In the article, refers to what services its "clients" want--but Tivo isn't talking about all the people who forked over cash for Tivos and pay an over inflated monthly subscription. No, the people Tivo considers its clients are the media companies it sells viewership data to.
It would be nice if Tivo would think of its loyal customers as clients rather than a captive audience to sell data about and to force feed advertisements to. I think it is a legitimate point to think that Tivo might wish to consider putting its retail customers first, since without them they are nothing. The attempts to monitize their customers as if they are an asset owned by Tivo seems like a good way to alienate retail customers and to potentially hurt Tivo sales.
And that statement makes about as much sense as "In Germany you can shoot anyone for any reason." Sure, in America you can sue anyone for anything, but bringing a frivolous lawsuit against someone is not legal.
The fact that you can sue anybody for anything is critical to the understanding of this thread. The OP is being threatened with a lawsuit. The question is twofold: can he sue and can he win. The fact is that the employer can sue even if he has little or no basis for the suit and the OP will have to pay money to defend himself. If you don't show up to defend yourself in court, even a generally baseless lawsuit can win in court. (Yes judges aren't supposed to let a totally baseless suit go forward, but we don't live in a perfect world.)
Many frivolous lawsuits are filed each year and the consequences for doing so are few and far between. Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make you safe from them or make them uncommon.
"This seems consistent to me--when I was in college, citing any encyclopedias was strongly discouraged."
Indeed, citing Wikipedia is the cyber equivalent of citing "They Say..." Wikipedia is not a citable source anymore than your telephone is. Wikipedia is a conduit for information not an actual source.
The reason Apple doesn't let artists skip the Apple "Fair Play" DRM is simple: Apple wants you locked in. As long as Apple has customers locked in with its DRM they can't ditch their iPods for another competing product. An Apple lawyer has even stated publicly that Apple wouldn't stop using DRM even if the labels no longer wanted it.
DRM is not about piracy, its about controlling the customer for life. It is digitally enforced brand loyalty. Oh, sure, you can leave if you really want to but you'll have to leave your music behind if you want to switch to another portable player--and don't even bother pointing out that you can rip from a CD because you'll need to re-compress the ripped file to put it back on a portable player and you'll loose the original quality of the initial iTunes purchase.
Bring the network down? This seems like obvious BS since Treos and the like allow unsigned 3d party apps and Treos work on all the major networks. The iPhone is closed for the same reason the iPod is closed: so Apple can control the experience and make money of off any apps that work on the system.
Unfortunately Apple is keeping one of the worst aspects of most current cellphones--the closed systems--for selfish reaons.
I'll stick to my Treo for now even though the iPhone has some nice display and media features.
Of course, only Lawyers may even think about law. Or at least that seems the logical extension of what you are suggesting by telling Slashdot that it should withhold any judgement on the RIAA until there is a firmly grounded case law on the matter. Well, that isn't going to happen anytime soon, or perhaps ever. Copyright law is nebulous and has been for a long time.
Of course Slashdot is not a lawyer, but it is silly to propose that only lawyers and judges can have a valid interest in, and discussion of, legal matters that affect all citizens. In fact many laws are actually written by people who aren't necessarily lawyers. These people who dare insert themselves in the legal arena without the requirement of having a law degree are called "legislators."
While it is true that the UMG_v_Lindor case gets a lot of mentions in Slashdot, it is also the case that it is one of the **only** cases out of the 20,000 or so RIAA lawsuits that is going to trial and where a tough litigator is trying to force the RIAA to back up its claims with more than just the thread of ruinously expensive legal action. It also doesn't hurt that the "Recording Industry vs. the People" blog site provides a rare blow by blow account of a legal action in progress which makes for an exciting, albeit slow, tale of one litigator standing up to a veritable army of corporate lawyers with nearly unlimited funds. The blog is an important way of trying to balance the playing field against an opponent with deep pockets and who will play every trick in or out of the book, full well knowing that they will probably avoid any accountability for their own actions.
"Said authorities decide that the spammer is breaking the law (fraud, spam laws, whatever). And the spammer says that the e-mails can't be used as evidence against him, because it's his private communication?"
Of course his emails can be used against him. The Feds are able to use e-mails he sent as evidence if they are turned over by the recipients. They are also able to use the e-mails on his computer or his ISP's servers if they get a search warrant. This fight is weather a mere court order based on a lower standard of evidence than a search warrant, e.g., a subpoena, may be used to access his emails on his ISP's servers based on the idea that nothing is private unless it is on your personal property--a silly contention since we entrust our email to the custody of our ISP with the clear intention that it be delivered only to the addressee.
Given that an XP SP1 install can become compromised within seconds of becoming connected with the internet, this is the kind of service MS **should offer**.
I own an XP1 SP1 copy of VPC, but hooking up to MS via an internet connection to download the updates through SP1 seems incredibly stupid:-)
It is amazing that copyright holders think they have more right to earn money from their creations than patent holders. Why they be able to earn money onger than the inventor of a life-saving drug? If an architect designs a building should he be paid for that building for $95 years?
I've found that non serrated spring handled sheers work well. The EMT/Bandage shears work ok but require more force. Also, EMT shears come in different quality levels. The ones I bought at a hospital supply store have worked great for a decade but the ones I've bought in regular stores have all been poor performers--I don't know how to tell one from the other on EBay
I thought the OpenX sounded like a great stocking stuffer. I bought 4 last year. I almost cut myself the minute I tried it!
OpenX has two cutterblades, a safe one for pushing and a hidden dangerous one that pops out of the bottom for starting the cutting process with a piercing cut. It's this latter blade I almost cut myself with. Clamshells are just too tough for the blades and it is highly likely that the package will slip when you try to use the starting cutter. I pictured family members trying to use the opener at Christmas with Clamshells on their lap--shudder. I decided not to give the gift of possible genital mutilation and exsaguination for Christmas and tossed all 4 in the trash. By some heavy duty sheers instead.
