder science.
You take words from your holy book and instead of taking them as rigid facts you interpret them and think about them, and probably have a bit of criticism here and there. If all religious people were like you the world would be devoid of people claiming their god wants them to dominate or kill other people. It certainly means that you do not bury your brain but choose to develop it (Matthew 25:14-30;-).
We have very few direct observations of any kind of rapid, sudden, severe evolutionm, which might explain historical speciation.
As a matter of fact: we have such direct observations. Take dogs for instance: they evolved out of domesticated wolves in a symbiotic relation with homo sapiens. Dogs have certain characteristics that wolves do not possess, like for instance the ability to 'follow eyes' and determine what a human being is looking at.
Also, a lot of new flowers are cross-bread to create new flowers with distinctive characteristics.
There are also a few posts further down that have urls on the process on speciation.
Microsoft has itself the tendency to 'leak' information for products that are not at all marketable. Wasn't WinFS announced for Chicago? Apple does the complete opposite; when Steve announces something you can find it in the shops within a couple of weeks. Apple does not want information on their products out in the open, unless these products are (almost) ready for sale.
So, while there is a fair amount of anti-MS feelings here on/., your what-if-MS-had-done-this analogy fails.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this information MS had 60 in cash (in 2004) and burns about 28 per year.
They could give away everything they make for free for 20-50 years before going bankrupt.
So nice to see clueless moderators mod this nonsense up. NOT!
Get your bloody facts straight!
Microsoft is about likely to go under as IBM(...)
According to Lou Gerstner, IBM was dangerously close to the edge. Read (about) his book about getting elephants to dance; you can find enough info on the web, for instance here.
nice quote: "Gerstner says that few people even understood how perilously close the firm was to running out of cash."
80GB? 640 kilobyte is all I need...
*ducks*Dupes on slashdot? Never seen that happen at all.
Dupes on slashdot? Never seen that happen.
Aren't there machines out there where the C compiler specifically defines NULL as value that is not equal to 0? I recall reading that somewhere, and that was my reason for using ==NULL instead of !. My C days are long gone though...
Anyone notice that the aboutbox still says
(c) Copyright 1998-2004
Any time any code works in one browser but not the other, regardless of how simple or complex the code, it's an example of one of the browsers either not supporting it's supposed to or supporting something unnecessary.
Bollocks. I do not know if current IE versions still have the tendency to interpret and display & as if it were &, but older versions most definitively did (or was it nbsp?). The question raised is simple: should other browser makers follow the documented standards, or should they implement the bugs in other browsers? If I were to write a page in erroneous html that renders ok on IE only, then I, and the possibly MS, are to blame for it not working in other browsers; not the other browser makers who cleanly implement the specs.
The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Patents were introduced to keep inventions from oblivion; if someone would invent something and keep the secret of the invention to himself, it would die with the inventor. In order to preserve inventions for society, the inventor could get a (temporary) legal (royal, whatever) monopoly on using his invention (he would have the same anyway if he just kept his finding private); in exchange he had to fully document his finding.
It is not about letting the inventor make money; that is only a means to reach the real goal: not having inventions forgotten.
Corporations love Linux because it's cost effective, not because they feel their freedoms are protected by it.
Then tell me: why is linux more and more used by all sorts of hardware manufacturers? Why not Windows Embedded? Why not BSD? Simple: Microsoft cannot be trusted, and the BSD route has been walked on before and has failed: every unix supplier supplied their closed source version of unix. By taking the linux route manufacturers know that the playing ground is equal: no one can keep improvements to the software to themselves, they have to compete in other ways. And besides, the GPL protects the end-users freedoms, not the manufacturers freedom. The manufacturers are here only for one thing: make stuff people want to buy and use.
You're obviously not someone who's ever had to actually live off their ability to write software, so everything you're saying is just regurgitated propaganda anyways.
I have been writing software since 1988, and my income depends on it since 1999. My wife and me have a house and a mortgage: your assumption failes, and even if it did not, is one only entitled an opinion when he depends on the outcome of that opinion? Should it be called regurgitated propaganda if not? You're on a slippery slope here...Come talk to me when you have actually -tried- to make money selling your shiny new open source project.
Right now I am writing a piece of software for the Leiden University freshmen introductionary commission. It is GPL. I am getting paid to do it. Note that I am not writing something in the hope that someone might buy it: I am actually writing software that someone asks for.
And even if I were to write a decent piece of software in the hope people would pay me for it afterwards: ever heard of Bram Cohen? He is the author of BitTorrent (MIT license, free download). He accepts PayPal donations. He and his family live off these donations. Proof enough?
Hans Reiser. Red Hat. IBM. Mandrake. Many others. And yes, me as well: I have been paid to write GPL software. In fact, when people ask me to write software for them, I prefer to deliver it to them under the GPL. It is far from nonsense. Your response is nonsense. You expect to do something once and get paid for it over and over again. Getting paid for _writing_ software makes very much sense, thank you very much.
