ID could be a valid theory if the people who currently advocate ID had never heard about it.
How so? How do you avoid an endless loop of "who created who"?
To make the Intelligent Design theory work, you need to arbitrarily stop at some point and declare that "this is where the intelligent designer ends, and this is where his/her/its works begin".
In other words, if God created the universe, who created God? And who created that God? After all, at each point one could argue that the preceding step in the creation heirarchy is too complex to have created itself through random chance and so necessitates the existence of a higher power.
So here's the question: How exactly is evolution disprovible?
Easy. The next piece of data that shows a different process for the morphological changes exhibited in the fossil record.
If we can say "well these guys were wrong about how it works, but it's still viable," what could we learn that that would toss all of evolution out?
We could if there were a better scientific explanation for the data. Despite the problems with Lamarck and Darwin's attempts to refine evolutionary theory, the idea that species change over time is still a foundation concept.
Without that, how is evolution any more falsifiable than ID?
How does ID explain the fossil record?
As near as I can tell, the only thing ID says is that "things in nature are too complex for random chance". Okay, so where is the positive statement of fact? How does that explain the data we have any better than evolution?
I have yet to get a positive theory of ID. It is more likely an example of a False Dillema fallacy.
So, be careful of believing "science has told me there is no God."
I never made that claim.
You said:
Similarly, the things which evolution appears to imply could be mis-conclusions.
and:
Yeah but I would think you would look at the fundamental flaws in Newtonian physics as very, very instructive about how not to put too much faith in Evolution.
and finally:
If atoms aren't billard balls, how can you be sure we're monkeys?
You seem to run around in circles taking sideways shots at evolution, but when called on your words you shift away from what you have written and paint the results of evolution theory as being a refutation of God.
There is nothing in what you have written on this topic that is consistent other than that we should not believe what evolution teaches us. That statement by itself seems logical based on comparison to other scientific theories that have had to adjust to new facts. But then you make statments regarding evolution and "no God" or "we're monkeys" leading anyone who reads them to believe that is what evolution means.
Science is, for the most part, silent on the nature of God. He/she/it is, by definition, not measurable in this experience. It is my opinion that any discussion of God in a scientific context is pointless. There is no way to objectively sort out the competing claims for His/her/its existence.
So your backhanded claims about what evolution says lends support for improving education in the sciences. You seem to have failed to grasp the lessons of evolution from your science instructors.
Similarly, the things which evolution appears to imply could be mis-conclusions.
Cite the evidence to support your statement. You have posted more than once how evolution is lacking in scientific merit without one shred of evidence.
I'm calling your bluff. Post the evidence.
Face it, there's a new orthodoxy.
As the Who sang: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss." Reactionary religious people bashing scientific evidence is nothing new.
Post your evidence that evolution is lacking scientific merit.
The experiments that were performed showing proto-amino acid formation lacked sufficient data on the early Earth atmosphere. The amount of solar flux, for instance, was not what it is today and any estimate is bound to be constrained by our understaning of Sol's early formation.
It's required for the religion of atheism
An oxymoron.... to have its basis in macro-evolution.
Funny, young Earth Creationists believe in micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. The do so on the basis of a flawed understanding of radiometric dating.
Oh, and btw, I'm not an ID or creationist proponent, I just hate evolution...
For no apparent reason, it seems....with the same vigor you despise ID.
An assumption based on no facts.
I do not 'despise' ID. I just believe it has no place in scientific education because it lacks any data to support it. ID is nothing more than an 'anti-theory' - supporters believe it gains credibility by showing that evolution is false.
And please don't label me as some crazy creationist, persoanlly I don't believe either side of the presented argument, and am awaiting my death to make up my mind:D
Evolution is a scientific theory about how humans have developed. It explains the fossil evidence better than any other scientific theory.