The headline of the post makes it seem like the NIST thinks that paper trails are the answer. That is not their conclusion, in fact they say the current paper-trail systems don't work.
"The NIST is also going to recommend changes to the design of machines equipped with paper rolls that provide audit trails. Currently, the paper rolls produce records that are illegible or otherwise unusable, and NIST is recommending that "paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems."
We really should just use optical scan ballots. That is a paper trail voters have to verify, and the ballots can be meaningfully recounted. Then Diebold and the other vendors should be sued for knowingly selling defective products--possibly fraudulently.
Doug Morris has said that he thinks all iPod owner's are thieves who owe him money but it isn't clear why he specifically thinks he's owed a dollar for every Zune--a dollar he'd make if he sold a little more than one song. He is not offering **anything** back to the end user--no indemnity, nothin'. Based on Doug Morris' guilty until proven innocent view of iPod owners, I don't see why he doesn't simply ask the police to arrest all iPod owners on sight or, at the very least, demand a list of all iPod owners from Apple so UMG can file lawsuits against all of them since they are all known thieves and that is the natural progression of Doug Morris' claims combined with the RIAA's sue anything that moves stance.
What seems likely is that Morris is demanding an approximation 3% tariff on the sales price like the 3% tariff the industry **already** receives from the sale of all recordable CDs marked "for music." As with Morris proposed "iPod" tax, the public receives nothing in return for music CD-R tax which was supposed to compensate the recording industry in return for not suing equipment manufacturers over Home Recording. As history shows, The Audio Home Recording Act did nothing to squelch the industries thirst for litigation, so there is no reason to think that giving in to an "iPod" tax will do anything along those lines.
If UMG wants to "tax" iPods, they need to give something up in return--like submitting to compulsory licensing for download as they have to for radio station playback and Jukeboxes.
I'm still stunned that the conservative movement, which used to claim to champion smaller government and strict constitutional readings, has turned into a champion of authoritarian governmental control. The Bill of Rights is key to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and these rights were ironed out by leaders who just emerged victorious from a civil war. They understood war and its dangers but more importantly they understood the danger of tyranny, and so the very first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. To try and claim that now we must suspend this fundamental right because of "war" is to go against the very underpinnings of this country's foundation and sets the stage for increasing authoritarianism by the US Government.
"I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up."
Clearly not. You, for example, are not, from my limited experience, a raving loony. There is probably some equivocation over the word "rational." I"m using it in the scientific sense of "logical" and I don't mean that "irrational" belief is crazy or insane belief.
It now seems that our primary dividing line is one one from positing a thesis to belief of that thesis. I can pose a claim that is logically possible and say I think this could be true. But, I can't make the leap to assuming that it is true. It is rational to believe that it is possible and that it could be true, but to presume that it is true is a leap of faith rather than one of logic. There is a vast difference from claims that follow and claims that are entailed. And I dispute even that your claims actually follow your premise, let alone are entailed by it.
I think what I'm trying to note is that many smart people look at the world through the scientific method, until the subject comes to their religion to which they grant an exemption from rational inquiry. You seem reasonable but I think you are, to a certain extent, doing the same thing. "I believe because it is possible." Although there is no test that can prove an unrestricted negative, such as proving an invisible all-powerful god doesn't exist, we can prove that certain events are scientifically impossible. You would, I think, respond with god, nothing is impossible. I could say that my invisible, all-powerful god says you are wrong. At that point the whole argument becomes pointless. Once you invoke the unlimited supernatural exemption to rational inquiry, all discussion becomes meaningless. Anything "becomes" equally possible or impossible because the rules of the universe no longer apply and there is no reason to assume that anything, including the Bible, is real or false. In fact, invoking a supernatural exemption doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because under it **anything** is possible and the Bible becomes merely a tiny mote in the infinite unimaginable possibilities.
Could your religion be right? I couldn't say for certain, but there isn't sufficient scientific evidence for me to believe in any one religion let alone Christianity over all other religions. Pascal proposed that given the possible benefits of belief in Christianity (eternal life in Heaven) vs the cost (believing and practicing Christianity) that the potential payoff was so great versus the cost that one should bet on the truth of god regardless of how slight the chance is. The fatal flaw with Pascal's Wager is that it demands belief in any claim with a high pay out and small buy in. It doesn't differentiate between the validity of any of the claims. If Christianity promises eternal life, my religion can promise eternal life plus 72 virgins so you should believe that instead. Pascal's Wager can't validate Christianity anymore than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, the promise of an incredible (I mean that in the literal sense) pay off for a seemingly small investment is the hallmark of many fraudulent schemes right here on earth. Pascal's Wager when applied here on earth would demand investment in virtually every fraud and con there is, and I contend that the same is true when it is applied to religion. So, even great men can fall prey to irrationality when they compartmentalize religion from rational scrutiny.
It is not that I say you shouldn't believe in god, but that you can't claim such a belief is scientific, nor, to a lesser extent, rational.
I think the real difference in our opinions here is the rough threshold we set for believing in unproven, unlikely things that we say is rational. My default position, and that of science in general, is to disbelieve things that contradict our current understanding of science unless they can be proven to exist and thus brought into our understanding of science. We don't have to understand **how** something works to believe in it. Science has plenty of room for "we don't know how that works" and feels no need to try and answer lack of understanding with a rush to say, "We don't know so it must be god!" We don't know != god. And it specifically does not entail the god of your choice. That there could be any number of invisible omnipotent beings doesn't entail that any one of them is remotely like the the one in the Bible. To assume that out of infinite possibilities of possible gods that may or may not exist to believe that only yours exists--with out any actual proof of this mighty being--is sheer arrogance backed by incalculable innumeracy.