Also, do not forget that only 10% of all software is shrink-wrapped, all the rest is custom-made.
- rain
- raining
- snow (arctic)
- snowing
- hail
- hailing
- nice (desert)
- normal (London)
- shit
- a miracle (during a fire in Lourdes)
- spoiling you mood
- ruining your plans
Sorry, but this will not work for this reason alone.Jesus, you talk about the man like he's... well, Jesus.
You have seen his picture, right? ;-)
I tend to be a devil's advocate or take an extreme standpoint just to get a clear view of where the 'borders of truth' are.
Of course, It would be just as much an oppression of my "freedom" to not allow me to create and sell a closed source software product as it would be for you to not get it for free, but try not to think about that little paradox too much....
There is no paradox: you can create closed s/w, RMS urges end-users not to use closed software, and ask for free s/w. Again, the FSF is not calling for laws to prohibit closed source; laws can easily be changed. The general population has to see the benefits of free software.
Anyways, it's 3:00am and I'm installing Solaris 10 on my Ultra2. No, I don't have the source code.
Soon you can have the source ;-). Good luck with the installation.
Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?
I'm sorry, but this is a nonsense argument. Red Hat gives you sources, so does Mandrake, Hans Reiser, the Apache foundation, IBM, even Sun. They all make money. One should be paid for _writing_ software, not for _reproducing_ it.
(...)-you- won't be able to join me in the market a month later because you stood on my shoulders.
But that is what advance in society is all about! Working on/with the results of others to improve the whole. Evolution works that way, capitalism works that way. What gives you the right to hold back developments that benefit the whole society just for your personal gain? If you made something, but are exploiting it badly, someone else should be able to step in and compete with you. Competition lowers prices, adds incentives to be better and is better for the end-users.
Nobody complains that musicians don't distribute their CD's complete with the original multitrack masters.... this is no different.
Yes, it is. Music is an art form. Software is functional. Big difference. And your comparison fails also: no one is calling for a CVS dump of a project, just the actual end-product.
Code is like music (or any art) (...)
Art is almost by definition non-functional. Software is by definition functional. Big, big difference.
If you don't want it because I won't give you the code, then don't take it... but don't cry about it.,
RMS does not want your software if it is not free. He doesn't cry about it, he simply voices his opinion that non-free software is unethical, and is holding back society as a whole.On the other side of the coin, why SHOULD it be mandatory for users to have these rights?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
I have bills to pay.
No one is stopping you from making money writing free software.
You're right... things evolve. Things change... but you're insane to really think that a 100% OSS world is where it's evolving to.
One simularity in visionaries is that in their time they are called insane by the ones who do not understand them or fail to see the logical flow of things. The world has already been 100% open source, until software writers closed their source to limit their end-users' freedom (to change to another hardware provider for instance). The world will be open source again, as soon as end-users demand it.
Is it ideal that you can acquire these rights? Of course, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
RMS is not calling for laws to make it mandatory; he wants to *educate* end-users, so they know that running free software is better for them.
Using Z to prove A never makes any sense.
I should have been more clear: I brought the patents stuff up because it is equally important. Back to my original question: would you wire your brain to a piece of closed source software?
(...)but don't acquire binaries you don't have the rights to and then turn around and complain about not having the code.
That is not what RMS is doing; he will simply not run proprietary software on his machines.
(...)the open source movement argues(...)
RMS is a spearhead for the _free_ software movement; it is about freedom for the end-user, choice follows out of freedom. RMS thinks that simply open sourcing software does not free the end user. There is a big difference between open source and free software.
I would not call a person who fights for the freedom of all people 'wacky'.
You lost me with the "now all code should be free without exceptions" bit.
Why? Does not everybody have a right to study and modify the software they run? In our lifetimes we will probably see direct neural interfaces between men and computers; do you want to connect your brain to a piece of software that only the manufacturer knows of what it does? Do you want to be told you cannot 'think' certain thoughts, because they have been patented? These are the things RMS keeps in mind! There is no compromise possible; a user should have certain rights to the code he is running. It's either that, or we might end up being Borg.
Just like you should have unlimited access to what is under the hood of your car, you should have access to what is under the gui of your applications.
'I talk of freedom, you talk of the flag.' White Discussion - Live.
IMHO (I'm european) it is dangerous to put too much weight on that flag. 'The ideals it represents', well, that is mainly the constitution, isn't it? Is burning the constitution (text) also highly offensive? What about half of the text. Or one sentence. One word?
A flag is a piece of cloth. Period. It often seems to me that neocons would love the US public to 'unite behind the flag' instead of 'unite behind the constitution', so that the flag becomes more important than the constitution and they can put their own definition on what the flag stands for.
