Made more money? Do you know how supply and demand works?
Trust me, this price drop is not about Apple being generous or altruistic. The price drop is for the very purpose of helping them make the most money.
They've already sold the phone to nearly everyone who was willing to pay a $600 pricetag (ridiculously high, compared to the rest of the cell phone market) for it. Saturated. Now it's time to sell to all the folks who will pay $400 for it. In a year, they'll drop the price again, and collect the stragglers. At the same time, they'll also introduce iPhone 2.0 at $499, and start the process all over again.
Dropping the price will help them sell more, and in the end, they will make more money. Less money per phone, yes. But it will have a positive impact on their bottom line, and it's all very intentional.
Oh come on. Do you really, seriously believe that this price-drop was not the plan from day one? And that AT&T was not fully aware and approving of the plan?
Apple wants marketshare. You can't get marketshare with a $600 phone. But, you can't keep up with initial demand with a $200 phone. (Yes, there's also a short-lived sense of exclusivity offered to the early adopters who pay the $600 price.) So, Apple prices high, fills initial demand, then as soon as demand starts to drop, they drop the price, and demand spikes back up. Wouldn't be surprised if they drop it again ($300? $250?) sometime in '08. As with most phones, the real money is made in the plan, not the phone. (Give away the razor, sell the blades. Give away the printer, sell the ink.)
And because of that, I guarantee you that AT&T is part and parcel in all pricing decisions, for as long as their contract with Apple is in effect.
Stop it. Just stop it. It's not funny. It only has a remote chance of being funny if you do something clever with it. Which you didn't. Remotely. So if you can't be funny nor insightful, then just read the article and keep your finger off the submit button.
Where should I go to find the music that is new and relevant? Try Paste magazine -- http://www.pastemagazine.com/ -- a very intelligent pub which avoids most of the pitfalls, hype, and indiscriminate crap of the mainstream. (That's not to say they'll never cover a well-known artist, but only those who deserve it.)
Paste may occasionally trend a little too close to the "music snob" category, but the writing generally isn't arrogant like that. It's been a breath of fresh air for me the past few years. Plus, it comes with a well-selected sampler disc every month.
Sorry, I will knock "your way" even though I haven't tried it for one reason: it's the most selfish lifestyle you could choose. Geez man, you compare your women to a used car. "Gotta kick the tires and test drive it first."
That's a sad, broken perspective on relationships, and I guarantee you that if you ever do get married, it won't last. When you get tired of "this year's model", you'll be on to the next. But apparently, that's how you roll.
There's a much better, deeper life to be had, but it requires some degree of sacrifice and commitment. It requires living for someone else, not just yourself. Because if you live for yourself, in the end, that's all you'll have. Good luck with that.
First of all, if you were standing in front of me, I'd punch you in the teeth for calling my beautiful wife a slut.
Secondly, I had no idea what the sex was going to be like when I got married...because when we married, we were both virgins. (I know...*gasp*, right??) I know this is conceptually unfathomable to your undeveloped hormonal brain, but as much as we enjoy sex, that's not why we got married.
Some of us actually make choices in life for sophisticated, intelligent reasons. It's saddening to me that so many people here think that people like me must be lying because such a perspective isn't even possible. Feel free to be naive; it's not hurting me any.
But it is pathetically humorous to me that you want to pass yourself off as smarter than I am. Oh, and way to post as a coward. Clearly the term is apt.
And by the way...trust me, my wife was far from the first person who was interested in me. In fact, we spent two years as good friends while we were dating other people before we fell in love with each other. I chose her, and she chose me. Has it been perfect? Nah. But it gets better every day.
It's not black-and-white, that's true. But the two sides are mutually opposed -- so every bit of sleeping around you do will make it harder for you to have a deeply committed relationship.
Essentially, you really can't have your cake and eat it too. Everybody tries, but that's because they're pretty naive about relationships.
Nothing like avoiding the great things in life because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants.
(Since I probably have to spell it out to this crowd, I'm referring to a lifelong, committed, intimate, terrific relationship to a single person. Snicker like an adolescent, or flame me as some sort of prude, but no amount of hot sex will ever compare. Guaranteed.)
