So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.
But, that's not what is happening. Evolution, because it threatens fundamentalists, has been singled out as an idea worthy of questioning separating the theory from other scientific theories. Not all ideas are equal and it's been 'polite tyranny' that forces us to consider the laughable science of ID as equal to the well-tested, falsifiable, predictable ideas that make up evolutionary theory.
Darwin's only degree was in theology...
And yet, he stumbled onto an idea.
He's definitely not a scientist
You're right, the man's dead. But, he was a Naturalists and his observations led him to this new idea.
In fact us scientist [sic] are placing our theory in the hands of a man that on his death bed said evolution is a farse, he made it up because he was mad at God.
I hope you're not trying to indicate you're a scientist. And, who cares what Darwin said on his death bed, his observations on the Beagle are what set off a whole new way of thinking that has led us to a very useful theory that tells us a lot about the world. His idea was just a first step, the rest of the theory has a life of its own without Darwin.
Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked.
But, in the Dover case, and in many others, only a small minority of people want Intelligent Design taught in schools. But, I would argue that the what the 'majority' wants taught in a public school should be applicable to the real world and current scientific, sociological, historical thought. Students should be prepared for the real world and college.
There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.
Ah the unfocused 'liberal groups' you might as well say boogeyman for all the fact this contains, but I digress. Students should be exposed to the scientific method, how it works, why it works, and even where it can fail. This is Science 101--and frankly many Slashdotters should take this class again. The rest of the sciences should be devoted to exploring current scientific thought. You want Evolution to get the single caveat that somehow it is worth less than other scientific theories because for some reason your faith is threatened and this isn't right. It confuses the issue, it pretends that Evolution is somehow dangerous or less viable when it stands up at least as well as any other science.
Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.
Uh, I can't. At least not in any meaningful way, because God is an idea that presupposes an omnipotent and omniscient entity that exists outside of our physical universe. Any defined test could be easily thrown away as "God wishes it so." I can't test for God, I can't question God or even observe God.
Furthermore, why can't evolution be the very mechanism by which God created us. Why does God just have to plunk humans down as a child poses toys in a sandbox? Why can't God be smarter than that and create an elegantly balanced system that allows the flotsam and jetsam of supernovas eventually collalece and form in planets, which allows a substrate for small creatures to form and evolve and through enormous chance--not really, because God knows every dice roll--eventually end up with beings who not only believe, but begin to wonder how God did it. Isn't it possible that not only did God use evolution, but he wants us to understand it?
People have believe in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more ceertain than scientists of 100 years ago?
Actually, monotheism is a fairly recent invention of man, all evidence seems to support that up until the Israelites most people were polytheists or animists. The idea of God, especially in Christian terms, is relatively new, as is the idea of the holy trinity and Jesus' resurrection, which both came after the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, all we know of Jesus has been translated from Latin and Aramaic sources and transliterated by Medievel monks. What we know of Jesus and God in the Christian sense has changed over the generations. So, with that in mind, what makes the bible any more accurate than any other good story? What makes you so certain over Simon or Paul about the nature of Jesus?
eMusic.com. There's one that sells Mp3s, no DRM, and has a fairly large catalogue. The iPod is a device that works with iTunes and the iTMS. iTMS does act as a lock-in to the iPod, but the relationship doesn't work the other way. The iPod is dumb, it will play anything, including AACs, but the iTMS is smart and wants you to use only the iPod. This relationship is complex and most people don't really understand how it works, but the iPod plays several major codecs: WMA, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis being the exceptions.
How do you figure this? If the site renders properly, if SSL is still working, and this is the only way to make the site work, then what exactly is the problem?
1) innocent until proven guilty -> earliest article I could find via Google was 20 hours ago. This is fresh. Lets give it time for the smoke to settle and see if this is legit.
Okay, but the evidence is pretty damning.
2) According to the reports, he didn't spy he authorized the NSA. According to Condoleezza and Scott McClellan he "Acted within the law." So right now its tit-for-tat, whose telling the truth? Again, lets wait for the smoke to clear and everyone to get their stories straight
Also okay, but between you and me, the NYTimes versus two mouthpieces, I'm gonna' go with the Grey Lady, all her problems aside.
3) According to the accuser "up to 500 people were spied upon." Wow./sarcasm. 500/295,000,000 = 1.6*10^-9 %chance of getting "spied upon." That is in the noise, folks. Now while I understand your ideological concerns with it...Then I'll worry about my 1 in 590,000 chance of having been spied upon. Thanks.