What you believe with respect to whether it matches up with other philosophical issues related to human relationships (as outlined in the Bible, to name just one theological text) is beyond the discussion of science. Science is not out to disprove whether God exists, it says that he/she/it is unable to be quantified in a meaningful scientific way (i.e., he/she/it cannot be measured).
So whether you believe in evolution or not does not change the data that we have. It only provides an explaination for the observable data.
It is the only objective process for assessing facts from fiction.
In other words, if the best a scientist can tell you today is that, he might be wrong tomorrow, why even bother listening to him?
No one is forcing you to listen. You ignore the information provided by science at your peril.
So you can use science for real things, like physics and design of military weapons and consumer goods, but the rest of it is so much speculative nonsense.
Quantum physics is speculative, but you don't seem to be throwing your computer out the window.
The consequences of guessing wrong about the origin of humanity are completely immaterial to most people's lives.
Dead wrong.
Stalin believed that Darwinian evolution was just a bouguoise concept. He believed in Lamarckian evolution and directed his agricultural ministry to ignore studies that supported Darwinain evolution. Their agricultural industry suffered and people went hungry in the process.
You can't show people evolving any more than someone else can show God making something.
I can show a progression of hominid fossils leading to homo sapien sapien. The Bible is silent about these fossils.
It's immaterial, unprovable, and so why fight over it?
It may be immaterial to you, but the theory is consistent with the evidence we possess. You may not choose to believe it, but that the only thing immaterial about this discussion.
Yeah you can roll out the eliptical argument that evolution is somehow necessary for medicine but most doctors are concerned with the human species, here and now, and now plants and people are related.
Why bother? You obviously believe that the scientific method works differently for investigations related to the origin of humanity than it does when applied to chemistry.
To wit, you can get a Chem E degree and still get into Med School.
You are correct.
Just don't whine to me when you have difficulty making sense of the data you gather without using evolutionary theory.
You will never amount to anything more than a glorified technician.
But just because these two scientists were wrong about the precise mechanics of evolution doesn't mean that they were wrong about how the data should be interpreted. The data shows that life has progressed to meet the demands of its environment. Survival of the fittest is correct, but there is no straight-line progression of lifeforms leading one from another as was supposed when these authors first penned their ideas.
Scientific ideas may come and go, but the data set just gets larger. That is why this guy can claim the others are wrong: he has a better data set.
This is pretty much your worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast happening. Nice weather now, but people won't even be allowed back to some neighborhoods for at least one week. Others are still being evacuated, by boat, as flood waters rise.
A guy in my office has family in New Orleans. They left for Memphis on Saturday. They have kept contact with people who have gone in to assess the damage to their property. His mother's house is under water - to the roofline.
My colleage's entire family is taking the month off to give the city time to get the water out. With Lake Pontchartrain draining into the city, it will take a couple of weeks just to get the water back out - there is literally no where to pump it out to.
If anyone from New Orleans is reading this, the word is that only the northern side of town has been spared major flood damage.
Of course the system failed. The cities have flooded, there is no power in much of the area, and a good number of towers and other infrastructure has been damaged.
The winds reached 140+ miles per hour. The uplands received 5+ inches of rain in 24 hours.
Regardless, saying that apple *obviously* held prior art to the patent is utter bullshit..
Actually, I never said that it was obvious that Apple held any prior art, just that once an idea has hit the market it should de facto declared prior art by the USPTO.
I've seen about a dozen posts claiming this to be a fact.
Where are the notes that were used in the patent filing? Are they notarized? Did anyone who supports Creative's claim look over Apple's notarized notes?
The process for a patent filing where I work:
1) Document the idea copiously. 2) Get the documentation notarized. 3) Send application (with $6K check) to USPTO 4) The send you a reply notifying you that the application is first for filing purposes.
If you only do steps 3 and 4, you run the risk of losing your patent in court. If someone else can show that they documented the idea first, then it can be argued that they were first with the idea. That may be enough to make a claim for prior art, especially if the product is already on the market.