Well, if you're Arab, you yelled the word 'bomb'. But if you're white, you just yawned.
So either you're a scary terrorist, or you're a wee tuckered. It all depends on your race. No worries -- that's programmed into the lip-reading software.
1) Hate is not equal to intolerance. I can fail to tolerate someone's actions (and even advocate punishment) without hating them. This could range from a parent disciplining a child, all the way to a death sentence for a convicted murderer. Justice, discipline, and intolerance, can exist effectively apart from hate.
2) Intolerance is not a primary ethical value. In fact, it undermines all law and ethical codes of conduct. As a principle, it gives no indication as to what behavior might be right or wrong, so taken to its logical conclusion, it is utterly flawed.
3) You have quoted only from the Old Testament, and not from the New, and therefore only give examples that reflect the law as set forth in the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT). The law was harsh -- given as a response to the sinfulness of man. It seeks one thing: justice.
But in the New Testament, the arrival of Christ offers freedom from the law. He comes to offer mercy and grace in place of the harsh judgment of the law.
From Romans chap 7: "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
Without the New Testament, the story is not complete, and therefore your quotes are also incomplete and out of context, failing to make an effective case for the "hatred" of Christians. Read the words of Christ in Matthew chaps 5-7, and tell me what he truly advocates.
Ah, but they do still have 19 million subscribers. And if you tell those 19 million that their monthly fee will be dramatically reduced (or altogether removed), they may not be as quick to cancel. That's a lot of eyeballs for advertisers.
And take it a step further. I have no idea what the business model could support, but what if AOL could offer free or dirt-cheap broadband, based on advertising revenues? They would instantly renew their appeal to the newbie market.
Yep. And many smaller artists are now doing quite well independently thanks to self-promotion on the web, and sites like MySpace. Major labels and the RIAA are becoming less and less of a necessary evil for them to make a decent living.
You clearly have not had to deal with AOL's continued poor decision-making over the years.
In the early days, they were actually much better. They made a valuable contribution back then: they made this new 'Internet' thing accessible to the masses. (And back then, it needed the help...when it was mostly a bunch of BBS's.)
But AOL soon lost it. They got exceptionally greedy, for one, evidenced most clearly by the purchase of Time Warner. And they completely lost any and all focus on their customers. For YEARS now, they've been giving the hardsell to anyone who tries to "quit AOL". (I'm sure you've heard the recent phone recording that's been circulating.)
So now, instead of being a great place for newbies to stick a toe in the water, AOL has become a detriment for newbies. AOL complicates the Internet much more than is necessary. In these days of broadband and wireless, most people (even newbies) need to do nothing more than open up a browser and type in an address. There is no need for a fat client to manage the connection.
And AOL's software is a real porker. It's e-mail. It's virus and spyware protection. It's a photo manager. It's a web browser. It's a dozen other little value-added features that AOL has included in a desperate attempt to preserve their user base.
Nice generous gesture, but AOL, of all companies, does not deserve your generosity or trust. They are an ugly, prideful company who fully deserves the fate which has befallen them.
You clearly have not had to deal with AOL's continued poor decision-making over the years.
In the early days, they were actually much better. They made a valuable contribution back then: they made this new 'Internet' thing accessible to the masses. (And back then, it needed the help...when it was mostly a bunch of BBS's.)
But AOL soon lost it. They got exceptionally greedy, for one, evidenced most clearly by the purchase of Time Warner. And they completely lost any and all focus on their customers. For YEARS now, they've been giving the hardsell to anyone who tries to "quit AOL". (I'm sure you've heard the recent phone recording that's been circulating.)
So now, instead of being a great place for newbies to stick a toe in the water, AOL has become a detriment for newbies. AOL complicates the Internet much more than is necessary. In these days of broadband and wireless, most people (even newbies) need to do nothing more than open up a browser and type in an address. There is no need for a fat client to manage the connection.