Go read the article again, I think you missed some details, it affected more than 500 people, the list changes and has affected possible thousands, and there's more than one accuser (whistleblower). Furthermore, I didn't realize that the Constitution had some kind of majority clause built-in. If the Executive Branch misuses its powers and ignores a long-standing system created because of previous abuses, we might want to pay attention even if it will never affect us at all.
It is simply amazing how a once proud nation became a legion of cowards and syncophants.
First, you take the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, either terrorists destroy the Brooklyn Bridge or NSA spies on all Americans without any kind of judicial oversight. Second, you ignore the obvious danger of the Executive branch of the government able to wield power without any kind of process by either Congress nor the Judicial Branch. Finally, you accept that idea that our rights are worth less than our lives in exact opposite of all our soliders from 1776 on who died in order to protect those rights so that you may have them. How spineless and useless you are, how easily are you terrified by evil men and unwilling to accept that our nation means something not because of its land or its people but because of its ideas.
Finally, the United States provides more foreign aid than any other country in the world. Far more.
This is true to a point, but this far emphasizes the generosity of the United States. See this article.
A starving individual will certainly choose food over a laptop, but not all third-world countries are teeming with starving people rather most countries have a potential for a rising middle-class who lack the education and information necessary. The choice isn't between a laptop or a fish, it's the choice between a livelihood dependent on foreign food-supplies or a life of opportunity and all of its residual benefits.
Go to Finder, Preferences, Click on Advanced. Click on Show All File Extensions. Now, you can see the file extensions for everything from applications to widgets.
If you keep a properly open mind, however, it still has to be admitted that it is *possible* that the world was created a few thousand years ago. This is a perfectly legitimate theory.
No, there are legitimate hypothesis, which are statements that try to explain observed phenonema. Theories are tested hypothesis that have made and succeded in their predictions. For example, one could look for changes in bacteria or look for bacteria that lives on new materials to look for evolution, say for example nylon. So, a material that didn't exist until the 1940s is now being eaten by a special kind of bacteria. Isn't this a good example of natural selection?
The concern I have with teaching Intelligent Design is that it breaks down the theory of Evolution by showing a 'competing' theory. Do we do the same thing in Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy? Do we teach every competing theory for each discipline? This seems like a difficult prospect more likely to confuse students than teach them.
Reading this entire thread--made up of engineers, students, geeks--shows just how many people are confused about Evolution. So, how can we expect busy teachers and bored students to be able to understand how Evolution works and why Intelligent Design is such a ridiculous theory.
This is easily one of the dumbest 'smart' sounding posts I've ever read. First, you manage to reduce everything down to either literalists or rock-worshipers. Then, you mention mechanical and lifeless scientific inquiries (as opposed to organic and vociferous) which just makes me bullshit detector go *beep*beep*beep. The best is the little flourish of math, like a magicians smoke, trying to make you appear as one thing while you're doing another. Then, finally you show your stripes mentioning your belief.
But, my favorite is the last line: As for myself, I trust the God in the bible much more than I'll trust any group of scientists alive today.
You believe the obscure ramblings of desert tribesmen, as transcribed through the Romans and various medieval zealots, over the sincere--if sometimes flawed--explorations of scientists? Really?
Well they got a few things right, notably electricity, computational machines, and the other dozen or so failures of science that allowed you to post such a flawed response in the first place.
The existance of Planck Time in Big Bang theory suggest strongly the existance [sic] of a God, but does not prove it.
This is an interesting twist to Intelligent Design, which suggests that God was the Prime Mover (see Aristotle) that launched the Universe into being--Let there be light!--and that evolution is merely one process operating within the Prime Mover's new creation. But, this isn't what Intelligent Design is. Intelligent Design tries to supersede evolution by suggesting that the model is wrong, pointing out flaws, and breaking evolution down into a 'theory' to make it appear less-worthy of scientific study than say partical physics.
Really, at this point you've broken out the metaphysical tools and are taking the easy road, if the idea is difficult, if the situation is currently beyond human understanding it must be god. Couldn't it be gods, with all the evidence you just presented? You want ID to be one thing, but the people at the reins want ID to replace evolution and this is where I have a problem. If you want to discuss the moments before the Big Bang, the time before time, then we can have a real discussion that reaches into the metaphysical exploration of mind and the universe, faith and physical being, but that's not what Intelligent Design is and by pretending it does so you are part of the problem.
