Or, people could just use the right tool for the job.
Did you not read any of my post? You don't address a single point. You make no constructive counterpoint at all. Your response is that "MySQL is good enough and you're just a hater."
Each point I made is factually accurate and it is obvious that you are unwilling or unable to have a constructive discussion.
But about MySQL: You're Missing The Point. I would bet my career that I am not, and most of my career is based on NOT missing the point. The VAST majority of apps deployed every day are NOT critical-mass applications. They are niche applications developed by (or for) Corporate IT Departments They are applications where the potential userbase is 30 people in an accounting department, or 100 people in a call center.
True, but not relevant.
For these applications, a table lock is truly NOT a big deal.
OK.
Do the math. If you have 100 users, only a fraction will be simultaneous. And of those, how much actual server-side processing time is being spent? Even if a user is logged-in for 8 hours a day, what's the cumulative processing time? 2 minutes? 3?
So?
The end product is a very low probability that a race condition will occur due to a table lock. It might happen, what, once a day? And when it does, the user goes back, re-submits, problem solved.
I define that as broken ESPECIALLY when there is fundamentally no reason for it to happen.
You seem so hung-up on this "the company depends on my DBMS selection" mentality that it seems like you miss the boat entirely.
I think you are missing the point entirely. Why do crappy work if you don't need to. Your defense is that you can squeak by with MySQL, but you've made no argument why you should use it in the first place.
I think you have an interesting point(s). I would argue that computers are fast enough for so many things, that this is not as relevant as it used to be.
Except that disk and data I/O are still slow. So faster CPUs can be used to do more extensive statistical calculations to be used to optimize slow data access.
For example, Google would run no faster on a good DB than it does now. HOWEVER, what makes google fast is that smart people who understand data access mathematics have used the root capabilities of the science in a custom application (the google backend) to blow away what any DB could do.
A specialized data system is almost always faster than a generic one. That's not what we are discussing. We are talking about making an even more stupid version of mySQL, a generic data access system.
I have never ran into a problem that Mysql couldn't handle. Nothing in my post wasn't about "not being able to do something" but that "real databases" are better at it.
Your database elitism just makes you look like an asshole.
I am amazed at the dumbing down of society. Did you know that "elite" means best choice. So my "best choice-ism" makes me look bad?
How about either complimenting the project or just shut the fuck up and don't post? No one really cares what database you think is best.
I offered a valid critique to a project and the basis of it.
Nothing I have written is incorrect or can not be verified. So, rather than insult my "elitism" why not stay "on topic" and discuss the issues.
There's nothing wrong with MySQL. It serves its purpose.
I disagree, but lets not start that discussion just yet.
And there's nothing wrong, necessarily, with sacrificing ACID compliance for speed.
Nowhere in my post did I even mention ACID. That's a different issue. Equally important, but different.
The goal for those like you and I is to be sure these younger Dev's are using it appropriately.
Assuming we agree on the definition of "appropriately."
For example, during a code review if you see a developer doing a multi-table insert where he's checking for an error and doing a manual roll-back of the insert, that's a perfect time to demonstrate transactions as a way to save the developer time.
Which drizzle wouldn't have.
In many ways, the sheer popularity of MySQL gives it legitimacy.
I find any argument based on "popularity" fundamentally flawed. Windows is very popular. So is velvita "cheese."
Of course, if you're one that thinks MySQL et al have no place in a production environment, maybe they SHOULDN'T be listening to you...
Ahh, the defense of the indefensible. MySQL is a bad system and drizzle will just be worse. I was not talking about "transactions" or data integrity in my first post. That is a WHOLE different stupidity in MySQL. I was talking about keeping "data logic" close to the data and out of the application.
Little known fact: MySQL, when using isam -- and everyone uses isam, locks out table updates during READS. MySQL is woefully inadequate is in query optimization. So, while your team is doing simple SQL select and doing further processing on the data in the application because MySQL can't or your team doesn't want to do it in the database, you are locking out writes and updates. More over, the extra data you are retrieving from the database, because you are doing additional processing and selection in the application, means you are performing more I/O on the database server, which adds to the I/O bottleneck.
Anyone who argues that MySQL has a place a real enterprise seriously lacks the experience and/or education to make such a statement. MySQL is insanely bad at being a SQL database.
But hey, if you think it is worth while, I'll be willing to debate you. I'll even let you start. Imagine you are a CTO and you are choosing a database for your web site, please write an executive summary explaining your choice and the criteria for your selection, why MySQL was a better choice than PostgreSQL, DB2, Oracle, SQLite, or Sybase. Then create a list of features and limitations of the various systems and indicate for each feature why MySQL was better or that it did not matter.
I have done this many times, MySQL has never been the right choice.
Who the hell is talking about 5 minutes!? I'm saying you should be able to get a clean shutdown in 5 seconds if you prioritize it correctly.