And AOL's software tries to do so much more than that. It's e-mail. It's virus and spyware protection. It's a photo manager. It's a web browser. It's a dozen other little value-added features that AOL has added in a desperate attempt to preserve their user base.
Nice thought at being generous, but AOL, of all companies, does not deserve your generosity or trust. They are an ugly, prideful company who fully deserves the fate which has befallen them.
The end of rebates means that prices will never be quite as low.
Rebates work on a similar principal to credit cards. Those who play "by the rules" do better in the end. Case in point, credit card companies make very little money off of me because I never carry a balance. But they make a ridiculous amount of money off all the other folks who carry a balance each month.
Similarly, rebates often offer a better deal than you'll ever get in-store, because they count on a certain percentage of people to fail to properly redeem the rebate. So they can advertise a lower price (and will honestly give it to you if you jump through a couple hoops), but don't have to actually deliver on that price to all customers. (And okay, so you lose a few cents on interest during the 4-6 week float. Whatever.)
Yeah, it's a scheme, but for just a little extra work, it has saved me a whole lot of cash over the years.
This isn't an altruistic gesture; those of us who have signed the letter aren't merely looking out for the interests of AOL users. Instead, our businesses have large, established bases of AOL customers, and we run the risk of losing those customers if we do not "pay the piper".
This is all about "good business" for AOL: they reap rich rewards from legitimate bulk senders who are forced to bend over, and are able to avoid investing in their own R&D to fight spam. IANAL, but it seems like there's antitrust written all over this thing, and if AOL ignores the petition, perhaps the courts will have something to say to them.
It's actually *God* we believe in, not creationism. But since God created the universe, we therefore believe in a creator, which I guess, makes us creationists.
But that doesn't mean we discard science (at least, the level-headed among us don't). The method God used to create the universe is a good question for science to answer, but curiously, also one that the Bible seems intentionally vague about.
The scriptures prophesied all sorts of future events before they happened; could not God have also provided details on the laws of the physical world? Sure! But frankly, it appears he doesn't care so much about that.
And it seems he knew what he was doing in that respect. Exactly how long did it take for us to progress from Einstein's theories to crafting tools to destroy the entire human race? Good thing God didn't write E=mc2 in the footnotes of the Ten Commandments.
I fully agree that this is not an issue worth legislating. If Texas is going to grant free wi-fi to truckers at rest stops, then let them do with it as they please. If they're that concerned about it, then ditch the free access, make truckers pay to connect, and take the taxpayer out of the equation.
But I did need to ask the parent: when did drinking, smoking, and porn become the only pastimes a trucker could possibly engage in while on the road? Does everything entertaining have to be a vice? That's a pretty limited view you got there.
There are a million other things to do just on the internet alone. A trucker could also (*gasp!*) read a book!...call his wife!...watch TV!...listen to the ball game!
Again, I'm not suggesting we legislate morality -- because that's nearly always a disaster -- but if we truly considered the damage we've done to ourselves via alcohol and pornography alone, we'd be shocked, and would never touch either one again.
Oh wait...yes we would. Because we're slimy, sinful human beings.
No, that's religion and philosophy. Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge.
Your semantic distinctions are confusing, if not inaccurate. How is the "pursuit of understanding and knowledge" distinct from "the pursuit of truth"? Can "knowledge" be "knowledge" if it's not true?
I also think my distinction that science is about the physical world is important, and Webster seems to agree: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."
If there's a distinction to be made, it's that science explains the what and the how, while philosophy and religion address the why. But I hold that it is irresponsible science to only ask the what and the how questions, and ignore the why. They are inextricably interrelated.
(Of course, even in arguing this point, we must venture into the philosophical: if we are bound to uphold moral obligations in our pursuit of science--protection of life, environment, etc.--then where does this sense of morality come from, if not from God? The physical world itself does not seem to share the burden of any of our moral concerns.)
Exactly what does a god offer in the way of predicting how things work?
If God designed and created the world, then who better to help us understand how it works?