Fine, I'll do it as soon as we both become immortal. Oh and using this logic you must not think much of geology or plate tectonics or quantum physics. Just because it takes eons or is too small to see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
However, we can make predictions and in all cases evolution has suceeded that trial by fire.
Really, you want evolution to be a metaphysical truth like the soul, but it's as real as any other science. Intelligent Design is to Evolution as Chemistry is to Alchemy.
You never prove anything: you have evidence that either supports or doesn't support your theory...evolution is far from established fact and is fundamentally a theory with plenty of holes and unanswered questions...If just seems like evolutions want to skip a whole bunch of steps and not do the actual science required to figure out if the evidence supports their theory or not.
So, if you can never prove anything, but just have evidence to support your theory, than how does something become an 'established fact?' We'll get back to that one. Furthermore, if a century of scientific research included the various alterations to Darwin's original and nascent theory, that includes observation, testing, peer-review, more testing and observation, as well as the ability to predict certain events, is skipping a 'whole bunch of steps' than what do you suggest should be done in order to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Oh...wait, you can't because you can never 'prove' anything. We'll get back to that as well.
Finally, you state that evolutionists are zealots who are minions of bad logic and reasoning. I'm going to assume that you are a Christian--since rarely people insult themselves--and are therefore above bad logic and reasoning. Wait...let's go back to your post:
You've stated that nothing can be proven and that evolution is far from established fact. So, wouldn't that make it impossible for evolution to become an established fact? Take this further, since we never prove anything, isn't it possible that you are a dog posting on Slashdot? Or, isn't it possible that you not only don't understand evolution, but don't even understand logic and are just echoing something you read on the web about the 'holes' and 'flaws' of evolution. Isn't it possible that your are a mindless minion of bad logic and reasoning and maybe should take the time to learn about the difference between facts, scientific laws and theories?
The astronomy/astrology equivalent would not be to present the Hubble Telescope next to the 'math' used in astrology, but to pretend that there is some underlying scientific debate between astronomy and astrology and that each was of equal value and used the same inherent principles.
Intelligent Design is just Creationism in drag, and no amount of pretense or 'debate' is going to change that. If that makes me a bigot then fine, but I'm reminded of a certain saying: leave your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out. Some things are just wrong no matter what someone else believes.
Your post is really interesting, and there are a few things I'd like to counter.
no innovation? Hmm... Maybe you should start to research home automation; quite a large chunk of my little "spiel" was about that. Take a look at what MS and GE are doing with that... no innovation huh? Umm... I don't see linux or osx powering any cars other then some freak project by college students. BMW is a major premium brand using XP. But hey, that's not your kind of innovation. Shadows under desktop icons are.
MS and GE are doing a corporate equivalent 'freak project.' Quit being so judgmental; Microsoft itself was once a student project. I see the point you're trying to make, but Windows XP is running the entertainment system, not 'powering' the automobile--that's for embedded systems, some of which run Linux. Shadows under desktop icons can be innovations for human-interface, which is actually really important even if Microsoft treats it like an afterthought.
I have lots to say, but I fear its lost on a zealot like yourself. I'll try to be brief. You are just so blinded with hatred you have started to believe you own rhetoric. The problem is that's all it is, rhetoric.... Unfortunately for your side people have heard you, and they don't agree. When you say Windows is horrible they hear you, but think "well it does what I need it to". Your message does get out. The media is almost 95% Apple users; trust me your view gets out. When a user tries Linux they can't get software installed... try Apple and no software is available for what they needed to do. Windows market share is not losing to Linux or Apple despite your rhetoric. And its not because people aren't as smart as YOU!
Rhetoric is rhetoric; Microsoft has plenty of paid shills and corporate pushers. Many in the media use Macs, many in the accounting business use Windows. What does this tell us? Not much, what's more interesting is how the virus/spyware/malware stories hit. Was it because the media is a bunch of biased-Mac users or is it because it became such a problem that the media--in their bondi blue towers--didn't notice until later? The idea that the media uses Macs can cut both ways.
Attacks on Windows are a real problem that needs to be solved by Microsoft, and I think many people would prefer they do that rather than jamming Windows Media Player into a BMW. Not that this isn't an interesting development, but many feel that Microsoft should solve problems they had a hand in creating. The desktop monoculture is their fault.
Furthermore, a recent study indicated that one million people switched from Windows to Mac OSX this year alone. It's a drop in the bucket, but between that and Firefox grabbing 10% of the browser market in under a year, we can see that Microsoft is mortal. Dying? No, but they're certainly mortal.
