I agree. I think that really, ID would have less crediblity being seen for the ancient theory that it is. It's not some new scientific movement trying to overthrow the established doctrine. Its the old established doctrine trying to overthrow the new theory that replaced it.
Lets be honest, most people TODAY who believe in religious myths aren't the exactly the smartest people around. Back in the time of Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, you pretty much had to be religious. Today, we know alot more about the universe. We know enough that the proposition that the world is only 6000 years old, or other such lies, is complete and utter bullshit. We know that evolution is about on par with reletivity in its acceptance, and that anyone who doesn't understand that just doesn't understand science. Lets face it, most people who believe in ID or Creationism are stupid. Whether it is because of their environment or because they were born that way (and I tend to believe the former), is another matter.
I am the submitter and I wrote the article. I admit that my chioce of words was poor in stating that it explained the origins of life. I meant more to say that explained the past of life. Evolution, as it currently stands, does not explain abiogenisis. That said, there are some interesting theories which do try to explain it. There's no real consensus yet though.
This is the such a stupid argument, its ridiculous. The only sure way not to get into a car accident is not to drive. But you know what? Everyone drives. So instead of futily trying to stop people from driving, we try to get them to wear seatbelts. Abstinance only health classes (and other health classes that mention condoms, but only to talk about their failure rate), are the equivolant of pleading with people not to drive.
Well when someone drives under the influence of drugs, they are putting other's at risk, and therefore it is arguably legiamate that DUI be illegal. This is not an excuse for the entire drug war though. Whether or not the way people act more generally on drugs is a bad thing is a matter of perspective. It is likely that your perspective does not include drugs and so you are against them, but your opinion on this matter is no more valuable than the acid head.
Pfft, the chinese room thought experiment completly misses the point of strong AI. It isn't any individule inside the computer that is supposed to having intentionality. It is the system as a whole. One could say that the room understand chinese.
Sorry, I guess I must have missed your sarcasm or something. I figured "Perhaps the sexual assault sentences are the ones that are out-of-line?" meant you thought they were too low compared to other things.
perhaps, but even with good behavior he's still going to spend way too much time in prison. I think 1 year maximum is reasonable, and only in extreme cases. Fine him for all he's made and more but incarceration is not the proper remedy for spam.
This is just absurd. You point out how broken the sentencing system is in a number of cases and then propose that the way to fix it is to up the other sentences to maintain some ratio? 15 years for copying three dvds is ridiculous whether a murderer gets 1500 or not. And don't get me started on the drug war.
I see your point, in that one could forseeably decrypt DRM content which is put into the public domain. However, this perticular program would not be able to to that. All it can do is preempt the encryption of copyrighted files.
It may violate the spirit of the constitution, but the DMCA itself doesn't really deal with copyright length. Its true that you won't be able to have all of the public domain rights with your DRM'd song, but, if at some point the copyright was to expire, you could give out the DRM'd file, even if it wouldn't do anybody any good. The real problem is a much larger issue with copyright law outside of the DMCA. Copyrights are much too long. There is no reason Micky Mouse should still be copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I think that really, ID would have less crediblity being seen for the ancient theory that it is. It's not some new scientific movement trying to overthrow the established doctrine. Its the old established doctrine trying to overthrow the new theory that replaced it.
This would be impossible, since intelligent design is not falsifiable. That is the very reason it is not scientific. Read Popper.
Lets be honest, most people TODAY who believe in religious myths aren't the exactly the smartest people around. Back in the time of Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, you pretty much had to be religious. Today, we know alot more about the universe. We know enough that the proposition that the world is only 6000 years old, or other such lies, is complete and utter bullshit. We know that evolution is about on par with reletivity in its acceptance, and that anyone who doesn't understand that just doesn't understand science. Lets face it, most people who believe in ID or Creationism are stupid. Whether it is because of their environment or because they were born that way (and I tend to believe the former), is another matter.
The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.
There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.
Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.
No, I wrote the article on kuro5hin that this is linked to in the summery.
I did. I wrote the article.
see topic.
It should be a philosophy, but they promote as a science, hence pseudoscience.
It needs to surpass 2722 to get on the top 10.
I am the submitter and I wrote the article. I admit that my chioce of words was poor in stating that it explained the origins of life. I meant more to say that explained the past of life. Evolution, as it currently stands, does not explain abiogenisis. That said, there are some interesting theories which do try to explain it. There's no real consensus yet though.
Read this. It lists a number of ways in which evolution could be falsified.
As the author of the article, I admit that that was a poor choice of words. You are correct.
Searle's Chinese Room objection is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.
Hear Hear!
This is the such a stupid argument, its ridiculous. The only sure way not to get into a car accident is not to drive. But you know what? Everyone drives. So instead of futily trying to stop people from driving, we try to get them to wear seatbelts. Abstinance only health classes (and other health classes that mention condoms, but only to talk about their failure rate), are the equivolant of pleading with people not to drive.
Yes well, your definition of useful is determined in part by whether or not you use drugs. Your reasoning is circular.
Well when someone drives under the influence of drugs, they are putting other's at risk, and therefore it is arguably legiamate that DUI be illegal. This is not an excuse for the entire drug war though. Whether or not the way people act more generally on drugs is a bad thing is a matter of perspective. It is likely that your perspective does not include drugs and so you are against them, but your opinion on this matter is no more valuable than the acid head.
Pfft, the chinese room thought experiment completly misses the point of strong AI. It isn't any individule inside the computer that is supposed to having intentionality. It is the system as a whole. One could say that the room understand chinese.
:'( Clearly the relentless media coverage should of been of his death.
Sorry, I guess I must have missed your sarcasm or something. I figured "Perhaps the sexual assault sentences are the ones that are out-of-line?" meant you thought they were too low compared to other things.
Yes, but corprate CEOs are inherently evil. Some guy trying to make a buck (or a million), should not go to prison.
perhaps, but even with good behavior he's still going to spend way too much time in prison. I think 1 year maximum is reasonable, and only in extreme cases. Fine him for all he's made and more but incarceration is not the proper remedy for spam.
This is just absurd. You point out how broken the sentencing system is in a number of cases and then propose that the way to fix it is to up the other sentences to maintain some ratio? 15 years for copying three dvds is ridiculous whether a murderer gets 1500 or not. And don't get me started on the drug war.
I see your point, in that one could forseeably decrypt DRM content which is put into the public domain. However, this perticular program would not be able to to that. All it can do is preempt the encryption of copyrighted files.
It may violate the spirit of the constitution, but the DMCA itself doesn't really deal with copyright length. Its true that you won't be able to have all of the public domain rights with your DRM'd song, but, if at some point the copyright was to expire, you could give out the DRM'd file, even if it wouldn't do anybody any good. The real problem is a much larger issue with copyright law outside of the DMCA. Copyrights are much too long. There is no reason Micky Mouse should still be copyrighted.
Well fair use is just another law. If the DMCA says you can't do something, its not like fair use can override that. Its not in the constitution.