However, as a Christian, I think it's fascinating to note that God didn't feel the details of the natural world were terribly important to communicate to us. And what wisdom that seems to be! We've done more harm to the earth in the past hundred years as a result of our newfound "scientific knowledge" than in the millenia proceeding. Sure, our lives are easier and more comfortable, but the planet's getting torn apart, we have the unprecedented ability to destroy our entire race, and the class distinctions from rich to poor are more exaggerated than ever. If knowledge is power, and power corrupts...
In any case, if we think of science as the process of "reverse-engineering" nature--attempting to discover the processes of nature without having designed them in the first place--then an understanding of God (as designer/creator) can add significant insight to our understanding of the world. Just as when reverse-engineering a man-made device: if we understand the designer's intention and purpose for the device, we are able to more easily draw conclusions about its inner workings.
Especially one that condemns those who seek to know his mind?
I hate to break it to you, but you're defeating your own argument against God here. If God does not exist, then he hasn't a mind, nor is he able to condemn those who seek to know it.
I get the impression that you're resistant to the idea of God not because of scientific evidence against his existence, but because you don't care for your notion of what he is like. To that, I offer two responses:
1) Does it matter what we think God is like? If he does exist, wouldn't it be wiser for us to seek to understand him, rather than deny his existence?
2) Where do you get this notion about his character? In my studies of the Bible, I constantly find God asking us to seek him out and know him. In fact, his only condemnation is reserved for those who refuse to do so.
ID is creationism with a new coat of paint.
Of course it is! What else would you expect it to be? Those of us who believe in God understandably reject a theory that fails to include him.
But if God is God, and if God created the world, then honest science will inevitably lead us to a better understanding of God. ID is not a theory, so much as an effort to merge two truths--religion and science--into one, which is something that neither the agnostic scientific community nor the literalist Christian community attempts to do. ID keeps an open mind both to the existence of God and to the disco
Slashdot Mirror
Made more money? Do you know how supply and demand works? Trust me, this price drop is not about Apple being generous or altruistic. The price drop is for the very purpose of helping them make the most money. They've already sold the phone to nearly everyone who was willing to pay a $600 pricetag (ridiculously high, compared to the rest of the cell phone market) for it. Saturated. Now it's time to sell to all the folks who will pay $400 for it. In a year, they'll drop the price again, and collect the stragglers. At the same time, they'll also introduce iPhone 2.0 at $499, and start the process all over again. Dropping the price will help them sell more, and in the end, they will make more money. Less money per phone, yes. But it will have a positive impact on their bottom line, and it's all very intentional.
Oh come on. Do you really, seriously believe that this price-drop was not the plan from day one? And that AT&T was not fully aware and approving of the plan?
Apple wants marketshare. You can't get marketshare with a $600 phone. But, you can't keep up with initial demand with a $200 phone. (Yes, there's also a short-lived sense of exclusivity offered to the early adopters who pay the $600 price.) So, Apple prices high, fills initial demand, then as soon as demand starts to drop, they drop the price, and demand spikes back up. Wouldn't be surprised if they drop it again ($300? $250?) sometime in '08. As with most phones, the real money is made in the plan, not the phone. (Give away the razor, sell the blades. Give away the printer, sell the ink.)
And because of that, I guarantee you that AT&T is part and parcel in all pricing decisions, for as long as their contract with Apple is in effect.
Stop it. Just stop it. It's not funny. It only has a remote chance of being funny if you do something clever with it. Which you didn't. Remotely. So if you can't be funny nor insightful, then just read the article and keep your finger off the submit button.
Paste may occasionally trend a little too close to the "music snob" category, but the writing generally isn't arrogant like that. It's been a breath of fresh air for me the past few years. Plus, it comes with a well-selected sampler disc every month.
Um, but SCO would never have sued you because you have no money. So...chicken or egg? Not sure it matters now.
Sorry, I will knock "your way" even though I haven't tried it for one reason: it's the most selfish lifestyle you could choose. Geez man, you compare your women to a used car. "Gotta kick the tires and test drive it first."
That's a sad, broken perspective on relationships, and I guarantee you that if you ever do get married, it won't last. When you get tired of "this year's model", you'll be on to the next. But apparently, that's how you roll.