OSX has had 4 paid upgrades to Windows XP. Annual OS upgrades are a nightmare for IT departments, bad for a company's balance sheet, and an irritation for end-users. Each version costs about $150 x 4 = $600. MS XP is $300. If you kept up with Apple, you spent double then going with XP. Never mind all the programs that break with the upgrades.
OSX's upgrade cycle works on a different paradigm than Windows XP. Each 10.x has constituted a new OS with so many under-the-hood changes as to be equivalent to Windows 2K, Windows XP, etc. And, only in some cases did a 10.x break applications--we won't mention XP SP2, which broke lots of applications as well. But, this I think is tangential to the main thrust of your argument.
MS didn't abuse any monopoly power to make Office number one. They didn't abuse or break the law to beat Palm. They didn't abuse anyone to make Server 2k3 grow by leaps and bounds, faster then any other server platform this year. They didn't abuse anyone to sell 20 million Xboxes, and didn't abuse anyone to get a 1 year jump start on the PS3. Xbox Live... no innovation? They have taken online game play to a whole new level. Their IPTV stuff is amazing, and that is why Verizon and SBC were so willing to lock
Umm...no, you're wrong. NIN is on iTunes, at least 13 albums worth of stuff. But, ringtones just suck no matter what song you truncate into a 10 second clip.
I have to agree with the mormon. There is no moral balance between the US and Osama's merry band of fascists and murders. It's a fine distinction, but killing civilians accidentally while trying to kill someone who is shooting at you is different from spraying mortar rounds into crowds. The US blows up a wedding party because of either misunderstood instructions or bad intelligence, Al Qaeda (and similar grounds) aim for the wedding party. The US has a small group go nuts and start abusing prisoners, Al Qaeda abuses all its prisoners--and then cuts of their heads. The US gets involved in ancient ethnic and religious struggles because we're dumb and we think we'll help, Al Qaeda does it to retain power and money.
Fine distinctions, and the end result is still messy and violent and tragic, but the US is for all its ham-handed blundering, naivety, and even very human capacity for violence, is trying to do the right thing.
War is hell, but at least our troops will come home with demons, Al Qaeda will celebrate the number of people they killed as a great victory. Killing is a by-product for the US, killing is the aim of Al Qaeda.
The fact that we need an arsenal of weapons, whether it be up close and personal like a sword, or distance and specific like a sniper round or completely indescriminate like a hydrogen bomb, is a problem. It sucks that we need to be armed to the teeth in order to protect ourselves, and it sucks that situations arise when we either have to or want to use these things at all. My point is our arsenal is a terrible force that while specific still means that someone dies horribly at the end. We shouldn't be proud that our bombs only kill some people, we should be saddened that we have to kill anyone. It's a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless.
It'd be nice to just make everyone go to sleep, pick up those who are dangerous and ship them off. But, even that wouldn't work I think.
Well, we don't talk about it because we want World War II to be the 'good war,' talking about Dresden and Tokyo reminds us that we could be just a cruel and violent as our enemies. That's what war is, terrible violence and destruction for mostly abtract causes.
You're right. War is messy, brutal and ugly. But, the fighter-pilot considers whether he'll kill civilians and tries not to in combination with observers. Suicide bombers intentionally kill civilians, the more the better. The suicide bomber is not the moral equivalent to the soldier, but we must remember that, as you said bombs don't become lollipops, bombs kill people no matter whether they're children playing or a sniper directing mortar rounds into crowds during Ramadan.
The point of America's arsenal is to kill people, precisely and specifically, while our troops are out of harm. Our troops get to deal with the moral problems inherent in fighting a war in cities and villages.
Just a quibble, we were nominally sucessful in Somalia for a time when we were just bringing in food and medicine. However, the situation rapidly deteriorated when the US decided to 'nation-build' and in response to an attack on Pakistani troops tried to arrest Farrah Aidid. This ultimately failed as the Battle of Mogadishu--although won by US troops--resulted in casualties, including the displaying of the multilated bodies of Special Forces troops. Somalia is an example of a 'liberal' idea that went simply went awry due to the inherent limitations of military force and more so the inherent limitations of our politicians and generals. We didn't understand the situation we were getting involved in and we killed a lot of people--no one really knows how many Somalis--to learn this lesson.
I agree with you the US, even with the hiccup we call the Bush presidency, is getting more liberal. We need to make sure this continues and that includes defending our rights against corporations who are still very interested in manipulating politicians for their own ends.