"I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational."
I saw that. I believe that it is but my definition of irrational may be different than yours. I mean it in the "not logical" sense. You can and do argue that is reasonable, but our standards of reasonableness are different so it is unlikely that we are going to ever be able to convince the other. If I have a ticket for a lottery with 10 Trillion to 1 odds against winning, is it rational for me to declare with certainty that I will win; after all, it is possible that I could win. Yet, even though it is possible that I **could** win it is not rational to say that I **will** win. It is only rational to say that it is possible. The same goes for your claims that it is rational to believe in the bible. Just because there **could** exist a supernatural, invisible, all-powerfull being doesn't mean that the one the Bible claims to exist is real or rational to believe in. There is just as much evidence to believe in Zeus as there is to believe in the god of Abraham, but you easily dismiss the latter in favor of the former because of your personal prejudice towards considering the Bible proof of its own claims. Both the god of Abraham and Zeus are impossible to disprove as possible entities and both are so nearly infinitely unlikely that to believe in either is irrational.
"Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God."
You are referring to your syllogism, which I have approximated here:
"Science can't disprove an omnipotent god. An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
Unfortunately your syllogism is logically invalid. Let me tortuously reshape it to make it more obvious:
"The miracles in the Bible are the work of an omnipotent god. Science can't disprove an omnipotent god. The Bible is could be true. If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true. It is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
First, your premise presumes that the miracles did happen is based on flimsy evidence, but, ok, I'll stipulate to that for the moment. The real failing is "If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true." Just because something could be true it does not follow that belief in that thing is rational. This is the point where you and I stick over and over. You, either for devil's advocacy or personal belief, won't budge from this position. There is no need to disprove your posited miracle that "god could exist" because it does nothing to prove that the miracles actually did happen or are even remotely **likely** to have happened. There are an infinite number of possibilities in this world and you can't say it is rational to believe in all of them just becaus
No, [the Bible] describes things that are scientifically unlikely. Science cannot disprove an omnipotent God. If an omnipotent God exists, nothing described in the Bible is impossible. Therefore belief in the Bible is not irrational.
I'd say bringing the rotation of the earth to a dead stop for a day is scientifically impossible. Your syllogism, however, is invalid. I'll set up one version of your argument:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including creating real Smurfs as described in "The Smurfs and the Magic Flute"
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe in real Smurfs.
Invoking miracles takes you completely out of the realm of science because.
" 'Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible?' There is no conflict between science and ancient poetry. I can expand on this if you want."
I think the problem here is that there is no conflict with **your** views of religion and science. You conveniently define all religion which conflicts with science as zealotry and omit them from your thesis.
" 'Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible?' There is no conflict between science and ancient poetry. I can expand on this if you want."
Not if everyone agreed it was merely poetry--but they don't. Your argument is a disingenuous one. Once again, you are trying to define there reality of religious belief out of your thesis. As much as I enjoy rhetorical slight of hand, yours is a empty one which ignores the facts of religious belief.
"All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely"."
I never said one way or another whether I believe in the bible, but I have said that the stories in the bible are insufficient proof to entail belief of certain claims in the bible.
"but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely."
No, I decide that there is insufficient reason to believe based on the strength of the evidence versus the extreme nature of the claims.
"You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence."
I don't need to claim the bible is fictional, the bible needs to prove it is true. The bible doesn't get a presumption of truth just because it is old or because it has some historical facts in it. I'm not the one making the claim. The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
"The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you."
That we can agree on.
"So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you."
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened. Religion isn't about rationality.
"The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine."
Sorry, you are still conflating thesis and process. I understand the point you are trying to make but your analogy is not analogous. You are trying to conflate the method of scientific discovery with the text bible and the two are apples and oranges. You could legitimately compare the scientific method with various **forms** of religious scholarship and compare their assumptions processes.
"Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity"
I have no doubt Christianity exists! Churches are proof of that. Proof that the tenets of Christianity are true is a different matter. The bible is not a history book or a science text book any more than Homer's Odyssey is. That it is written is not proof that it is.
"The various books of the Bible... are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history."
All old documents are "written at a particular time in history." That doesn't make them true. And even if some of the history matches with other historical documents that doesn't make the religious claims true. Just because a docudrama is inspired by a true story doesn't make it a **documentary**.
"If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational."
And yet the New Testament contains zero eye witness accounts! Bible scholars pretty much all agree that the New Testament was written long after every one in the stories was dead.
There are plenty of eye witness accounts written about the Indian Rope trick, yet the original story was a fraud which was picked up and repeated over and over again. You can't believe something just because it is written nor because there are eye witness.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When faced with a fantastic, scientifically impossible tale of a virgin being impregnated by god we can weigh the evidence versus the extreme unlikelyhood of the claim. What is more likely, that a virgin was impregnated magically by a divine being or that the story is made up? People make up stories on a daily basis. Thousands upon thousands of people do it for a living and people have been doing it for millennia. We have incontrovertible proof that story creation is very common throughout history. Virgin births, on the other hand, are, without in-vitro fertilization, still completely scientifically un-heard of. It would be irrational to assume that the virgin birth story is the more likely one.
Why don't you believe in the divinity of Zeus? There is plenty of evidence that he existed. Stories, culture, statues. There is just as much reason to believe in Zues as the Virgin Birth.
"Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time"...in this context if it isn't living then it isn't an entity, is it. Anyways this brings us to the problem of first source. One must always be careful of asking who created you because that brings up the question of who created your creator. If you can accept that God did not need to be created by another god, and so ad infinitum then it is ludicrous to argue that humans must have been created by a creator.
"The religious zealots in question would have you believe that there is some kind of conflict between religion and science, but there's not. "
You say this, but you provide no facts or evidence to support your contention.