If you had RTFA you would know that creative applied for the patent *before* the ipod was even released, so no, creative did not rip off apples interface
When the patent filing was official is no indication of when the idea was developed.
The company I work for is quite firm on when employee should record an innovative idea. That fact can be used in court proceedings if a dispute ever arises over ownership. If an Apple engineer can document when they got the idea for their interface, then Creative's patent filing is moot.
Yeah, the Departments of Energy (Entropy is a better name for that shithouse) and Education would be gone as well.
Creative filed for this patent well before Apple even released the iPod. This is not "Apple's mistake".
Take that mistake up with the original poster. I quoted their line, not mine.
The patent has arguable flaws, but Apple having "prior art" isn't one of them.
Reading through the posts coming in hot and heavy on this topic it looks as though prior art belongs to more than just Apple, regardless of when Creative filed.
My point, since you missed it, is that having a product on the market with this feature or that feature already selling is even a better reason to dump a patent application outright. If it can be proven that Apple stole Creative's ideas, then that is what the tort system is meant to deal with. If it was a problem of the Patent Office getting behind and being slow, then that is another reason to reform it.
Basically my point is left intact: it is this type of behavior that leads to defensive patents and those are just lodestones on the innovation engine that drives this economy.
Reports trend towards an attempt to capitalize on Apple's mistake.
So because Apple failed to patent its own interface, then that means the first one to the Patent Office doors gets to patent it?
That is *fucking* *bullshit*. If it had never been patented and already on the market then it should be impossible for Apple to enforce a patent or file for one after the fact. That would mean everyone else in the personal music player business could benefit from Apple's mistake, but not impact the purchaser. Any patent enforcement by Creative or Microsoft will undoubtedly affect the purchase price of Apple's products. They will not eat the licensing fees.
Buy giving these interlopers the right to enforce a patent on a device people have already invested money in is just one more example of how intellectual property laws in the US are screwed up royally. It is this type of situation that leads companies to file *defensive* patents that are the bane of open source development, and ultimately lead to less innovation in a particular market.
The Department of Commerce is one of the first cabinet-level offices I would shutdown 30 seconds after taking the oath as President. It does not promote commerce at all (unless you are a bottom-feeding scum lawyer).
If you fail to attend public meetings where your congressional rep shows up to discuss all of the wonderfull things they have done in D.C. and BITCH TO THEM about patent laws, they you are contributing to the problem.
You spend 95% of your life at two places. Home and Work. What would possess you to live so far away?
Because I can have room for my dogs (two German Shorthair) to run and my nearest neighbor is 30 meters from my house. I also have a spectacular view of the river from my house.
Time to start thinking about living closer to work..
Well, that is one possible way to attack the problem. I prefer to do more of my work at home, thereby not starting my internal combustion engine at all.
-- your car is an unimagined luxury,
Not where I live, nor in the line of work I am in. I am a geologist and the work I am in requires that I go to where the contamination is to clean it up.
and your not going to have that leisure for long...
You and your grandchildren's grandchildren better hope you are wrong. If I don't get to where the contamination is, you will be eating/drinking it on or in your dinner/lunch/breakfast.
the Chinease and Indians might like lightbulbs and concrete floors for their huts -- thats going to take PLENTY of gas.
Quite possibly. They will not, however, have to string miles of copper across their country to have nation-wide telephony. Cell phones have seen to that. And the Chinese are building out gigawatts of nuclear power, lessening their dependence on fossil fuels for electrical generation.
Your going to compete in the international marketplace for that oil.
Here's some news for you: I already do.
What do you think its going to cost you to drive your existing car 30miles in 15, 25, 35 years?
I don't plan on owning this particular vehicle in 10 years, so your question is moot.
What do you think that drive is going to look like?
SPACE CARS!!!
Haven't you seen a modernist movie of the future?
