To quote the comment this was in regards to "a laser is rated by the amount of light energy it emits."
So either the comment I replied to was pointless (as in it adds jack shit to the discussion) or stupid, I chose the later just in case since the former wouldn't need a reply. To reply to your statement: of course a laser emits all the energy it consumes (assuming none gets turned to matter), however not all of it as light thus the fuckin point (ie: the rating, assuming the comment about it is correct, would be lower).
I go to a good school, lowest level cs course used to require MS Visual Studio (probably still does), provided for free of course. It is much simpler to have a single interface when teaching people things, and very little of the class was about how to use Visual Studio (imho it is intuitive enough to not need much teaching). They had libraries which worked for MS VS for example, and making them work with everything would be problematic I assume. Not to mention the pain the TAs would have in dealing with errors in a dozen different setups.
Intermediate CS class? Linux/unix; ssh for most things, remote desktop or go to the cluster for others.
Statistics courses? Usually whatever language the professor and TAs know, my school likes R (Minitab or SAS in some cases, the later more in the medical school). Engineering? Matlab usually. You get to pick the OS for these but the program is quite often set in stone.
It is worse than that from what I hear, see if you make a product someone else can sue you for infringement on their patent. Specifically if you sue someone they can sue you right back (think of how many patents large companies hold, probably at least one applies to your product). If you make no product and simply own patents, you are able to sue other people without any risk to yourself.
Things I have not found in Opera: -Ability to open all highlighted links in new tabs -Ability to zoom in an image (make it bigger), you can zoom the whole page in Opera but that is NOT what I want. -Download Statusbar, so far I found it the best way to keep track of my downloads. -View rendered source chart, I find it useful sometimes.
Not to mention the four or five website specific extensions, which I use often enough.
You know, people like sys-admins may need access in case something goes wrong...
Keep in mind that access does not mean unencrypted. I read it as saying that the data will be stored encrypted on google's system, however some employees will still need to potentially have access to the encrypted data.
Yup, I guess if you cae about your life you should check up on the hospitals near your house (and work) and see which are close and have a lack of "bad stories."
Who doesn't carry their keychain around all of the time that they're out of the house?
If I was going out (buy groceries, meet with friends) I would probably avoid taking any un-needed keys or items.
With an RFID keychain, you have the disadvantage of mistakenly taking it off somewhere and leaving it unattended. That's a weakness that an implant addresses.
A very unlikely scenario, why would someone who finds it want to break into your data center and pretend to be an employee whose identify they do not know. All this before the company is alerted to the loss and disabled the key in question. A more likely scenario, but still unlikely, scenario is some sort of planned theft of the key.
That's an advantage, not a disadvantage. If an employee takes their keychain off and leave it unattended, that's a vulnerability.
They have to either leave it somewhere or have it stolen, in both cases the key can be disabled as soon as they employee realizes what happened. In this case neither of those has to happen; it is much easier and likely to get near someone than it is for them to leave their key unattended or to steal it from them.
How many people actually put a block around their keychain?
It seems trivial to build one into the keychain, something that you can't do with an implant.
HHAHAHAHA. Way to contradict yourself. With the non-implant version, they have to physically steal it, but with the implant version, they don't? That doesn't make any sense; it's the same technology. If you can steal it by coming near them and recording the transaction (and this can be done easily with all but the public key crypto forms which require you being near the 'official' reader), then it applies in both cases. Same technology....you didn't think this through, did you?
I already mentioned that it relatively trivial to block the tag when not needed. If this is currently implemented or not doesn't matter, since it is probably much cheaper to do (and teach employees) than an implant. Heck, you may even be able to get the thing to auto-disable itself when you leave the premises and require a manual re-enabling (turn a ring or something) once you enter them again.
I do have to admit your reply was funny, you go on about all of this and yet don't even get the most trivial hole in what I said (someone else did). Of course, that would require thinking about why they use this stuff (I didn't think too much about this given it's Slashdot and all) and you seem to be unable to perform such abstract thought.
It occurs to me, having never read the article, that the real reason they are doing this is not to cut down on high-tech criminals who want to gain access, but to put an end to employees' borrowing of others' cards, so they have an accurate record of who was in the datacenter.
Good point, didn't think of this actually. I assume they have other ways to restrict access into the center itself, and tracking is important even against criminal activity (why is Bob going into places he has no need to go into).