In what way is there zero conflict between science and religion? Are all creationists zealots? Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible? Does the earth really have four corners and is Pi exactly 3. The bible says so. The Pope says life begins at conception. Does it? Could the big bang theory be correct or did god create the universe? Do abortions cause breast cancer and does sex education increase the number of abortions (Answer: no) Some religious groups say they do. Can we ignore Global warming because it is part of God's plan for armageddon?
Yeah, I'd say that religion and science do conflict.
"The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that."
You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous.
"Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either."
It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real. I need to have some factual basis for my belief to be rational. There is no factual basis to believe in the Virgin Birth, just a faith-based one.
"Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational."
Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
"I am sick of Slashdotters characterizing me, a Christian, as somebody who believes in a nebulous God at the edge of the universe who doesn't do anything and wants us to accept his existence by blind faith. "
Well, I don't mean to insult you or create a personal affront. There is just one problem, though, you do believe in god based on Blind faith. You just choose to call it something different, "acting in trust of God's promises." Promises you believe in on blind faith.
"I believe in a God who can change lives who made promises that *can* be tested"
Well, what are those testable promises?
"God outlines a covenant in the New Testament: a covenant under which Christians can communicate with God one on one through prayer and get actual answers... And as outlandish as it seems, I believe in the Christian God rather than Allah or Buddha because I believe he *does* answer prayers (my parents and I cried out to Jesus for help just before a head-on collision and the other car was suddenly knocked out of our path to the other lane) and *does* heal people (my mom was healed of asthma at a prayer meeting). "
You say that you think God makes testable promises but, I suspect, the **only** answer you will accept no matter what the outcome is that the test is positive for god. Unless you are willing to accept that a test may disprove your concept of god as well as prove your concept of god then it isn't a test at all. In fact, a major study on prayer and healing found no benefit.
Ready to give up God now? No? Why not? You said you could test god. Now, you can debate the details of the study, but before you do you should state what evidence you **would** accept as proof that your concept of god is wrong. If you can't, then there is no point even debating the study because your mind is closed.
You sound like a sincere and nice person--the kind of person I don't like to publicly disagree with over religion because your beliefs are inexorably intertwined with your view of who you are and how you fit into the world. There is no room for you too talk objectively about your religious beliefs because to change them would be to give up what you think of as your most fundamental values as a person.
If the covenant was as you say, then Judaeo Christians would be significantly healthier than non Judaeo Christianss. They aren't. The fact that your mom got better after a prayer meeting isn't proof either. She did a lot of things before she got better. She probably ate cereal that day, too, but you know enough to know that just because something happens before that that doesn't mean it caused what happened after. Statistically, without a doubt, someone died somewhere in the world just after you prayed, but you also know enough not to think you caused that by praying.
I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in your concept of God. What you choose to believe is up to you but don't try and pretend it is scientific.
"Religions have changed radically over the past 5000 years. No way they are static."
Religion in general may have changed "radically" over the past 5000 years, but I doubt you can say that about individual religions. I certainly don't think you could say the Catholic Church has changed much, let alone radically over the past 1500 years. I'd call that pretty static. Science, on the other hand, has radically changed in the last 150 years.
Indeed it is over simplifying to say that religions are completely static, but certain tenants are, in fact, immutable. There is no Christianity without believing in the deity of Christ and there is no Judaism without believing in the deity of the patriarchal god of Torah.
"religion has its dogmatism- but, in its own way, so does science, in so much that both bodies of knowledge have certain statements so powerful that most of us don't have the intelligence, or imagination, to challenge them in an interesting way."
Science does have certain amount dogmatism, but it is not inviolable. There is no "pope" of science who infallibly dictates facts to scientists. And while we may not all be bright enough to discover a new insight into particle physics, it can and is done by real people. And an ordinary person can discover a new fossil or animal that has never been seen before and contribute to a change in the body of knowledge With religion, however, there is no research one can do to change whether or not the Pope will dictate belief in a Triune God.
"Religion, or Christianity at least, does place emphasis, or even preeminence, on personal revelation, which science can never accept, but that doesn't make Christianity static or any more dogmatic than any other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it. "
First off, I disagree that Christianity places emphasis on personal revelation. This may be true in some sects but certainly not Catholicism. Secondly, claiming that Christianity is no more dogmatic than "other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it." is demonstrably false. Science has gone through a number of dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 2000 years, you know heliocentric universe, spherical earth, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, subatomic physics and all. There is **no** comparable paradigm shift in Christianity let alone multiple shifts. A schism over weather Transubstantiation should be treated as real or symbolic doesn't even come close.
"This tension between the authority of personal revelation and that of universal reason supported by first-hand experience- this is real, and is exposed by the sort of statement made by the teacher"
It is really hard to know what you are trying to say here how are personal revelation and first-hand experience different and in conflict with each-other? Second, there is no such thing as "universal reason"--if there was, we'd all agree on it. Finally "personal revelation" is a funny thing. Weird how only people who have **already heard** of Christianity have "personal revelations" about Christianity. Sort of makes the personal revelations seem like they are inspired more by what someone already knows about Christianity than by the god of Christ who should be able to communicate and reveal to all mankind, not just those who've been visited by Christian Missionaries. Either way, science is about systematically analyzing the world around us and separating what is true from what appears to be true. The psychology of perception and judgement shows us that personal experience is subject to perceptual illusion just as our vision can be fooled by optical illusions.
"PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?"
This is a conundrum. There **are** many scientists who are religious, yet their objective analysis of the world comes to a screeching halt when they come to their own religion. In practice, we accept the brilliance of scientists within their specialty even if they are dolts otherwise. The reason we can do this is because science doesn't accept these scientists findings on blind faith. They are subject to peer review. So, the science is what survives.