5 passenger, steel, 4x4 suv that gets 15mpg -- or a 40mph golf-cart? I'll bet the latter.
I'll take that bet. You see there were plenty of people in 1980 who would have bet on the golf cart and lost.
Your ability to predict the future of oil is mitigated by the behaviour a human's response to market demands.
Yes, I'm sure that if genetic testing of individuals without their consent were to be outlawed, some companies would continue doing it in secret, just as if discrimination was outlawed, some companies would circumvent the law as I outlined above.
What are you going to do if a sibling gets arrested? Although there is enough difference between you and your siblings to avoid the claim that because your brother has a disorder that you should have it too, it may be provide the basis for a legal challenge should it come up in a workman's compensation claim. The employer can get to your family member's DNA without a court order because that information is part of the public record when they are arrested (in some, if not all, jurisdictions).
So an employer can simply have the courts compel you to disclose your genome without taking the draconian and ethically-challenged route of covert testing. Considering the sheer number of offenses that qualify for DNA fingerprinting upon arrest (and growing each year), it won't be long until portions of everyone's DNA will be part of an arrest record - and by extension, part of the public record. -- "Science is completely neutral with respect to philosophical or theological implications that may be drawn from its conclusions." - Fr. George Coyne, American Jesuit priest and distinguished astronomer
Slashdot Mirror
ID could be a valid theory if the people who currently advocate ID had never heard about it.
How so? How do you avoid an endless loop of "who created who"?
To make the Intelligent Design theory work, you need to arbitrarily stop at some point and declare that "this is where the intelligent designer ends, and this is where his/her/its works begin".
In other words, if God created the universe, who created God? And who created that God? After all, at each point one could argue that the preceding step in the creation heirarchy is too complex to have created itself through random chance and so necessitates the existence of a higher power.
So here's the question: How exactly is evolution disprovible?
Easy. The next piece of data that shows a different process for the morphological changes exhibited in the fossil record.
If we can say "well these guys were wrong about how it works, but it's still viable," what could we learn that that would toss all of evolution out?
We could if there were a better scientific explanation for the data. Despite the problems with Lamarck and Darwin's attempts to refine evolutionary theory, the idea that species change over time is still a foundation concept.
Without that, how is evolution any more falsifiable than ID?
How does ID explain the fossil record?
As near as I can tell, the only thing ID says is that "things in nature are too complex for random chance". Okay, so where is the positive statement of fact? How does that explain the data we have any better than evolution?
I have yet to get a positive theory of ID. It is more likely an example of a False Dillema fallacy.
So, be careful of believing "science has told me there is no God."
I never made that claim.
You said:
Similarly, the things which evolution appears to imply could be mis-conclusions.
and:
Yeah but I would think you would look at the fundamental flaws in Newtonian physics as very, very instructive about how not to put too much faith in Evolution.
and finally:
If atoms aren't billard balls, how can you be sure we're monkeys?
You seem to run around in circles taking sideways shots at evolution, but when called on your words you shift away from what you have written and paint the results of evolution theory as being a refutation of God.
There is nothing in what you have written on this topic that is consistent other than that we should not believe what evolution teaches us. That statement by itself seems logical based on comparison to other scientific theories that have had to adjust to new facts. But then you make statments regarding evolution and "no God" or "we're monkeys" leading anyone who reads them to believe that is what evolution means.
Science is, for the most part, silent on the nature of God. He/she/it is, by definition, not measurable in this experience. It is my opinion that any discussion of God in a scientific context is pointless. There is no way to objectively sort out the competing claims for His/her/its existence.
So your backhanded claims about what evolution says lends support for improving education in the sciences. You seem to have failed to grasp the lessons of evolution from your science instructors.
Similarly, the things which evolution appears to imply could be mis-conclusions.
Cite the evidence to support your statement. You have posted more than once how evolution is lacking in scientific merit without one shred of evidence.
I'm calling your bluff. Post the evidence.