Methinks you didn't actually read my comment because I said you did not need to use iTunes with the iPod and there are lots of other programs available, as well as the ability to drag-n-drop. As for DVDs--my iPod can't do that because mine is a 2nd Generation, but the new ones can do that, and you can download episodes of Lost and play it on an iPod, legally. The latest iPod can do everything your Archos can do, except for voice recording. It can be used on Macs, Linux, and Windows, it plays for 10+ hours, it charges quickly (?!), it has a line-out, etc. Now, I agree with you different things for different people, but the feature set is very close and the iPod has a user-interface that is arguably better and it links to the iTunes Music Store, which is a very big plus for a lot of people. So, you saved some money and I'm glad you like your DAP, but stop pretending that the Archos feature list is automagically better than the iPod's, there's some advantages and disadvantages to both.
I'm sure this has been pointed out several hundred times, but you don't have to use iTunes to load an iPod--most people like using iTunes because it manages a very large collection and allows you to change a playlists of a thousand songs very easily, which would take forever using drag-n-drop. I don't know why people don't want to use iTunes because it's a really nice, easy to use program that has so many useful features.
Now, you will need iTunes to buy songs from the iTunes Music Store and they will only work on the iPod, but no you're not restricted to using iTunes. And Linux support exists too, you just have to hunt for it. Which is more than I can say for the Dell DJ or a number of other DAPs that have almost no Mac support.
Yeah, your opinion and two quarters still won't buy a cup of coffee. What evidence do you have that "many" of the RIAA/MPAA customers are criminals? Is this based on your own behavior or maybe some anecdotal evidence backed by hersay? Furthermore, please define what "criminal" and "illegal" mean with respect to copyright infringment versus fair-use.
I buy all my content, I spend lots of money on CDs, movies, and digital downloads from iTunes, why should I suffer because of a Chinese pirate who burns Revenge of the Sith from a copy that came from an internal studio source? Nothing I could possibly do, save either downloading the same copy or going to Bejing, makes me part of this situation and yet I have to deal with DRM. DRM doesn't protect media from an intent hacker or media from another internal source, instead it makes me jump through hoops to do things I used to be able to do. No one will win with DRM, content will still be stolen, but now customers will lose rights they once had. Chinese pirates will, of course, make mountains of money.
You should check out this speech by Cory Doctorow about why this is so.
Slashdot Mirror
But, that's not what is happening. Evolution, because it threatens fundamentalists, has been singled out as an idea worthy of questioning separating the theory from other scientific theories. Not all ideas are equal and it's been 'polite tyranny' that forces us to consider the laughable science of ID as equal to the well-tested, falsifiable, predictable ideas that make up evolutionary theory.
And yet, he stumbled onto an idea.
He's definitely not a scientist
You're right, the man's dead. But, he was a Naturalists and his observations led him to this new idea.
In fact us scientist [sic] are placing our theory in the hands of a man that on his death bed said evolution is a farse, he made it up because he was mad at God. I hope you're not trying to indicate you're a scientist. And, who cares what Darwin said on his death bed, his observations on the Beagle are what set off a whole new way of thinking that has led us to a very useful theory that tells us a lot about the world. His idea was just a first step, the rest of the theory has a life of its own without Darwin.
But, in the Dover case, and in many others, only a small minority of people want Intelligent Design taught in schools. But, I would argue that the what the 'majority' wants taught in a public school should be applicable to the real world and current scientific, sociological, historical thought. Students should be prepared for the real world and college.
There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.
Ah the unfocused 'liberal groups' you might as well say boogeyman for all the fact this contains, but I digress. Students should be exposed to the scientific method, how it works, why it works, and even where it can fail. This is Science 101--and frankly many Slashdotters should take this class again. The rest of the sciences should be devoted to exploring current scientific thought. You want Evolution to get the single caveat that somehow it is worth less than other scientific theories because for some reason your faith is threatened and this isn't right. It confuses the issue, it pretends that Evolution is somehow dangerous or less viable when it stands up at least as well as any other science.
Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.
Uh, I can't. At least not in any meaningful way, because God is an idea that presupposes an omnipotent and omniscient entity that exists outside of our physical universe. Any defined test could be easily thrown away as "God wishes it so." I can't test for God, I can't question God or even observe God.
Furthermore, why can't evolution be the very mechanism by which God created us. Why does God just have to plunk humans down as a child poses toys in a sandbox? Why can't God be smarter than that and create an elegantly balanced system that allows the flotsam and jetsam of supernovas eventually collalece and form in planets, which allows a substrate for small creatures to form and evolve and through enormous chance--not really, because God knows every dice roll--eventually end up with beings who not only believe, but begin to wonder how God did it. Isn't it possible that not only did God use evolution, but he wants us to understand it?