On the other hand, it is problematic when scientists are rational only part of the time. You don't entirely know when to trust their judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
In the article, refers to what services its "clients" want--but Tivo isn't talking about all the people who forked over cash for Tivos and pay an over inflated monthly subscription. No, the people Tivo considers its clients are the media companies it sells viewership data to.
It would be nice if Tivo would think of its loyal customers as clients rather than a captive audience to sell data about and to force feed advertisements to. I think it is a legitimate point to think that Tivo might wish to consider putting its retail customers first, since without them they are nothing. The attempts to monitize their customers as if they are an asset owned by Tivo seems like a good way to alienate retail customers and to potentially hurt Tivo sales.
The fact that you can sue anybody for anything is critical to the understanding of this thread. The OP is being threatened with a lawsuit. The question is twofold: can he sue and can he win. The fact is that the employer can sue even if he has little or no basis for the suit and the OP will have to pay money to defend himself. If you don't show up to defend yourself in court, even a generally baseless lawsuit can win in court. (Yes judges aren't supposed to let a totally baseless suit go forward, but we don't live in a perfect world.)
Many frivolous lawsuits are filed each year and the consequences for doing so are few and far between. Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make you safe from them or make them uncommon.
"This seems consistent to me--when I was in college, citing any encyclopedias was strongly discouraged."
Indeed, citing Wikipedia is the cyber equivalent of citing "They Say..." Wikipedia is not a citable source anymore than your telephone is. Wikipedia is a conduit for information not an actual source.
The reason Apple doesn't let artists skip the Apple "Fair Play" DRM is simple: Apple wants you locked in. As long as Apple has customers locked in with its DRM they can't ditch their iPods for another competing product. An Apple lawyer has even stated publicly that Apple wouldn't stop using DRM even if the labels no longer wanted it.
DRM is not about piracy, its about controlling the customer for life. It is digitally enforced brand loyalty. Oh, sure, you can leave if you really want to but you'll have to leave your music behind if you want to switch to another portable player--and don't even bother pointing out that you can rip from a CD because you'll need to re-compress the ripped file to put it back on a portable player and you'll loose the original quality of the initial iTunes purchase.
I'd have to 2nd your notion...
Bring the network down? This seems like obvious BS since Treos and the like allow unsigned 3d party apps and Treos work on all the major networks. The iPhone is closed for the same reason the iPod is closed: so Apple can control the experience and make money of off any apps that work on the system.
Unfortunately Apple is keeping one of the worst aspects of most current cellphones--the closed systems--for selfish reaons.
I'll stick to my Treo for now even though the iPhone has some nice display and media features.
Of course, only Lawyers may even think about law. Or at least that seems the logical extension of what you are suggesting by telling Slashdot that it should withhold any judgement on the RIAA until there is a firmly grounded case law on the matter. Well, that isn't going to happen anytime soon, or perhaps ever. Copyright law is nebulous and has been for a long time.
Of course Slashdot is not a lawyer, but it is silly to propose that only lawyers and judges can have a valid interest in, and discussion of, legal matters that affect all citizens. In fact many laws are actually written by people who aren't necessarily lawyers. These people who dare insert themselves in the legal arena without the requirement of having a law degree are called "legislators."
While it is true that the UMG_v_Lindor case gets a lot of mentions in Slashdot, it is also the case that it is one of the **only** cases out of the 20,000 or so RIAA lawsuits that is going to trial and where a tough litigator is trying to force the RIAA to back up its claims with more than just the thread of ruinously expensive legal action. It also doesn't hurt that the "Recording Industry vs. the People" blog site provides a rare blow by blow account of a legal action in progress which makes for an exciting, albeit slow, tale of one litigator standing up to a veritable army of corporate lawyers with nearly unlimited funds. The blog is an important way of trying to balance the playing field against an opponent with deep pockets and who will play every trick in or out of the book, full well knowing that they will probably avoid any accountability for their own actions.
"Said authorities decide that the spammer is breaking the law (fraud, spam laws, whatever). And the spammer says that the e-mails can't be used as evidence against him, because it's his private communication?"
Of course his emails can be used against him. The Feds are able to use e-mails he sent as evidence if they are turned over by the recipients. They are also able to use the e-mails on his computer or his ISP's servers if they get a search warrant. This fight is weather a mere court order based on a lower standard of evidence than a search warrant, e.g., a subpoena, may be used to access his emails on his ISP's servers based on the idea that nothing is private unless it is on your personal property--a silly contention since we entrust our email to the custody of our ISP with the clear intention that it be delivered only to the addressee.
Given that an XP SP1 install can become compromised within seconds of becoming connected with the internet, this is the kind of service MS **should offer**.
:-)
I own an XP1 SP1 copy of VPC, but hooking up to MS via an internet connection to download the updates through SP1 seems incredibly stupid
It is amazing that copyright holders think they have more right to earn money from their creations than patent holders. Why they be able to earn money onger than the inventor of a life-saving drug? If an architect designs a building should he be paid for that building for $95 years?
I've found that non serrated spring handled sheers work well. The EMT/Bandage shears work ok but require more force. Also, EMT shears come in different quality levels. The ones I bought at a hospital supply store have worked great for a decade but the ones I've bought in regular stores have all been poor performers--I don't know how to tell one from the other on EBay
I thought the OpenX sounded like a great stocking stuffer. I bought 4 last year. I almost cut myself the minute I tried it!
OpenX has two cutterblades, a safe one for pushing and a hidden dangerous one that pops out of the bottom for starting the cutting process with a piercing cut. It's this latter blade I almost cut myself with. Clamshells are just too tough for the blades and it is highly likely that the package will slip when you try to use the starting cutter. I pictured family members trying to use the opener at Christmas with Clamshells on their lap--shudder. I decided not to give the gift of possible genital mutilation and exsaguination for Christmas and tossed all 4 in the trash. By some heavy duty sheers instead.