I'm not sure what your system is, but for this to be a general purpose device, it needs to work within the realm of real life systems. Have you ever typed "sync" on a busy system and had it go away for a minute or more?
5 minutes is a "safe" number. It takes time to detect a power failure more than a mere "spike." You don't want to start a shut down and suddenly have the power come back on. How would you know to restart the system?
If this were a real product, it would need a hell of a lot more than just a big capacitor.
Computer power supplies should be built with enough spare capacitance to run things long enough for the computer to save critical data
Here's a question for you: Calculate the size of the capacitor needed that can hold enough power to run a 200W load for 5 minutes and maintain a voltage level within a specific usable range.
Hint: its BIG. batteries are more space efficient, but the chemicals and outgassing make them inappropriate for location INSIDE the computer box.
Sorry, it is incomprehensible that this sort of project would be started.
The problem with MySQL, to BEGIN WITH, is that it doesn't support enough SQL or the SQL it does support well enough, to construct efficient queries. What ends up happening is that you move your "data logic" to your application and out of your database. This means the database handles simpler queries, but returns more data. While these simple queries appear faster, they hit more data on the disk and actually cause the system to become I/O bound.
"Real" databases handle the "data logic" close to the data and can estimate the most efficient access to the data needed, thus REDUCING the I/O bottleneck, making more complex queries more efficient than simple queries. CPU time is virtually free with respect to data access.
Every time I see some Java, PHP, or.NET guy go off about MySQL being faster, I just shake my head. Data access is a real science grounded in math and the physical realities of actual computers and storage devices. A "good" database has YEARS of research and unless you are a god (and you are not) it will be very hard for you to beat it.
I've been in the business for about 28 years and I don't understand why software developers have this blind spot about databases. Maybe it is a "not written by me" attitude, but I just don't get it. A "good" database has so many facilities to make your data access efficient and fast as hell. Yet, most developers that I have to direct, simply refuse to learn about databases, specifically SQL. They go out of their way to write elaborate functionality in their language of choice that could have been constructed in a moderately interesting SQL query, that could be wrapped in a function and been more efficient.
The "drizzle" product is just another avoidance of an important semester of computer science that people don't want to understand and will ultimately create even more poorly designed web sites.
I'm really starting to get pissed off. Corporate America is infringing on freedoms more and more, but in insidious ways.
Challenging free speech with law suits. Challenging freedom of "fair use" with lobbyists who write laws and get them passed. The patent system affects our freedom of expression.
If these were invading armies, we'd get our guns and defend ourselves. With internationalization, private entities are acting more like governments with no democratic feedback.
I tell you, "patent trolls" wouldn't dare file stupid law suits if we stormed their offices and took the corporate officers as POWs.
I know this is hyperbole, but I'm also kind of serious, we need to start fighting these extra-legal entities who abuse our laws and have no personal legal responsibility.
The ACLU that bastion of fairness that it is. NOT! They have a vendetta against religion in society.
No, just violations of the 1st amendment. As an atheist, why should *my* tax dollars go to faith based anything? The government may not recognize the establishment of religion, thus should not be involved with it in any way.
Look, I don't know why you can't understand the constitution
The constitution is a document about specific ideas on the foundations of this country. Where there has been ambiguity, the supreme court has referenced contemporary documents of the authors to understand better the meaning of the words as used. John Hancock's own words were used for the interpretation of religion clause of the 1st amendment as creating a "wall of separation between church and state." No church, no religion in government. That means public places including public schools.
Answer: Because the same being created them that way? All your evidence goes both ways.
Why would a creator do this? It makes far more sense, and it can be seen in the fossil record that we descended from a common ancestor.
It's the argument that maybe life came out of something which itself was already intelligent and ordered.
As a scientist, where is the proof? Maybe the universe was created by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," without fact, ID is no more or less relevant than the easter bunny.
Congress cannot be the thought police and they can't dictate that religion cannot be taught about in public school.
That, of course, is wrong. The 1st amendment specifically forbids "law respecting an establishment of religion," and using hogwash created by evangelical christians to get around this restrictions is wrong.
Luckily my school (Which was public) didn't take your moronic interpretation of the Constitution and did have classes about Religion and all sorts of other things people like to get their panties in a twist about.
It isn't *my* interpretation, it is *the* interpretation of the 1st amendment. If you would care to say which school is teaching ID, maybe I can pass that info to the ACLU.
I assure you that *my* public schools, should they ever try to teach ID crap, will be sued for a 1st amendment violation ASAP.
I'm sorry but what part of the first amendment are you talking about? The part that says we have a freedom of speech? Maybe the free press part? Just what are you talking about? I love when people reference the Bill of Rights and then don't even know what's in it.
As a member of the ACLU I can quote the bill of rights. The part that is important is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This passage has been interpreted, using John Hancock's supporting papers, to establish a separation of church and state.