There's a much better, deeper life to be had, but it requires some degree of sacrifice and commitment. It requires living for someone else, not just yourself. Because if you live for yourself, in the end, that's all you'll have. Good luck with that.
No. It's what I tell myself because it's the truth. It's pretty obvious, really.
The people who deny it are the ones like you who need to justify the fact that they're promiscuous.
And lots are buying, friend. Lots of people are sick of jumping from one sack to the next. Gets really old, really quick.
First of all, if you were standing in front of me, I'd punch you in the teeth for calling my beautiful wife a slut.
Secondly, I had no idea what the sex was going to be like when I got married...because when we married, we were both virgins. (I know...*gasp*, right??) I know this is conceptually unfathomable to your undeveloped hormonal brain, but as much as we enjoy sex, that's not why we got married.
Some of us actually make choices in life for sophisticated, intelligent reasons. It's saddening to me that so many people here think that people like me must be lying because such a perspective isn't even possible. Feel free to be naive; it's not hurting me any.
But it is pathetically humorous to me that you want to pass yourself off as smarter than I am. Oh, and way to post as a coward. Clearly the term is apt.
And by the way...trust me, my wife was far from the first person who was interested in me. In fact, we spent two years as good friends while we were dating other people before we fell in love with each other. I chose her, and she chose me. Has it been perfect? Nah. But it gets better every day.
It's not black-and-white, that's true. But the two sides are mutually opposed -- so every bit of sleeping around you do will make it harder for you to have a deeply committed relationship. Essentially, you really can't have your cake and eat it too. Everybody tries, but that's because they're pretty naive about relationships.
Nothing like avoiding the great things in life because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants.
(Since I probably have to spell it out to this crowd, I'm referring to a lifelong, committed, intimate, terrific relationship to a single person. Snicker like an adolescent, or flame me as some sort of prude, but no amount of hot sex will ever compare. Guaranteed.)
You really have no idea what you're doing with Photoshop, do you?
Well, if you're Arab, you yelled the word 'bomb'.
But if you're white, you just yawned.
So either you're a scary terrorist, or you're a wee tuckered. It all depends on your race. No worries -- that's programmed into the lip-reading software.
Oop, edit: point #2 should begin "Tolerance..."
1) Hate is not equal to intolerance. I can fail to tolerate someone's actions (and even advocate punishment) without hating them. This could range from a parent disciplining a child, all the way to a death sentence for a convicted murderer. Justice, discipline, and intolerance, can exist effectively apart from hate.
2) Intolerance is not a primary ethical value. In fact, it undermines all law and ethical codes of conduct. As a principle, it gives no indication as to what behavior might be right or wrong, so taken to its logical conclusion, it is utterly flawed.
3) You have quoted only from the Old Testament, and not from the New, and therefore only give examples that reflect the law as set forth in the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT). The law was harsh -- given as a response to the sinfulness of man. It seeks one thing: justice.
But in the New Testament, the arrival of Christ offers freedom from the law. He comes to offer mercy and grace in place of the harsh judgment of the law.
From Romans chap 7:
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
Without the New Testament, the story is not complete, and therefore your quotes are also incomplete and out of context, failing to make an effective case for the "hatred" of Christians. Read the words of Christ in Matthew chaps 5-7, and tell me what he truly advocates.
So let's do what we do best: /. 'em.
5 &o=68&so=70-6
Write to the principal who implemented this rule: gheppe@attleboroschools.com
And to her boss, the superintendent: pdurkin@attleboroschools.com
And to anyone else you can find on this page: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/home.asp?mode=so&ot=
"Label", damn it. It's spelled "label".
Ah, but they do still have 19 million subscribers. And if you tell those 19 million that their monthly fee will be dramatically reduced (or altogether removed), they may not be as quick to cancel. That's a lot of eyeballs for advertisers.
And take it a step further. I have no idea what the business model could support, but what if AOL could offer free or dirt-cheap broadband, based on advertising revenues? They would instantly renew their appeal to the newbie market.