IMO
The headline of the post makes it seem like the NIST thinks that paper trails are the answer. That is not their conclusion, in fact they say the current paper-trail systems don't work.
"The NIST is also going to recommend changes to the design of machines equipped with paper rolls that provide audit trails.
Currently, the paper rolls produce records that are illegible or otherwise unusable, and NIST is recommending that "paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems."
via http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3860#more-3860
We really should just use optical scan ballots. That is a paper trail voters have to verify, and the ballots can be meaningfully recounted. Then Diebold and the other vendors should be sued for knowingly selling defective products--possibly fraudulently.
Doug Morris has said that he thinks all iPod owner's are thieves who owe him money but it isn't clear why he specifically thinks he's owed a dollar for every Zune--a dollar he'd make if he sold a little more than one song. He is not offering **anything** back to the end user--no indemnity, nothin'. Based on Doug Morris' guilty until proven innocent view of iPod owners, I don't see why he doesn't simply ask the police to arrest all iPod owners on sight or, at the very least, demand a list of all iPod owners from Apple so UMG can file lawsuits against all of them since they are all known thieves and that is the natural progression of Doug Morris' claims combined with the RIAA's sue anything that moves stance.
What seems likely is that Morris is demanding an approximation 3% tariff on the sales price like the 3% tariff the industry **already** receives from the sale of all recordable CDs marked "for music." As with Morris proposed "iPod" tax, the public receives nothing in return for music CD-R tax which was supposed to compensate the recording industry in return for not suing equipment manufacturers over Home Recording. As history shows, The Audio Home Recording Act did nothing to squelch the industries thirst for litigation, so there is no reason to think that giving in to an "iPod" tax will do anything along those lines.
If UMG wants to "tax" iPods, they need to give something up in return--like submitting to compulsory licensing for download as they have to for radio station playback and Jukeboxes.
I'm still stunned that the conservative movement, which used to claim to champion smaller government and strict constitutional readings, has turned into a champion of authoritarian governmental control. The Bill of Rights is key to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and these rights were ironed out by leaders who just emerged victorious from a civil war. They understood war and its dangers but more importantly they understood the danger of tyranny, and so the very first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. To try and claim that now we must suspend this fundamental right because of "war" is to go against the very underpinnings of this country's foundation and sets the stage for increasing authoritarianism by the US Government.
"I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up."
Clearly not. You, for example, are not, from my limited experience, a raving loony. There is probably some equivocation over the word "rational." I"m using it in the scientific sense of "logical" and I don't mean that "irrational" belief is crazy or insane belief.
It now seems that our primary dividing line is one one from positing a thesis to belief of that thesis. I can pose a claim that is logically possible and say I think this could be true. But, I can't make the leap to assuming that it is true. It is rational to believe that it is possible and that it could be true, but to presume that it is true is a leap of faith rather than one of logic. There is a vast difference from claims that follow and claims that are entailed. And I dispute even that your claims actually follow your premise, let alone are entailed by it.
I think what I'm trying to note is that many smart people look at the world through the scientific method, until the subject comes to their religion to which they grant an exemption from rational inquiry. You seem reasonable but I think you are, to a certain extent, doing the same thing. "I believe because it is possible." Although there is no test that can prove an unrestricted negative, such as proving an invisible all-powerful god doesn't exist, we can prove that certain events are scientifically impossible. You would, I think, respond with god, nothing is impossible. I could say that my invisible, all-powerful god says you are wrong. At that point the whole argument becomes pointless. Once you invoke the unlimited supernatural exemption to rational inquiry, all discussion becomes meaningless. Anything "becomes" equally possible or impossible because the rules of the universe no longer apply and there is no reason to assume that anything, including the Bible, is real or false. In fact, invoking a supernatural exemption doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because under it **anything** is possible and the Bible becomes merely a tiny mote in the infinite unimaginable possibilities.
Could your religion be right? I couldn't say for certain, but there isn't sufficient scientific evidence for me to believe in any one religion let alone Christianity over all other religions. Pascal proposed that given the possible benefits of belief in Christianity (eternal life in Heaven) vs the cost (believing and practicing Christianity) that the potential payoff was so great versus the cost that one should bet on the truth of god regardless of how slight the chance is. The fatal flaw with Pascal's Wager is that it demands belief in any claim with a high pay out and small buy in. It doesn't differentiate between the validity of any of the claims. If Christianity promises eternal life, my religion can promise eternal life plus 72 virgins so you should believe that instead. Pascal's Wager can't validate Christianity anymore than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, the promise of an incredible (I mean that in the literal sense) pay off for a seemingly small investment is the hallmark of many fraudulent schemes right here on earth. Pascal's Wager when applied here on earth would demand investment in virtually every fraud and con there is, and I contend that the same is true when it is applied to religion. So, even great men can fall prey to irrationality when they compartmentalize religion from rational scrutiny.
It is not that I say you shouldn't believe in god, but that you can't claim such a belief is scientific, nor, to a lesser extent, rational.
I think the real difference in our opinions here is the rough threshold we set for believing in unproven, unlikely things that we say is rational. My default position, and that of science in general, is to disbelieve things that contradict our current understanding of science unless they can be proven to exist and thus brought into our understanding of science. We don't have to understand **how** something works to believe in it. Science has plenty of room for "we don't know how that works" and feels no need to try and answer lack of understanding with a rush to say, "We don't know so it must be god!" We don't know != god. And it specifically does not entail the god of your choice. That there could be any number of invisible omnipotent beings doesn't entail that any one of them is remotely like the the one in the Bible. To assume that out of infinite possibilities of possible gods that may or may not exist to believe that only yours exists--with out any actual proof of this mighty being--is sheer arrogance backed by incalculable innumeracy.