Not sure what OS you're using, but windows rarely needs to restart for software. Updates are more likely to need a restart but even those don't happen that often. And even with such software, how often do you install such software? Once every three months?
Ironically, the extra security sought may be offset by a recent discovery of Jonathan Westhues, where the security researcher showed the VeriChip can be skimmed and cloned, duplicating an implant's authentication. When contacted, those at CityWatcher were unaware of the chip's security issue, according to the spychips.com release.
So before I needed to get close to an object (whatever had the rfid tag) which under normal circumstances an employee would not be carried around (say they were going home or something) or could have it in a reader blocking case. Now, I simply need to get close to an employ anywhere at any time to copy their data.
Fucking brilliant, now I can steal their tag without anyone ever knowing, whereas before they'd know it was gone in a reasonable amount of time (I'd have to steal the physical object most likely).
So I need to pay for windows AND an over priced mac... uhhh... why don't I just stick a regular pc with windows and not waste my money. And rebooting to do something is a pain in the ass. Go troll some other board.
I think the most proposed sites are out in the ocean as it lets you move the base of the cable. Also I don't think you really need guide wires, since a space elevator isn't resting on earth but rather hanging down from space.
I never said it was practical but it is a feature, simply that the current limited space program does not need it. A large scale space program may potentially need to regularly bring things down. Granted with more flights the cost per launch would go down since much of it is due to fixed infrastructure ($2 bil. per year or so even if nothing flies) and due to general increased efficiency.
Of course at the same time the current safety record would make the shuttle utterly impractical, a failure every few weeks doesn't make people feel warm and fuzzy inside (unless they're on that flight and it burns up).
The way I see it, as originally envisioned the shuttle was a good idea although maybe a bit too soon (it was a much smaller version of the current shuttle, probably without many of its problems). As it was built (thank you Air Force) it was a decent idea but much too early from both a technological and functional point of view. At least we'll know what to not do next time, hopefully.
They lost one in the early flights, and three in a later one due to a faulty pressure valve (the craft itself landed perfectly fine asfaik). Also in terms of deaths I was talking about on the flights with accidents that I mentioned.
It's vastly easier to design a high-survivability capsule than a high-survivability 'space-plane' because it can take much higher stresses and still be able to land.
My point basically, for the foreseeable future a capsule is simply a safer (and cheaper) design to use. You can't really argue that the Shuttle is safer or even as safe, a US made modern capsule can easily do much better by design alone. It may not of course however then it is a problem of incompetence.
The shuttle can also bring things down and possibly service them in orbit (after installation); the later you can make a dedicated craft for and the former is not yet important enough.
The new plan asfaik involves a small capsule or glider (mini single heatshield shuttle mounted on top of the rocket) for people, and a heavy booster for cargo.
The two reasons the Russians can get cosmonauts into space for $60m per flight is that wage costs are *much* lower than in the US,
Probably account for some of it but far from all.
they're flying them on a ship that's vastly less capable than the shuttle.
So it's a better design for the job of getting people into space, amusing how you can't simply say that. The shuttle does a lot of stuff, and all of it badly.
On the shuttle's safety record, it's in the same ballpark as Soyuz. One accident on Soyuz would tip the balance back in the shuttle's favour. The difference is not significant.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have the safety of my space program compared to that of the Russians.
Also, Soyuz has had plenty of close calls in recent times.
Not sure about recent times but overall it did. One exploded either right after launch or on the pad, another re-entered the atmosphere incorrectly, I think another one had some problem in space and probably some others. But the important thing is that: no one died despite all of that. Any of those we'd probably be down another shuttle, the shuttle design is inferior to the Apollo/ Soyuz design in terms of getting people into space. IT does have advantages, however none of them matter for the near future (At least not much), and we'd probably need another version or two before the tech is up to par.
The first part makes sense, the second is interesting although I'm not sure if it is true. The Photoshop EULA (as on the adobe webpage) only says you need to qualify for the educational version to use it, and mentioned nothing about for-profit work. There is no separate EULA listed for the educational version, simply one paragraph in the regular EULA. All google searches likewise give no actual evidence of this restriction.
I'd be interested in knowing if it is actually true or not.