Yep. And many smaller artists are now doing quite well independently thanks to self-promotion on the web, and sites like MySpace. Major labels and the RIAA are becoming less and less of a necessary evil for them to make a decent living.
You clearly have not had to deal with AOL's continued poor decision-making over the years.
In the early days, they were actually much better. They made a valuable contribution back then: they made this new 'Internet' thing accessible to the masses. (And back then, it needed the help...when it was mostly a bunch of BBS's.)
But AOL soon lost it. They got exceptionally greedy, for one, evidenced most clearly by the purchase of Time Warner. And they completely lost any and all focus on their customers. For YEARS now, they've been giving the hardsell to anyone who tries to "quit AOL". (I'm sure you've heard the recent phone recording that's been circulating.)
So now, instead of being a great place for newbies to stick a toe in the water, AOL has become a detriment for newbies. AOL complicates the Internet much more than is necessary. In these days of broadband and wireless, most people (even newbies) need to do nothing more than open up a browser and type in an address. There is no need for a fat client to manage the connection.
And AOL's software is a real porker. It's e-mail. It's virus and spyware protection. It's a photo manager. It's a web browser. It's a dozen other little value-added features that AOL has included in a desperate attempt to preserve their user base.
Nice generous gesture, but AOL, of all companies, does not deserve your generosity or trust. They are an ugly, prideful company who fully deserves the fate which has befallen them.
You clearly have not had to deal with AOL's continued poor decision-making over the years. In the early days, they were actually much better. They made a valuable contribution back then: they made this new 'Internet' thing accessible to the masses. (And back then, it needed the help...when it was mostly a bunch of BBS's.) But AOL soon lost it. They got exceptionally greedy, for one, evidenced most clearly by the purchase of Time Warner. And they completely lost any and all focus on their customers. For YEARS now, they've been giving the hardsell to anyone who tries to "quit AOL". (I'm sure you've heard the recent phone recording that's been circulating.) So now, instead of being a great place for newbies to stick a toe in the water, AOL has become a detriment for newbies. AOL complicates the Internet much more than is necessary. In these days of broadband and wireless, most people (even newbies) need to do nothing more than open up a browser and type in an address. There is no need for a fat client to manage the connection. And AOL's software tries to do so much more than that. It's e-mail. It's virus and spyware protection. It's a photo manager. It's a web browser. It's a dozen other little value-added features that AOL has added in a desperate attempt to preserve their user base. Nice thought at being generous, but AOL, of all companies, does not deserve your generosity or trust. They are an ugly, prideful company who fully deserves the fate which has befallen them.
Agreed!
The end of rebates means that prices will never be quite as low.
Rebates work on a similar principal to credit cards. Those who play "by the rules" do better in the end. Case in point, credit card companies make very little money off of me because I never carry a balance. But they make a ridiculous amount of money off all the other folks who carry a balance each month.
Similarly, rebates often offer a better deal than you'll ever get in-store, because they count on a certain percentage of people to fail to properly redeem the rebate. So they can advertise a lower price (and will honestly give it to you if you jump through a couple hoops), but don't have to actually deliver on that price to all customers. (And okay, so you lose a few cents on interest during the 4-6 week float. Whatever.)
Yeah, it's a scheme, but for just a little extra work, it has saved me a whole lot of cash over the years.
This isn't an altruistic gesture; those of us who have signed the letter aren't merely looking out for the interests of AOL users. Instead, our businesses have large, established bases of AOL customers, and we run the risk of losing those customers if we do not "pay the piper".
This is all about "good business" for AOL: they reap rich rewards from legitimate bulk senders who are forced to bend over, and are able to avoid investing in their own R&D to fight spam. IANAL, but it seems like there's antitrust written all over this thing, and if AOL ignores the petition, perhaps the courts will have something to say to them.
That's some real nice flamebait!
;-)
It's actually *God* we believe in, not creationism. But since God created the universe, we therefore believe in a creator, which I guess, makes us creationists.
But that doesn't mean we discard science (at least, the level-headed among us don't). The method God used to create the universe is a good question for science to answer, but curiously, also one that the Bible seems intentionally vague about.