"I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational."
I saw that. I believe that it is but my definition of irrational may be different than yours. I mean it in the "not logical" sense. You can and do argue that is reasonable, but our standards of reasonableness are different so it is unlikely that we are going to ever be able to convince the other. If I have a ticket for a lottery with 10 Trillion to 1 odds against winning, is it rational for me to declare with certainty that I will win; after all, it is possible that I could win. Yet, even though it is possible that I **could** win it is not rational to say that I **will** win. It is only rational to say that it is possible. The same goes for your claims that it is rational to believe in the bible. Just because there **could** exist a supernatural, invisible, all-powerfull being doesn't mean that the one the Bible claims to exist is real or rational to believe in. There is just as much evidence to believe in Zeus as there is to believe in the god of Abraham, but you easily dismiss the latter in favor of the former because of your personal prejudice towards considering the Bible proof of its own claims. Both the god of Abraham and Zeus are impossible to disprove as possible entities and both are so nearly infinitely unlikely that to believe in either is irrational.
"Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God."
You are referring to your syllogism, which I have approximated here:
"Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
Unfortunately your syllogism is logically invalid. Let me tortuously reshape it to make it more obvious:
"The miracles in the Bible are the work of an omnipotent god.
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
The Bible is could be true.
If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true.
It is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
First, your premise presumes that the miracles did happen is based on flimsy evidence, but, ok, I'll stipulate to that for the moment. The real failing is "If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true." Just because something could be true it does not follow that belief in that thing is rational. This is the point where you and I stick over and over. You, either for devil's advocacy or personal belief, won't budge from this position. There is no need to disprove your posited miracle that "god could exist" because it does nothing to prove that the miracles actually did happen or are even remotely **likely** to have happened. There are an infinite number of possibilities in this world and you can't say it is rational to believe in all of them just becaus
I'd say bringing the rotation of the earth to a dead stop for a day is scientifically impossible. Your syllogism, however, is invalid. I'll set up one version of your argument:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including creating real Smurfs as described in "The Smurfs and the Magic Flute"
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe in real Smurfs.
Invoking miracles takes you completely out of the realm of science because.
" 'Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible?'
There is no conflict between science and ancient poetry. I can expand on this if you want."
I think the problem here is that there is no conflict with **your** views of religion and science. You conveniently define all religion which conflicts with science as zealotry and omit them from your thesis.
" 'Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible?'
There is no conflict between science and ancient poetry. I can expand on this if you want."
Not if everyone agreed it was merely poetry--but they don't. Your argument is a disingenuous one. Once again, you are trying to define there reality of religious belief out of your thesis. As much as I enjoy rhetorical slight of hand, yours is a empty one which ignores the facts of religious belief.
"All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely"."
I never said one way or another whether I believe in the bible, but I have said that the stories in the bible are insufficient proof to entail belief of certain claims in the bible.
"but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely."
No, I decide that there is insufficient reason to believe based on the strength of the evidence versus the extreme nature of the claims.
"You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence."
I don't need to claim the bible is fictional, the bible needs to prove it is true. The bible doesn't get a presumption of truth just because it is old or because it has some historical facts in it. I'm not the one making the claim. The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
"The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you."
That we can agree on.
"So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you."
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened. Religion isn't about rationality.
"The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine."
... are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history."
...in this context if it isn't living then it isn't an entity, is it. Anyways this brings us to the problem of first source. One must always be careful of asking who created you because that brings up the question of who created your creator. If you can accept that God did not need to be created by another god, and so ad infinitum then it is ludicrous to argue that humans must have been created by a creator.
Sorry, you are still conflating thesis and process. I understand the point you are trying to make but your analogy is not analogous. You are trying to conflate the method of scientific discovery with the text bible and the two are apples and oranges. You could legitimately compare the scientific method with various **forms** of religious scholarship and compare their assumptions processes.
"Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity"
I have no doubt Christianity exists! Churches are proof of that. Proof that the tenets of Christianity are true is a different matter. The bible is not a history book or a science text book any more than Homer's Odyssey is. That it is written is not proof that it is.
"The various books of the Bible
All old documents are "written at a particular time in history." That doesn't make them true. And even if some of the history matches with other historical documents that doesn't make the religious claims true. Just because a docudrama is inspired by a true story doesn't make it a **documentary**.
"If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational."
And yet the New Testament contains zero eye witness accounts! Bible scholars pretty much all agree that the New Testament was written long after every one in the stories was dead.
There are plenty of eye witness accounts written about the Indian Rope trick, yet the original story was a fraud which was picked up and repeated over and over again. You can't believe something just because it is written nor because there are eye witness.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When faced with a fantastic, scientifically impossible tale of a virgin being impregnated by god we can weigh the evidence versus the extreme unlikelyhood of the claim. What is more likely, that a virgin was impregnated magically by a divine being or that the story is made up? People make up stories on a daily basis. Thousands upon thousands of people do it for a living and people have been doing it for millennia. We have incontrovertible proof that story creation is very common throughout history. Virgin births, on the other hand, are, without in-vitro fertilization, still completely scientifically un-heard of. It would be irrational to assume that the virgin birth story is the more likely one.
Why don't you believe in the divinity of Zeus? There is plenty of evidence that he existed. Stories, culture, statues. There is just as much reason to believe in Zues as the Virgin Birth.
"Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time"
"The religious zealots in question would have you believe that there is some kind of conflict between religion and science, but there's not. "
You say this, but you provide no facts or evidence to support your contention.
In what way is there zero conflict between science and religion? Are all creationists zealots? Is science wrong when it says that man evolved and was not created out of thin air, as in the Bible? Does the earth really have four corners and is Pi exactly 3. The bible says so. The Pope says life begins at conception. Does it? Could the big bang theory be correct or did god create the universe? Do abortions cause breast cancer and does sex education increase the number of abortions (Answer: no) Some religious groups say they do. Can we ignore Global warming because it is part of God's plan for armageddon?