The ID people try to wiggle around this by creating a plausible science-ish sounding religious movement. What astounds people is how far pseudo-scientific people then expand upon that and say that basically life came out of nothing and there was no order and then bang order and no being had anything to do with the order appearing out of disorder and it was all of natural consequence.
It isn't "pseudo-science" at all, I woulkd hardly call our world "ordered," and lastly, just people are astounded doesn't make it not true. People were "astounded" that the earth wasn't in the center of the universe and it wasn't flat.
First off where to the laws of nature come from.
Why do they have to come from anywhere?
For that matter where to the laws of logic and reasoning come from. Again, why do they have to come from anywhere?
All ID is saying is that maybe species were designed to a point where they took the shape/form/arraignment of organs etc. of the creatures we now see walking the earth and swimming the oceans.
ID is not saying "maybe" it is saying that they "are." ID offers no proof.
I personally also have a hard time with speciation happening because of evolution. In other words entirely new species popping up just because of natural selection.
News flash: The earth is round, it orbits the sun, the sun is in our galaxy. Species do not "pop up," over many thousands or millions of years, they genetically drift apart and separate.
First off you need to understand that Intelligent Design is just a
Why do people, upon disagreement with another, assume the other person does not know or understand?
It may be a purpose driven argument, but the "ID" movement itself is based on evangelical christians trying to get past the first amendment.
The rapture ready link is such bunk, numerology is not statistics.
Ahh, I knew an idiot would try to promote "Irreducible complexity" it is nonsense and throughly debunked. I'm just waiting for the "watch on the beach" argument.
ID is a scam and nonsense put forth by an intellectually dishonest group of evangelical christians in an effort to preach religion in the secular classroom against the U.S. constitution.
The problem is, again, ethics. Rather than accept facts and law, they construct plausible sounding theories that less knowledgeable will accept or the cynical can use. The problem is that "plausible sounding" is not the same thing as "plausible."
The process of evolution has been proved. It is a fact that organisms change and adjust over generations to changing environments in accordance with survivability and reproduction. This has been documented and proved beyond any possible argument. The "Theory of Evolution" is the explanation of this process. "Evolution" isn't "just a theory" it is the process by which life has come to be so varied on this planet.
Charles Darwin, in the origin of species, knowing the religious implications of his work, was careful and meticulous in his research. It is a very large body of well documented work. Wehn the "ID" people can come up with real facts and not just "plausible sounding" arguments (which they can't) I'll listen.
ID is devoid of reason. It is vacant of fact or evidence. It makes no predictions and can not be verified. It is not science.
One of the things that have me worried is the ever present unintended consequences that no one every considers.
My unintended consequence is weather momentum. The weather system on this planet is a fairly will balanced machine. While global warming is affecting it, it is slowly adjusting.
Now, the CO2 has been rising, the weather patterns are adjusting creating severe weather. The jet stream and other wind currents are still fundamentally working. Now, we dump a bunch of lime into the oceans, reduce the acidity, make it a nice place for the fish (assuming their gills can still extract dissolved oxygen in the CO2 rich sea water.)
The CO2 levels drop. The atmosphere no longer holds the heat it once did. A lot of energy in the weather system is lost. What happens? Isn't this like slamming on the breaks of a moving train?
Next ice age? HUGE storms?
Can't we just plant some more trees and drive less?
Evolution is the upstart pseudo-science with pick-and-choose evidence and no proof
There is a HUGE body of evidence to support the evolutionary process. Everything from germs acquiring resistance to antibiotics to butterflies wing color changes as an adaptation to pollution.
The process of evolution is hardly pseudo-science, indeed, it is probably the single most important scientific discovery of man. It represents a victory over religious and superstitious nonsense and an important step in understanding our place on this planet.
Genetics? Yes, of course. Evolution? No. Not one single person. Evolution, correct or incorrect, has less scientific importance than the discovery of bananas being rich in potassium.
I would submit to you that "genetics" as a science would not be possible without an understanding of the evolutionary process.
As for the "value" of studying the path of human evolution, you may say that has no value, but that view also would tend to assert that sciences like anthropology or archeology have no value either.
ID does have statistics behind it and statistics are a kind of science.
If you care to post one, that's right, one credible argument that supports ID, I'll apologize and retract what I wrote. BTW: it must not be an obfuscated "god did it" argument.
No, hear me out. All a "program" is is "data" to something that interprets the data.
The whole problem with your point of view is that it is wrong.:-)
The problem is trust and predictability. It is an easy line to cross, like java script in an HTML page. I personally dislike the practice.
Computer science is a science. There are "protocols" for the proper study and practice. Not that other things are impossible, but that we understand and can predict the outcome of what we do know.