[sarcasm]And you can't move to Linux from a Mac why exactly? Is there some voodoo that Apple casts on owners which keeps them from ever switching to something else? Well thank you for telling me, I'll be sure to never ever buy an Apple product as the last thing I want is them messing with my mind. [/sarcasm]
It seems you are missing the point of the survey or simply had not read it. Had you read the survey you would have realized why it exists and thus why your point is so utterly stupid. The point is to convince the makers of certain products to create linux versions so that companies who want to can switch to linux.
It doesn't matter if it's 5% or 50%, if the rest has no critical apps, a lot of them or don't ever plan to switch then the survey is not for them. The survey is for those who are considering linux already (hey, there goes 90% of the market) but a few apps are holding them back. As was mentioned already, many graphics shops already use linux however for certain work the lack of Photoshop is holding them back.
Also, reading it again the data center point it seems is an example and not really part of the question.
Huh? Why would it be free? Jus because it runs on linux doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it. Also, the survey lists Desktop in one of the questions so I assume it means "what do you need to move your business to Linux." I guess you can reconcile that with the rest of the question by assuming that they run windows in their data center since they need to run windows on their desktops. Personally I think someone failed to write the survey question correctly.
I'll begin with the most important part, if you wish to question evolution for whatever reason and with whatever alternative theories I expect you to: a) Understand biology and evolution, I don't mean be an expert but I do mean understand. I'll happily explain or concede specific points but don't expect me to lecture you on the whole theory of evolution and genetics. b) Already know the counter arguments to your alternate theory, and explanations for why it may be wrong. If 5 minutes and google can dismiss what you said then why are you bothering me at all? c) Make it clear in your post that the above two hold, this shouldn't be anything special. Either provide a link or explain your ideas in such a way that the points from b) do not apply. d) Show a desire to think logically and accept that you may be wrong, otherwise why are you bothering us?
If these don't hold for you then don't complain when I tell you to STFU or simply ignore you (the later takes less time and I'm only replying here to back up someone else). Questions of "how did X evolve" are usually quite stupid, since most of the time it's either on google (if the organism in question has been the subject of major debates in the past) or any answer you get can be reached using simple logic (and understanding of biology). If you still feel like asking at least indicate in your post that you have used some of your brain on the problem already.
That being the case, you, along with the other people who have jumped to this conclusion about me have revealed something about yourself. You are hypersensitive about criticism, or even questioning of your beliefs. You are no better than the people who assume to world was created 6,000 years ago and want to ban any other kind of teaching.
Have I now? I never said I don't accept criticism, I accept intelligent criticism quite well sometimes too much for my own good. I'm the type of person who will explain to 9/11 conspiracy nuts why they're being morons using evidence instead of simply telling them they're morons. That said; I understand why other people would not and why I myself have simply stopped caring. You can only hear and explain the exact same thing so many times before saying "screw it" and realizing there is no point. If I think there is a point or potential use for a discussion then I will happily join in, but I'm not going to waste my time on explaining all of biology to some moron who will ignore it all anyway (and yes that is 99% of IDers and those who "question evolution", most of the others would be much better of reading a book). A book would explain things better, and furthermore I'm not getting paid to explain all this crap to you (nor am I qualified to really).
When you need to take baby steps to evolve, but you see something in nature that appears not to be reachaable through baby steps (individual steps seem to create a disadvantage to the organism).
That most likely means you're either not looking at it right or are not understanding what types of baby steps are involved and how they are beneficial. What we see is a stone arch, and wonder how such a thing could have ever been made by ancient people. Unless you realize that they used scaffolding when putting it together you may think it was impossible. I've heard many argument made by people before, and almost all were quickly dismissed by a google search (see above).
In fact, alternate scientifc theories have tried to account for this by arguing that there are periods of "hyper evolution"... periods were extreme mutation rates occured, giving the opportunity to make multiple mutations in short periods.
Everything in science needs refinement; your posts were neither refinement nor an indication of a specific area in question. If you wish to know how things could evolve, then pick up a book on evolution and learn to think logically.
Not sure how scientifically sound the theory is, but it does show it is not just IDers who think the theory needs some refinement, or better understanding.
IDers think the theory is wrong, not that it needs some refinement. There is a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
To quote the comment this was in regards to "a laser is rated by the amount of light energy it emits."
So either the comment I replied to was pointless (as in it adds jack shit to the discussion) or stupid, I chose the later just in case since the former wouldn't need a reply. To reply to your statement: of course a laser emits all the energy it consumes (assuming none gets turned to matter), however not all of it as light thus the fuckin point (ie: the rating, assuming the comment about it is correct, would be lower).