Yeah, I'd say that religion and science do conflict.
"The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that." You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous. "Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either." It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real. I need to have some factual basis for my belief to be rational. There is no factual basis to believe in the Virgin Birth, just a faith-based one. "Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational." Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
"I am sick of Slashdotters characterizing me, a Christian, as somebody who believes in a nebulous God at the edge of the universe who doesn't do anything and wants us to accept his existence by blind faith. "
t ml?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partn er=rssnyt&emc=rss
Well, I don't mean to insult you or create a personal affront. There is just one problem, though, you do believe in god based on Blind faith. You just choose to call it something different, "acting in trust of God's promises." Promises you believe in on blind faith.
"I believe in a God who can change lives who made promises that *can* be tested"
Well, what are those testable promises?
"God outlines a covenant in the New Testament: a covenant under which Christians can communicate with God one on one through prayer and get actual answers...
And as outlandish as it seems, I believe in the Christian God rather than Allah or Buddha because I believe he *does* answer prayers (my parents and I cried out to Jesus for help just before a head-on collision and the other car was suddenly knocked out of our path to the other lane) and *does* heal people (my mom was healed of asthma at a prayer meeting). "
You say that you think God makes testable promises but, I suspect, the **only** answer you will accept no matter what the outcome is that the test is positive for god. Unless you are willing to accept that a test may disprove your concept of god as well as prove your concept of god then it isn't a test at all. In fact, a major study on prayer and healing found no benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.h
Ready to give up God now? No? Why not? You said you could test god. Now, you can debate the details of the study, but before you do you should state what evidence you **would** accept as proof that your concept of god is wrong. If you can't, then there is no point even debating the study because your mind is closed.
You sound like a sincere and nice person--the kind of person I don't like to publicly disagree with over religion because your beliefs are inexorably intertwined with your view of who you are and how you fit into the world. There is no room for you too talk objectively about your religious beliefs because to change them would be to give up what you think of as your most fundamental values as a person.
If the covenant was as you say, then Judaeo Christians would be significantly healthier than non Judaeo Christianss. They aren't. The fact that your mom got better after a prayer meeting isn't proof either. She did a lot of things before she got better. She probably ate cereal that day, too, but you know enough to know that just because something happens before that that doesn't mean it caused what happened after. Statistically, without a doubt, someone died somewhere in the world just after you prayed, but you also know enough not to think you caused that by praying.
I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in your concept of God. What you choose to believe is up to you but don't try and pretend it is scientific.
"Religions have changed radically over the past 5000 years. No way they are static."
Religion in general may have changed "radically" over the past 5000 years, but I doubt you can say that about individual religions. I certainly don't think you could say the Catholic Church has changed much, let alone radically over the past 1500 years. I'd call that pretty static. Science, on the other hand, has radically changed in the last 150 years.
Indeed it is over simplifying to say that religions are completely static, but certain tenants are, in fact, immutable. There is no Christianity without believing in the deity of Christ and there is no Judaism without believing in the deity of the patriarchal god of Torah.
"religion has its dogmatism- but, in its own way, so does science, in so much that both bodies of knowledge have certain statements so powerful that most of us don't have the intelligence, or imagination, to challenge them in an interesting way."
Science does have certain amount dogmatism, but it is not inviolable. There is no "pope" of science who infallibly dictates facts to scientists. And while we may not all be bright enough to discover a new insight into particle physics, it can and is done by real people. And an ordinary person can discover a new fossil or animal that has never been seen before and contribute to a change in the body of knowledge With religion, however, there is no research one can do to change whether or not the Pope will dictate belief in a Triune God.
"Religion, or Christianity at least, does place emphasis, or even preeminence, on personal revelation, which science can never accept, but that doesn't make Christianity static or any more dogmatic than any other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it. "
First off, I disagree that Christianity places emphasis on personal revelation. This may be true in some sects but certainly not Catholicism. Secondly, claiming that Christianity is no more dogmatic than "other body of knowledge with 2000+ years of momentum behind it." is demonstrably false. Science has gone through a number of dramatic paradigm shifts in the last 2000 years, you know heliocentric universe, spherical earth, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, subatomic physics and all. There is **no** comparable paradigm shift in Christianity let alone multiple shifts. A schism over weather Transubstantiation should be treated as real or symbolic doesn't even come close.
"This tension between the authority of personal revelation and that of universal reason supported by first-hand experience- this is real, and is exposed by the sort of statement made by the teacher"
It is really hard to know what you are trying to say here how are personal revelation and first-hand experience different and in conflict with each-other? Second, there is no such thing as "universal reason"--if there was, we'd all agree on it. Finally "personal revelation" is a funny thing. Weird how only people who have **already heard** of Christianity have "personal revelations" about Christianity. Sort of makes the personal revelations seem like they are inspired more by what someone already knows about Christianity than by the god of Christ who should be able to communicate and reveal to all mankind, not just those who've been visited by Christian Missionaries. Either way, science is about systematically analyzing the world around us and separating what is true from what appears to be true. The psychology of perception and judgement shows us that personal experience is subject to perceptual illusion just as our vision can be fooled by optical illusions.
"PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?" This is a conundrum. There **are** many scientists who are religious, yet their objective analysis of the world comes to a screeching halt when they come to their own religion. In practice, we accept the brilliance of scientists within their specialty even if they are dolts otherwise. The reason we can do this is because science doesn't accept these scientists findings on blind faith. They are subject to peer review. So, the science is what survives. On the other hand, it is problematic when scientists are rational only part of the time. You don't entirely know when to trust their judgement.