People have believe in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more ceertain than scientists of 100 years ago?
Actually, monotheism is a fairly recent invention of man, all evidence seems to support that up until the Israelites most people were polytheists or animists. The idea of God, especially in Christian terms, is relatively new, as is the idea of the holy trinity and Jesus' resurrection, which both came after the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, all we know of Jesus has been translated from Latin and Aramaic sources and transliterated by Medievel monks. What we know of Jesus and God in the Christian sense has changed over the generations. So, with that in mind, what makes the bible any more accurate than any other good story? What makes you so certain over Simon or Paul about the nature of Jesus?
Sorry for the belated reply.
How do you figure this? If the site renders properly, if SSL is still working, and this is the only way to make the site work, then what exactly is the problem?
Okay, but the evidence is pretty damning.
2) According to the reports, he didn't spy he authorized the NSA. According to Condoleezza and Scott McClellan he "Acted within the law." So right now its tit-for-tat, whose telling the truth? Again, lets wait for the smoke to clear and everyone to get their stories straight
Also okay, but between you and me, the NYTimes versus two mouthpieces, I'm gonna' go with the Grey Lady, all her problems aside.
3) According to the accuser "up to 500 people were spied upon." Wow. /sarcasm. 500/295,000,000 = 1.6*10^-9 %chance of getting "spied upon." That is in the noise, folks. Now while I understand your ideological concerns with it...Then I'll worry about my 1 in 590,000 chance of having been spied upon. Thanks.
Go read the article again, I think you missed some details, it affected more than 500 people, the list changes and has affected possible thousands, and there's more than one accuser (whistleblower). Furthermore, I didn't realize that the Constitution had some kind of majority clause built-in. If the Executive Branch misuses its powers and ignores a long-standing system created because of previous abuses, we might want to pay attention even if it will never affect us at all.
First, you take the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, either terrorists destroy the Brooklyn Bridge or NSA spies on all Americans without any kind of judicial oversight. Second, you ignore the obvious danger of the Executive branch of the government able to wield power without any kind of process by either Congress nor the Judicial Branch. Finally, you accept that idea that our rights are worth less than our lives in exact opposite of all our soliders from 1776 on who died in order to protect those rights so that you may have them. How spineless and useless you are, how easily are you terrified by evil men and unwilling to accept that our nation means something not because of its land or its people but because of its ideas.
Oh, and they're Mp3s!
This is true to a point, but this far emphasizes the generosity of the United States. See this article.
A starving individual will certainly choose food over a laptop, but not all third-world countries are teeming with starving people rather most countries have a potential for a rising middle-class who lack the education and information necessary. The choice isn't between a laptop or a fish, it's the choice between a livelihood dependent on foreign food-supplies or a life of opportunity and all of its residual benefits.
Go to Finder, Preferences, Click on Advanced. Click on Show All File Extensions. Now, you can see the file extensions for everything from applications to widgets.
No, there are legitimate hypothesis, which are statements that try to explain observed phenonema. Theories are tested hypothesis that have made and succeded in their predictions. For example, one could look for changes in bacteria or look for bacteria that lives on new materials to look for evolution, say for example nylon. So, a material that didn't exist until the 1940s is now being eaten by a special kind of bacteria. Isn't this a good example of natural selection?
The concern I have with teaching Intelligent Design is that it breaks down the theory of Evolution by showing a 'competing' theory. Do we do the same thing in Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy? Do we teach every competing theory for each discipline? This seems like a difficult prospect more likely to confuse students than teach them.
Reading this entire thread--made up of engineers, students, geeks--shows just how many people are confused about Evolution. So, how can we expect busy teachers and bored students to be able to understand how Evolution works and why Intelligent Design is such a ridiculous theory.
But, my favorite is the last line: As for myself, I trust the God in the bible much more than I'll trust any group of scientists alive today.
You believe the obscure ramblings of desert tribesmen, as transcribed through the Romans and various medieval zealots, over the sincere--if sometimes flawed--explorations of scientists? Really?
Well they got a few things right, notably electricity, computational machines, and the other dozen or so failures of science that allowed you to post such a flawed response in the first place.