Face it, there's a new orthodoxy.
As the Who sang: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss." Reactionary religious people bashing scientific evidence is nothing new.
Post your evidence that evolution is lacking scientific merit.
Lamarck and Darwin proposed hypotheses, some of which they were pretty sure of, which turned out to be mistaken.
No, they were theories.
The theories they proposed were explanations for the data they had available to them at the time they were formulated.
A theory is not a wild-assed guess. It is a comprehensive explanation for obervational and experimental data.
Apple was not the 1st company to develop an mp3 player. Creative beat them to the market with a player as well as a patent./i.
I never said Apple was the first to develop an mp3 player. You quoted me and then misrepresented what I had written.
Irony, thy name is geekee.
Easily done.
The experiments that were performed showing proto-amino acid formation lacked sufficient data on the early Earth atmosphere. The amount of solar flux, for instance, was not what it is today and any estimate is bound to be constrained by our understaning of Sol's early formation.
It's required for the religion of atheism
An oxymoron.
Funny, young Earth Creationists believe in micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. The do so on the basis of a flawed understanding of radiometric dating.
Oh, and btw, I'm not an ID or creationist proponent, I just hate evolution...
For no apparent reason, it seems.
An assumption based on no facts.
I do not 'despise' ID. I just believe it has no place in scientific education because it lacks any data to support it. ID is nothing more than an 'anti-theory' - supporters believe it gains credibility by showing that evolution is false.
And please don't label me as some crazy creationist, persoanlly I don't believe either side of the presented argument, and am awaiting my death to make up my mind :D
Evolution is a scientific theory about how humans have developed. It explains the fossil evidence better than any other scientific theory.
What you believe with respect to whether it matches up with other philosophical issues related to human relationships (as outlined in the Bible, to name just one theological text) is beyond the discussion of science. Science is not out to disprove whether God exists, it says that he/she/it is unable to be quantified in a meaningful scientific way (i.e., he/she/it cannot be measured).
So whether you believe in evolution or not does not change the data that we have. It only provides an explaination for the observable data.
If science can be wrong, then why trust it?
It is the only objective process for assessing facts from fiction.
In other words, if the best a scientist can tell you today is that, he might be wrong tomorrow, why even bother listening to him?
No one is forcing you to listen. You ignore the information provided by science at your peril.
So you can use science for real things, like physics and design of military weapons and consumer goods, but the rest of it is so much speculative nonsense.
Quantum physics is speculative, but you don't seem to be throwing your computer out the window.
The consequences of guessing wrong about the origin of humanity are completely immaterial to most people's lives.
Dead wrong.
Stalin believed that Darwinian evolution was just a bouguoise concept. He believed in Lamarckian evolution and directed his agricultural ministry to ignore studies that supported Darwinain evolution. Their agricultural industry suffered and people went hungry in the process.
You can't show people evolving any more than someone else can show God making something.
I can show a progression of hominid fossils leading to homo sapien sapien. The Bible is silent about these fossils.
It's immaterial, unprovable, and so why fight over it?
It may be immaterial to you, but the theory is consistent with the evidence we possess. You may not choose to believe it, but that the only thing immaterial about this discussion.
Yeah you can roll out the eliptical argument that evolution is somehow necessary for medicine but most doctors are concerned with the human species, here and now, and now plants and people are related.
Why bother? You obviously believe that the scientific method works differently for investigations related to the origin of humanity than it does when applied to chemistry.
To wit, you can get a Chem E degree and still get into Med School.
You are correct.
Just don't whine to me when you have difficulty making sense of the data you gather without using evolutionary theory.
You will never amount to anything more than a glorified technician.
I can live with that.
"See? Scientists don't know what they're doing! All your answers are in Teh Bile-Balllllllll! Praise JEEEEEEE-zussssssssss!"
Yes, but unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are meant to be falsifiable.
Unless someone in the ID camp is willing to admit that God is falsifiable, their theory will not be considered science.