The scriptures prophesied all sorts of future events before they happened; could not God have also provided details on the laws of the physical world? Sure! But frankly, it appears he doesn't care so much about that.
And it seems he knew what he was doing in that respect. Exactly how long did it take for us to progress from Einstein's theories to crafting tools to destroy the entire human race? Good thing God didn't write E=mc2 in the footnotes of the Ten Commandments.
Oh, and for the record, God liked the joke.
I fully agree that this is not an issue worth legislating. If Texas is going to grant free wi-fi to truckers at rest stops, then let them do with it as they please. If they're that concerned about it, then ditch the free access, make truckers pay to connect, and take the taxpayer out of the equation.
...call his wife! ...watch TV! ...listen to the ball game!
But I did need to ask the parent: when did drinking, smoking, and porn become the only pastimes a trucker could possibly engage in while on the road? Does everything entertaining have to be a vice? That's a pretty limited view you got there.
There are a million other things to do just on the internet alone. A trucker could also (*gasp!*) read a book!
Again, I'm not suggesting we legislate morality -- because that's nearly always a disaster -- but if we truly considered the damage we've done to ourselves via alcohol and pornography alone, we'd be shocked, and would never touch either one again.
Oh wait...yes we would. Because we're slimy, sinful human beings.
No, that's religion and philosophy. Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge.
Your semantic distinctions are confusing, if not inaccurate. How is the "pursuit of understanding and knowledge" distinct from "the pursuit of truth"? Can "knowledge" be "knowledge" if it's not true?
I also think my distinction that science is about the physical world is important, and Webster seems to agree: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."
If there's a distinction to be made, it's that science explains the what and the how, while philosophy and religion address the why. But I hold that it is irresponsible science to only ask the what and the how questions, and ignore the why. They are inextricably interrelated.
(Of course, even in arguing this point, we must venture into the philosophical: if we are bound to uphold moral obligations in our pursuit of science--protection of life, environment, etc.--then where does this sense of morality come from, if not from God? The physical world itself does not seem to share the burden of any of our moral concerns.)
Exactly what does a god offer in the way of predicting how things work?
If God designed and created the world, then who better to help us understand how it works?
However, as a Christian, I think it's fascinating to note that God didn't feel the details of the natural world were terribly important to communicate to us. And what wisdom that seems to be! We've done more harm to the earth in the past hundred years as a result of our newfound "scientific knowledge" than in the millenia proceeding. Sure, our lives are easier and more comfortable, but the planet's getting torn apart, we have the unprecedented ability to destroy our entire race, and the class distinctions from rich to poor are more exaggerated than ever. If knowledge is power, and power corrupts...
In any case, if we think of science as the process of "reverse-engineering" nature--attempting to discover the processes of nature without having designed them in the first place--then an understanding of God (as designer/creator) can add significant insight to our understanding of the world. Just as when reverse-engineering a man-made device: if we understand the designer's intention and purpose for the device, we are able to more easily draw conclusions about its inner workings.
Especially one that condemns those who seek to know his mind?
I hate to break it to you, but you're defeating your own argument against God here. If God does not exist, then he hasn't a mind, nor is he able to condemn those who seek to know it.
I get the impression that you're resistant to the idea of God not because of scientific evidence against his existence, but because you don't care for your notion of what he is like. To that, I offer two responses:
1) Does it matter what we think God is like? If he does exist, wouldn't it be wiser for us to seek to understand him, rather than deny his existence?
2) Where do you get this notion about his character? In my studies of the Bible, I constantly find God asking us to seek him out and know him. In fact, his only condemnation is reserved for those who refuse to do so.
ID is creationism with a new coat of paint.
Of course it is! What else would you expect it to be? Those of us who believe in God understandably reject a theory that fails to include him.
But if God is God, and if God created the world, then honest science will inevitably lead us to a better understanding of God. ID is not a theory, so much as an effort to merge two truths--religion and science--into one, which is something that neither the agnostic scientific community nor the literalist Christian community attempts to do. ID keeps an open mind both to the existence of God and to the disco