...Please look up the concept of "less than 100% efficiency."
I go to a good school, lowest level cs course used to require MS Visual Studio (probably still does), provided for free of course. It is much simpler to have a single interface when teaching people things, and very little of the class was about how to use Visual Studio (imho it is intuitive enough to not need much teaching). They had libraries which worked for MS VS for example, and making them work with everything would be problematic I assume. Not to mention the pain the TAs would have in dealing with errors in a dozen different setups.
Intermediate CS class? Linux/unix; ssh for most things, remote desktop or go to the cluster for others.
Statistics courses? Usually whatever language the professor and TAs know, my school likes R (Minitab or SAS in some cases, the later more in the medical school). Engineering? Matlab usually. You get to pick the OS for these but the program is quite often set in stone.
It is worse than that from what I hear, see if you make a product someone else can sue you for infringement on their patent. Specifically if you sue someone they can sue you right back (think of how many patents large companies hold, probably at least one applies to your product). If you make no product and simply own patents, you are able to sue other people without any risk to yourself.
Things I have not found in Opera:
-Ability to open all highlighted links in new tabs
-Ability to zoom in an image (make it bigger), you can zoom the whole page in Opera but that is NOT what I want.
-Download Statusbar, so far I found it the best way to keep track of my downloads.
-View rendered source chart, I find it useful sometimes.
Not to mention the four or five website specific extensions, which I use often enough.
You know, people like sys-admins may need access in case something goes wrong...
Keep in mind that access does not mean unencrypted. I read it as saying that the data will be stored encrypted on google's system, however some employees will still need to potentially have access to the encrypted data.
Yup, I guess if you cae about your life you should check up on the hospitals near your house (and work) and see which are close and have a lack of "bad stories."
Who doesn't carry their keychain around all of the time that they're out of the house?
...you didn't think this through, did you?
If I was going out (buy groceries, meet with friends) I would probably avoid taking any un-needed keys or items.
With an RFID keychain, you have the disadvantage of mistakenly taking it off somewhere and leaving it unattended. That's a weakness that an implant addresses.
A very unlikely scenario, why would someone who finds it want to break into your data center and pretend to be an employee whose identify they do not know. All this before the company is alerted to the loss and disabled the key in question. A more likely scenario, but still unlikely, scenario is some sort of planned theft of the key.
That's an advantage, not a disadvantage. If an employee takes their keychain off and leave it unattended, that's a vulnerability.
They have to either leave it somewhere or have it stolen, in both cases the key can be disabled as soon as they employee realizes what happened. In this case neither of those has to happen; it is much easier and likely to get near someone than it is for them to leave their key unattended or to steal it from them.
How many people actually put a block around their keychain?
It seems trivial to build one into the keychain, something that you can't do with an implant.
HHAHAHAHA. Way to contradict yourself. With the non-implant version, they have to physically steal it, but with the implant version, they don't? That doesn't make any sense; it's the same technology. If you can steal it by coming near them and recording the transaction (and this can be done easily with all but the public key crypto forms which require you being near the 'official' reader), then it applies in both cases. Same technology.
I already mentioned that it relatively trivial to block the tag when not needed. If this is currently implemented or not doesn't matter, since it is probably much cheaper to do (and teach employees) than an implant. Heck, you may even be able to get the thing to auto-disable itself when you leave the premises and require a manual re-enabling (turn a ring or something) once you enter them again.
I do have to admit your reply was funny, you go on about all of this and yet don't even get the most trivial hole in what I said (someone else did). Of course, that would require thinking about why they use this stuff (I didn't think too much about this given it's Slashdot and all) and you seem to be unable to perform such abstract thought.
It occurs to me, having never read the article, that the real reason they are doing this is not to cut down on high-tech criminals who want to gain access, but to put an end to employees' borrowing of others' cards, so they have an accurate record of who was in the datacenter.
Good point, didn't think of this actually. I assume they have other ways to restrict access into the center itself, and tracking is important even against criminal activity (why is Bob going into places he has no need to go into).
Not sure what OS you're using, but windows rarely needs to restart for software. Updates are more likely to need a restart but even those don't happen that often. And even with such software, how often do you install such software? Once every three months?