Wow! Science can be wrong.
That is how the system works.
But just because these two scientists were wrong about the precise mechanics of evolution doesn't mean that they were wrong about how the data should be interpreted. The data shows that life has progressed to meet the demands of its environment. Survival of the fittest is correct, but there is no straight-line progression of lifeforms leading one from another as was supposed when these authors first penned their ideas.
Scientific ideas may come and go, but the data set just gets larger. That is why this guy can claim the others are wrong: he has a better data set.
This is pretty much your worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast happening. Nice weather now, but people won't even be allowed back to some neighborhoods for at least one week. Others are still being evacuated, by boat, as flood waters rise.
A guy in my office has family in New Orleans. They left for Memphis on Saturday. They have kept contact with people who have gone in to assess the damage to their property. His mother's house is under water - to the roofline.
My colleage's entire family is taking the month off to give the city time to get the water out. With Lake Pontchartrain draining into the city, it will take a couple of weeks just to get the water back out - there is literally no where to pump it out to.
If anyone from New Orleans is reading this, the word is that only the northern side of town has been spared major flood damage.
Gotcha!
So much for subscriptions.
Beat out messages on drums!
Of course the system failed. The cities have flooded, there is no power in much of the area, and a good number of towers and other infrastructure has been damaged.
The winds reached 140+ miles per hour. The uplands received 5+ inches of rain in 24 hours.
Regardless, saying that apple *obviously* held prior art to the patent is utter bullshit..
Actually, I never said that it was obvious that Apple held any prior art, just that once an idea has hit the market it should de facto declared prior art by the USPTO.
Smartass.. ;)
I've seen about a dozen posts claiming this to be a fact.
Where are the notes that were used in the patent filing? Are they notarized? Did anyone who supports Creative's claim look over Apple's notarized notes?
The process for a patent filing where I work:
1) Document the idea copiously.
2) Get the documentation notarized.
3) Send application (with $6K check) to USPTO
4) The send you a reply notifying you that the application is first for filing purposes.
If you only do steps 3 and 4, you run the risk of losing your patent in court. If someone else can show that they documented the idea first, then it can be argued that they were first with the idea. That may be enough to make a claim for prior art, especially if the product is already on the market.
Hooray for propagation of ignorance!
;)
And one-line rejoinders!
If you had RTFA you would know that creative applied for the patent *before* the ipod was even released, so no, creative did not rip off apples interface
When the patent filing was official is no indication of when the idea was developed.
The company I work for is quite firm on when employee should record an innovative idea. That fact can be used in court proceedings if a dispute ever arises over ownership. If an Apple engineer can document when they got the idea for their interface, then Creative's patent filing is moot.
Thankfully you're not the President.
Yeah, the Departments of Energy (Entropy is a better name for that shithouse) and Education would be gone as well.
Creative filed for this patent well before Apple even released the iPod. This is not "Apple's mistake".
Take that mistake up with the original poster. I quoted their line, not mine.
The patent has arguable flaws, but Apple having "prior art" isn't one of them.
Reading through the posts coming in hot and heavy on this topic it looks as though prior art belongs to more than just Apple, regardless of when Creative filed.
My point, since you missed it, is that having a product on the market with this feature or that feature already selling is even a better reason to dump a patent application outright. If it can be proven that Apple stole Creative's ideas, then that is what the tort system is meant to deal with. If it was a problem of the Patent Office getting behind and being slow, then that is another reason to reform it.
Basically my point is left intact: it is this type of behavior that leads to defensive patents and those are just lodestones on the innovation engine that drives this economy.
Reports trend towards an attempt to capitalize on Apple's mistake.
So because Apple failed to patent its own interface, then that means the first one to the Patent Office doors gets to patent it?