This is an interesting twist to Intelligent Design, which suggests that God was the Prime Mover (see Aristotle) that launched the Universe into being--Let there be light!--and that evolution is merely one process operating within the Prime Mover's new creation. But, this isn't what Intelligent Design is. Intelligent Design tries to supersede evolution by suggesting that the model is wrong, pointing out flaws, and breaking evolution down into a 'theory' to make it appear less-worthy of scientific study than say partical physics.
Really, at this point you've broken out the metaphysical tools and are taking the easy road, if the idea is difficult, if the situation is currently beyond human understanding it must be god. Couldn't it be gods, with all the evidence you just presented? You want ID to be one thing, but the people at the reins want ID to replace evolution and this is where I have a problem. If you want to discuss the moments before the Big Bang, the time before time, then we can have a real discussion that reaches into the metaphysical exploration of mind and the universe, faith and physical being, but that's not what Intelligent Design is and by pretending it does so you are part of the problem.
However, we can make predictions and in all cases evolution has suceeded that trial by fire.
Really, you want evolution to be a metaphysical truth like the soul, but it's as real as any other science. Intelligent Design is to Evolution as Chemistry is to Alchemy.
So, if you can never prove anything, but just have evidence to support your theory, than how does something become an 'established fact?' We'll get back to that one. Furthermore, if a century of scientific research included the various alterations to Darwin's original and nascent theory, that includes observation, testing, peer-review, more testing and observation, as well as the ability to predict certain events, is skipping a 'whole bunch of steps' than what do you suggest should be done in order to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Oh...wait, you can't because you can never 'prove' anything. We'll get back to that as well.
Finally, you state that evolutionists are zealots who are minions of bad logic and reasoning. I'm going to assume that you are a Christian--since rarely people insult themselves--and are therefore above bad logic and reasoning. Wait...let's go back to your post:
You've stated that nothing can be proven and that evolution is far from established fact. So, wouldn't that make it impossible for evolution to become an established fact? Take this further, since we never prove anything, isn't it possible that you are a dog posting on Slashdot? Or, isn't it possible that you not only don't understand evolution, but don't even understand logic and are just echoing something you read on the web about the 'holes' and 'flaws' of evolution. Isn't it possible that your are a mindless minion of bad logic and reasoning and maybe should take the time to learn about the difference between facts, scientific laws and theories?
But that's just a theory.
Intelligent Design is just Creationism in drag, and no amount of pretense or 'debate' is going to change that. If that makes me a bigot then fine, but I'm reminded of a certain saying: leave your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out. Some things are just wrong no matter what someone else believes.
Your post is really interesting, and there are a few things I'd like to counter. no innovation? Hmm... Maybe you should start to research home automation; quite a large chunk of my little "spiel" was about that. Take a look at what MS and GE are doing with that... no innovation huh? Umm... I don't see linux or osx powering any cars other then some freak project by college students. BMW is a major premium brand using XP. But hey, that's not your kind of innovation. Shadows under desktop icons are. MS and GE are doing a corporate equivalent 'freak project.' Quit being so judgmental; Microsoft itself was once a student project. I see the point you're trying to make, but Windows XP is running the entertainment system, not 'powering' the automobile--that's for embedded systems, some of which run Linux. Shadows under desktop icons can be innovations for human-interface, which is actually really important even if Microsoft treats it like an afterthought. I have lots to say, but I fear its lost on a zealot like yourself. I'll try to be brief. You are just so blinded with hatred you have started to believe you own rhetoric. The problem is that's all it is, rhetoric.... Unfortunately for your side people have heard you, and they don't agree. When you say Windows is horrible they hear you, but think "well it does what I need it to". Your message does get out. The media is almost 95% Apple users; trust me your view gets out. When a user tries Linux they can't get software installed... try Apple and no software is available for what they needed to do. Windows market share is not losing to Linux or Apple despite your rhetoric. And its not because people aren't as smart as YOU! Rhetoric is rhetoric; Microsoft has plenty of paid shills and corporate pushers. Many in the media use Macs, many in the accounting business use Windows. What does this tell us? Not much, what's more interesting is how the virus/spyware/malware stories hit. Was it because the media is a bunch of biased-Mac users or is it because it became such a problem that the media--in their bondi blue towers--didn't notice until later? The idea that the media uses Macs can cut both ways.
Attacks on Windows are a real problem that needs to be solved by Microsoft, and I think many people would prefer they do that rather than jamming Windows Media Player into a BMW. Not that this isn't an interesting development, but many feel that Microsoft should solve problems they had a hand in creating. The desktop monoculture is their fault.