The second of the ten christian commandments is that you should not make a representation of JHWH; IMHO simply for the fact that the representation could become more important than JHWH himself; one should not worship a golden animal.
Putting a national flag on a pedestool (sp?) has the same risks as putting 'Blut und Boden' on a pedestool.
Please do not use forward or backward slashes; use java.io.File.separator in string concatenations or use new java.io.File(File parent, String child).getAbsoluteFile() (or .getAbsolutePath()) for 'path additions'.
Communism, which you're preaching, does away with incentives. Look at all of the wonderful innovations of this century. How much of it came from communist countries?
Let's see. Laika? Yuri Gagarin? Sputnik? Mir? The most reliable means of earth-to-orbit transportation ? There are incentives in communism as well as in kapitalism. Kapitalism unfortunately focuses on greed, communism states we should all earn the same. Both are wrong. The right way is in the middle; the strongest shoulders should carry the most weight. The weak are entitled to lead a productive life; they could in the former CCCP. In the kapitalistic US the weak are in fact worse of than their counterparts in the CCCP.
- How did he make so much money?
- What % of his total belongings is he giving away?
Hint #1: Microsoft is found guilty of abusing monopoly powers, i.e. MS broke the law. Hint #2: He could give away 95% of his total belongings and still would not have to worry about spending too much for the next 500 years.Now, on the other hand, I have something against Darwinian Evolution. I find it hard to believe that mere "random mutations" and a couple millions years have managed to create symbiosis and parasitosis. You know, an organism depending upon another (and possibly supporting it).
Dogs and homo sapiens?
You refer to Discovery Channel; I have seen a documentary there about dolphins in the wild. Somewhere (Brazil IIRC) there is a bay where dolphins gather and drive all the fish in a certain location. When the fish are driven together a dolphin jumps out of the water in a special way and the fishermen that are also in the bay immediately cast out their nets. Those nets are of course filled with fish. A large number of the fish that try to escape make a good meal for the dolphins.
This is clearly an example of symbiosis between species. Who started it? We can only guess now, but I can image a few dolphins gathering in the bay, one jumping out of the water for fun and one of the fishermen thought it was a sign from his god and cast his net. The dolphins detected the nets as well as the fleeing fish which were an easy target. Dolphins are not stupid, so they could find out the link between jumping out of the water and the nets being cast (Pavlov). Over time the dolphins and the fishermen would become more tuned to each other and exactly know where the nets should be.
This hypothesis can of course not be proven or dismissed, but certainly fits the facts. Anyway, it is a clear case of symbiosis. Given enough time and environmental stress, I can see the advantage for both species becoming a necessaty where both actually need the other species to survive.
On Discovery there was also something about a symbiotic relation which was sort of changing to a parasitic one; something with birds eating both tics and blood from large mammels or something like that.
Symbiosis means SYNCHRONIZED evolution, and I don't think that random mutations can do that.
Unfortunately, in a scientific discussion, what you think has less weight than what the facts state.
Furthermore, HOW are these mutations produced?
Radiation and chemicals have been proven to change DNA, both in and outside labs. Changes in DNA can easily cause mutations. These are hard facts.
I rather think that possible mutations are already hardwired into DNA, and there are some ways to trigger specific changes - genetic memory or something.
Unlikely. There is no genetic memory; DNA is a blueprint and hence can be seen as the memory. Having all possible mutations already encoded in DNA would mean that DNA would have severe restrictions in adapting. Besides, if DNA has hardwired which mutations are possible, then that hardwired information would also be in DNA. Would we then also have hardwired information on how the hardwired information on mutations can mutate?
(And I do believe God designed DNA :)
That is religion. As it is impossible to scientifically (dis)prove the existence of an omnipotent superbeing I cannot and will not scientifically comment on that. IMHO you are free to believe whatever you want, as long as you do not hinder other people in their beliefs or hinder science.
You take words from your holy book and instead of taking them as rigid facts you interpret them and think about them, and probably have a bit of criticism here and there. If all religious people were like you the world would be devoid of people claiming their god wants them to dominate or kill other people. It certainly means that you do not bury your brain but choose to develop it (Matthew 25:14-30 ;-).
Found these links somewhere else in this thread:m l#observe
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.ht
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
We have very few direct observations of any kind of rapid, sudden, severe evolutionm, which might explain historical speciation.
As a matter of fact: we have such direct observations. Take dogs for instance: they evolved out of domesticated wolves in a symbiotic relation with homo sapiens. Dogs have certain characteristics that wolves do not possess, like for instance the ability to 'follow eyes' and determine what a human being is looking at.
Also, a lot of new flowers are cross-bread to create new flowers with distinctive characteristics.
There are also a few posts further down that have urls on the process on speciation.
So, while there is a fair amount of anti-MS feelings here on /., your what-if-MS-had-done-this analogy fails.