That is *fucking* *bullshit*. If it had never been patented and already on the market then it should be impossible for Apple to enforce a patent or file for one after the fact. That would mean everyone else in the personal music player business could benefit from Apple's mistake, but not impact the purchaser. Any patent enforcement by Creative or Microsoft will undoubtedly affect the purchase price of Apple's products. They will not eat the licensing fees.
Buy giving these interlopers the right to enforce a patent on a device people have already invested money in is just one more example of how intellectual property laws in the US are screwed up royally. It is this type of situation that leads companies to file *defensive* patents that are the bane of open source development, and ultimately lead to less innovation in a particular market.
The Department of Commerce is one of the first cabinet-level offices I would shutdown 30 seconds after taking the oath as President. It does not promote commerce at all (unless you are a bottom-feeding scum lawyer).
If you fail to attend public meetings where your congressional rep shows up to discuss all of the wonderfull things they have done in D.C. and BITCH TO THEM about patent laws, they you are contributing to the problem.
AMD-supplied gameboxen!!!.... (huff, puff).... Donated arcade games!!!.... (groan).... 400 MAN LAN!!!.... AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
(unnnghh!!!)
Does anyone have a towel?
You spend 95% of your life at two places. Home and Work. What would possess you to live so far away?
Because I can have room for my dogs (two German Shorthair) to run and my nearest neighbor is 30 meters from my house. I also have a spectacular view of the river from my house.
Time to start thinking about living closer to work..
Well, that is one possible way to attack the problem. I prefer to do more of my work at home, thereby not starting my internal combustion engine at all.
-- your car is an unimagined luxury,
Not where I live, nor in the line of work I am in. I am a geologist and the work I am in requires that I go to where the contamination is to clean it up.
and your not going to have that leisure for long...
You and your grandchildren's grandchildren better hope you are wrong. If I don't get to where the contamination is, you will be eating/drinking it on or in your dinner/lunch/breakfast.
the Chinease and Indians might like lightbulbs and concrete floors for their huts -- thats going to take PLENTY of gas.
Quite possibly. They will not, however, have to string miles of copper across their country to have nation-wide telephony. Cell phones have seen to that. And the Chinese are building out gigawatts of nuclear power, lessening their dependence on fossil fuels for electrical generation.
Your going to compete in the international marketplace for that oil.
Here's some news for you: I already do.
What do you think its going to cost you to drive your existing car 30miles in 15, 25, 35 years?
I don't plan on owning this particular vehicle in 10 years, so your question is moot.
What do you think that drive is going to look like?
SPACE CARS!!!
Haven't you seen a modernist movie of the future?
5 passenger, steel, 4x4 suv that gets 15mpg -- or a 40mph golf-cart? I'll bet the latter.
I'll take that bet. You see there were plenty of people in 1980 who would have bet on the golf cart and lost.
Your ability to predict the future of oil is mitigated by the behaviour a human's response to market demands.
And limited range.
I drive 30 miles to work one way. I would need a recharge just to get home - forget about cruising around to other locations.
Yes, I'm sure that if genetic testing of individuals without their consent were to be outlawed, some companies would continue doing it in secret, just as if discrimination was outlawed, some companies would circumvent the law as I outlined above.
What are you going to do if a sibling gets arrested? Although there is enough difference between you and your siblings to avoid the claim that because your brother has a disorder that you should have it too, it may be provide the basis for a legal challenge should it come up in a workman's compensation claim. The employer can get to your family member's DNA without a court order because that information is part of the public record when they are arrested (in some, if not all, jurisdictions).
So an employer can simply have the courts compel you to disclose your genome without taking the draconian and ethically-challenged route of covert testing. Considering the sheer number of offenses that qualify for DNA fingerprinting upon arrest (and growing each year), it won't be long until portions of everyone's DNA will be part of an arrest record - and by extension, part of the public record.
--
"Science is completely neutral with respect to philosophical or theological implications that may be drawn from its conclusions." - Fr. George Coyne, American Jesuit priest and distinguished astronomer