Furthermore, a recent study indicated that one million people switched from Windows to Mac OSX this year alone. It's a drop in the bucket, but between that and Firefox grabbing 10% of the browser market in under a year, we can see that Microsoft is mortal. Dying? No, but they're certainly mortal. OSX has had 4 paid upgrades to Windows XP. Annual OS upgrades are a nightmare for IT departments, bad for a company's balance sheet, and an irritation for end-users. Each version costs about $150 x 4 = $600. MS XP is $300. If you kept up with Apple, you spent double then going with XP. Never mind all the programs that break with the upgrades. OSX's upgrade cycle works on a different paradigm than Windows XP. Each 10.x has constituted a new OS with so many under-the-hood changes as to be equivalent to Windows 2K, Windows XP, etc. And, only in some cases did a 10.x break applications--we won't mention XP SP2, which broke lots of applications as well. But, this I think is tangential to the main thrust of your argument. MS didn't abuse any monopoly power to make Office number one. They didn't abuse or break the law to beat Palm. They didn't abuse anyone to make Server 2k3 grow by leaps and bounds, faster then any other server platform this year. They didn't abuse anyone to sell 20 million Xboxes, and didn't abuse anyone to get a 1 year jump start on the PS3. Xbox Live... no innovation? They have taken online game play to a whole new level. Their IPTV stuff is amazing, and that is why Verizon and SBC were so willing to lock
Umm...no, you're wrong. NIN is on iTunes, at least 13 albums worth of stuff. But, ringtones just suck no matter what song you truncate into a 10 second clip.
Fine distinctions, and the end result is still messy and violent and tragic, but the US is for all its ham-handed blundering, naivety, and even very human capacity for violence, is trying to do the right thing.
War is hell, but at least our troops will come home with demons, Al Qaeda will celebrate the number of people they killed as a great victory. Killing is a by-product for the US, killing is the aim of Al Qaeda.
It'd be nice to just make everyone go to sleep, pick up those who are dangerous and ship them off. But, even that wouldn't work I think.
Well, we don't talk about it because we want World War II to be the 'good war,' talking about Dresden and Tokyo reminds us that we could be just a cruel and violent as our enemies. That's what war is, terrible violence and destruction for mostly abtract causes.
The point of America's arsenal is to kill people, precisely and specifically, while our troops are out of harm. Our troops get to deal with the moral problems inherent in fighting a war in cities and villages.
I agree with you the US, even with the hiccup we call the Bush presidency, is getting more liberal. We need to make sure this continues and that includes defending our rights against corporations who are still very interested in manipulating politicians for their own ends.
Methinks you didn't actually read my comment because I said you did not need to use iTunes with the iPod and there are lots of other programs available, as well as the ability to drag-n-drop. As for DVDs--my iPod can't do that because mine is a 2nd Generation, but the new ones can do that, and you can download episodes of Lost and play it on an iPod, legally. The latest iPod can do everything your Archos can do, except for voice recording. It can be used on Macs, Linux, and Windows, it plays for 10+ hours, it charges quickly (?!), it has a line-out, etc. Now, I agree with you different things for different people, but the feature set is very close and the iPod has a user-interface that is arguably better and it links to the iTunes Music Store, which is a very big plus for a lot of people. So, you saved some money and I'm glad you like your DAP, but stop pretending that the Archos feature list is automagically better than the iPod's, there's some advantages and disadvantages to both.
I'm sure this has been pointed out several hundred times, but you don't have to use iTunes to load an iPod--most people like using iTunes because it manages a very large collection and allows you to change a playlists of a thousand songs very easily, which would take forever using drag-n-drop. I don't know why people don't want to use iTunes because it's a really nice, easy to use program that has so many useful features.
Now, you will need iTunes to buy songs from the iTunes Music Store and they will only work on the iPod, but no you're not restricted to using iTunes. And Linux support exists too, you just have to hunt for it. Which is more than I can say for the Dell DJ or a number of other DAPs that have almost no Mac support.
I buy all my content, I spend lots of money on CDs, movies, and digital downloads from iTunes, why should I suffer because of a Chinese pirate who burns Revenge of the Sith from a copy that came from an internal studio source? Nothing I could possibly do, save either downloading the same copy or going to Bejing, makes me part of this situation and yet I have to deal with DRM. DRM doesn't protect media from an intent hacker or media from another internal source, instead it makes me jump through hoops to do things I used to be able to do. No one will win with DRM, content will still be stolen, but now customers will lose rights they once had. Chinese pirates will, of course, make mountains of money.
You should check out this speech by Cory Doctorow about why this is so.