Many people play games more often than that.
Ironically, the extra security sought may be offset by a recent discovery of Jonathan Westhues, where the security researcher showed the VeriChip can be skimmed and cloned, duplicating an implant's authentication. When contacted, those at CityWatcher were unaware of the chip's security issue, according to the spychips.com release.
So before I needed to get close to an object (whatever had the rfid tag) which under normal circumstances an employee would not be carried around (say they were going home or something) or could have it in a reader blocking case. Now, I simply need to get close to an employ anywhere at any time to copy their data.
Fucking brilliant, now I can steal their tag without anyone ever knowing, whereas before they'd know it was gone in a reasonable amount of time (I'd have to steal the physical object most likely).
So I need to pay for windows AND an over priced mac... uhhh... why don't I just stick a regular pc with windows and not waste my money. And rebooting to do something is a pain in the ass. Go troll some other board.
You want to get a lot of mass to geostationary orbit to provide your topside anchor.
You want it beyond geocentric orbit, the further away the less mass you'll need (but a longer cable).
I think the most proposed sites are out in the ocean as it lets you move the base of the cable. Also I don't think you really need guide wires, since a space elevator isn't resting on earth but rather hanging down from space.
I never said it was practical but it is a feature, simply that the current limited space program does not need it. A large scale space program may potentially need to regularly bring things down. Granted with more flights the cost per launch would go down since much of it is due to fixed infrastructure ($2 bil. per year or so even if nothing flies) and due to general increased efficiency.
Of course at the same time the current safety record would make the shuttle utterly impractical, a failure every few weeks doesn't make people feel warm and fuzzy inside (unless they're on that flight and it burns up).
The way I see it, as originally envisioned the shuttle was a good idea although maybe a bit too soon (it was a much smaller version of the current shuttle, probably without many of its problems). As it was built (thank you Air Force) it was a decent idea but much too early from both a technological and functional point of view. At least we'll know what to not do next time, hopefully.
They lost one in the early flights, and three in a later one due to a faulty pressure valve (the craft itself landed perfectly fine asfaik). Also in terms of deaths I was talking about on the flights with accidents that I mentioned.
It's vastly easier to design a high-survivability capsule than a high-survivability 'space-plane' because it can take much higher stresses and still be able to land.
My point basically, for the foreseeable future a capsule is simply a safer (and cheaper) design to use. You can't really argue that the Shuttle is safer or even as safe, a US made modern capsule can easily do much better by design alone. It may not of course however then it is a problem of incompetence.
The shuttle can also bring things down and possibly service them in orbit (after installation); the later you can make a dedicated craft for and the former is not yet important enough.
The new plan asfaik involves a small capsule or glider (mini single heatshield shuttle mounted on top of the rocket) for people, and a heavy booster for cargo.
How about "we're much better than the Russians" instead of "well, possibly if this happened we'd be on par with them, maybe."
The two reasons the Russians can get cosmonauts into space for $60m per flight is that wage costs are *much* lower than in the US,
Probably account for some of it but far from all.
they're flying them on a ship that's vastly less capable than the shuttle.
So it's a better design for the job of getting people into space, amusing how you can't simply say that. The shuttle does a lot of stuff, and all of it badly.
On the shuttle's safety record, it's in the same ballpark as Soyuz. One accident on Soyuz would tip the balance back in the shuttle's favour. The difference is not significant.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have the safety of my space program compared to that of the Russians.
Also, Soyuz has had plenty of close calls in recent times.
Not sure about recent times but overall it did. One exploded either right after launch or on the pad, another re-entered the atmosphere incorrectly, I think another one had some problem in space and probably some others. But the important thing is that: no one died despite all of that. Any of those we'd probably be down another shuttle, the shuttle design is inferior to the Apollo/ Soyuz design in terms of getting people into space. IT does have advantages, however none of them matter for the near future (At least not much), and we'd probably need another version or two before the tech is up to par.
And Africa's situation has very little to do with diamonds or their value.
The first part makes sense, the second is interesting although I'm not sure if it is true. The Photoshop EULA (as on the adobe webpage) only says you need to qualify for the educational version to use it, and mentioned nothing about for-profit work. There is no separate EULA listed for the educational version, simply one paragraph in the regular EULA. All google searches likewise give no actual evidence of this restriction.
I'd be interested in knowing if it is actually true or not.
[sarcasm]And you can't move to Linux from a Mac why exactly? Is there some voodoo that Apple casts on owners which keeps them from ever switching to something else? Well thank you for telling me, I'll be sure to never ever buy an Apple product as the last thing I want is them messing with my mind. [/sarcasm]
It seems you are missing the point of the survey or simply had not read it. Had you read the survey you would have realized why it exists and thus why your point is so utterly stupid. The point is to convince the makers of certain products to create linux versions so that companies who want to can switch to linux.
It doesn't matter if it's 5% or 50%, if the rest has no critical apps, a lot of them or don't ever plan to switch then the survey is not for them. The survey is for those who are considering linux already (hey, there goes 90% of the market) but a few apps are holding them back. As was mentioned already, many graphics shops already use linux however for certain work the lack of Photoshop is holding them back.
Also, reading it again the data center point it seems is an example and not really part of the question.
Cut the prices in half if you get the educational version, possibly even less if your unviersity has a deal or something along those lines.
Huh? Why would it be free? Jus because it runs on linux doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it. Also, the survey lists Desktop in one of the questions so I assume it means "what do you need to move your business to Linux." I guess you can reconcile that with the rest of the question by assuming that they run windows in their data center since they need to run windows on their desktops. Personally I think someone failed to write the survey question correctly.
I'll begin with the most important part, if you wish to question evolution for whatever reason and with whatever alternative theories I expect you to:
a) Understand biology and evolution, I don't mean be an expert but I do mean understand. I'll happily explain or concede specific points but don't expect me to lecture you on the whole theory of evolution and genetics.
b) Already know the counter arguments to your alternate theory, and explanations for why it may be wrong. If 5 minutes and google can dismiss what you said then why are you bothering me at all?
c) Make it clear in your post that the above two hold, this shouldn't be anything special. Either provide a link or explain your ideas in such a way that the points from b) do not apply.
d) Show a desire to think logically and accept that you may be wrong, otherwise why are you bothering us?
If these don't hold for you then don't complain when I tell you to STFU or simply ignore you (the later takes less time and I'm only replying here to back up someone else). Questions of "how did X evolve" are usually quite stupid, since most of the time it's either on google (if the organism in question has been the subject of major debates in the past) or any answer you get can be reached using simple logic (and understanding of biology). If you still feel like asking at least indicate in your post that you have used some of your brain on the problem already.
That being the case, you, along with the other people who have jumped to this conclusion about me have revealed something about yourself. You are hypersensitive about criticism, or even questioning of your beliefs. You are no better than the people who assume to world was created 6,000 years ago and want to ban any other kind of teaching.
Have I now? I never said I don't accept criticism, I accept intelligent criticism quite well sometimes too much for my own good. I'm the type of person who will explain to 9/11 conspiracy nuts why they're being morons using evidence instead of simply telling them they're morons. That said; I understand why other people would not and why I myself have simply stopped caring. You can only hear and explain the exact same thing so many times before saying "screw it" and realizing there is no point. If I think there is a point or potential use for a discussion then I will happily join in, but I'm not going to waste my time on explaining all of biology to some moron who will ignore it all anyway (and yes that is 99% of IDers and those who "question evolution", most of the others would be much better of reading a book). A book would explain things better, and furthermore I'm not getting paid to explain all this crap to you (nor am I qualified to really).
When you need to take baby steps to evolve, but you see something in nature that appears not to be reachaable through baby steps (individual steps seem to create a disadvantage to the organism).
That most likely means you're either not looking at it right or are not understanding what types of baby steps are involved and how they are beneficial. What we see is a stone arch, and wonder how such a thing could have ever been made by ancient people. Unless you realize that they used scaffolding when putting it together you may think it was impossible. I've heard many argument made by people before, and almost all were quickly dismissed by a google search (see above).
In fact, alternate scientifc theories have tried to account for this by arguing that there are periods of "hyper evolution"... periods were extreme mutation rates occured, giving the opportunity to make multiple mutations in short periods.
Everything in science needs refinement; your posts were neither refinement nor an indication of a specific area in question. If you wish to know how things could evolve, then pick up a book on evolution and learn to think logically.
Not sure how scientifically sound the theory is, but it does show it is not just IDers who think the theory needs some refinement, or better understanding.
IDers think the theory is wrong, not that it needs some refinement. There is a difference.