In hardware terms, this is the debate between the "Harvard Architecture" and the "Von Newman architecture." While Von Newman more or less the hardware architecture because of costs, the "Harvard Architecture" is implemented in software.
Separating "program" from "data" is an important security device. It allows you to "trust" something, the program, to safely interact with something "untrusted," the data. If there is no trusted way to interact with data, which is "untrusted," then there is no way to secure your system.
In a very real sense, separating programs from data is like wearing a bio-hazard suit while treating Ebola victims. You are the program, the Ebola victim is data. Would invite an Ebola victim into your house, unprotected, to mean your wife and kids? Of course not.
There used to be an assumption of ethics. If someone was caught in a lie or fabrication, it would be shameful and cause harm to the individual or an organization. Even organizations with which you disagree would probably be telling the truth.
Those days are long gone. There isn't any effort into presenting the truth. No one cares. Everyone merely selects facts that support their position and tosses the rest. If you dare to present opposing facts, it just becomes a dispute.
Look at "intelligent design" for some reason news agencies seem to think they they deserve equal time with actual science. That is no different than putting astronomers and astrologers on equal footing. Yes, Carl Sagan said there are billions of stars, but madam Maria predicts that there only 100,000 and half of them are in retrograde until 2012. Dial in, who do you believe? 1-900-USA-fucked
There is no ethics or common sense. There is no public outcry or demand that public statements be factually accurate. We expect people to lie. We then use the lies we like to bolster our opinions based on our prejudices.
Communication is impossible when everyone is lying.
Slashdot Mirror
Effing expensive batteries ($1200), one in each power supply, and they have to replaced every three years. *grumble*
I bet, the safety and environmental requirements must be huge.
Or, people could just use the right tool for the job.
Did you not read any of my post? You don't address a single point. You make no constructive counterpoint at all. Your response is that "MySQL is good enough and you're just a hater."
Each point I made is factually accurate and it is obvious that you are unwilling or unable to have a constructive discussion.
But about MySQL: You're Missing The Point.
I would bet my career that I am not, and most of my career is based on NOT missing the point.
The VAST majority of apps deployed every day are NOT critical-mass applications. They are niche applications developed by (or for) Corporate IT Departments They are applications where the potential userbase is 30 people in an accounting department, or 100 people in a call center.
True, but not relevant.
For these applications, a table lock is truly NOT a big deal.
OK.
Do the math. If you have 100 users, only a fraction will be simultaneous. And of those, how much actual server-side processing time is being spent? Even if a user is logged-in for 8 hours a day, what's the cumulative processing time? 2 minutes? 3?
So?
The end product is a very low probability that a race condition will occur due to a table lock. It might happen, what, once a day? And when it does, the user goes back, re-submits, problem solved.
I define that as broken ESPECIALLY when there is fundamentally no reason for it to happen.
You seem so hung-up on this "the company depends on my DBMS selection" mentality that it seems like you miss the boat entirely.
I think you are missing the point entirely. Why do crappy work if you don't need to. Your defense is that you can squeak by with MySQL, but you've made no argument why you should use it in the first place.
Godwin is not a violation; it is an inevitability.
In my experience it is only an inevitability to people who have to defend an irrational point of view.
I think you have an interesting point(s). I would argue that computers are fast enough for so many things, that this is not as relevant as it used to be.
Except that disk and data I/O are still slow. So faster CPUs can be used to do more extensive statistical calculations to be used to optimize slow data access.
For example, Google would run no faster on a good DB than it does now. HOWEVER, what makes google fast is that smart people who understand data access mathematics have used the root capabilities of the science in a custom application (the google backend) to blow away what any DB could do.
A specialized data system is almost always faster than a generic one. That's not what we are discussing. We are talking about making an even more stupid version of mySQL, a generic data access system.
SQL should be part of any computer science study
I have never ran into a problem that Mysql couldn't handle.
Nothing in my post wasn't about "not being able to do something" but that "real databases" are better at it.
Your database elitism just makes you look like an asshole.
I am amazed at the dumbing down of society. Did you know that "elite" means best choice. So my "best choice-ism" makes me look bad?
How about either complimenting the project or just shut the fuck up and don't post? No one really cares what database you think is best.
I offered a valid critique to a project and the basis of it.
Nothing I have written is incorrect or can not be verified. So, rather than insult my "elitism" why not stay "on topic" and discuss the issues.
There's nothing wrong with MySQL. It serves its purpose.
I disagree, but lets not start that discussion just yet.
And there's nothing wrong, necessarily, with sacrificing ACID compliance for speed.
Nowhere in my post did I even mention ACID. That's a different issue. Equally important, but different.
The goal for those like you and I is to be sure these younger Dev's are using it appropriately.
Assuming we agree on the definition of "appropriately."
For example, during a code review if you see a developer doing a multi-table insert where he's checking for an error and doing a manual roll-back of the insert, that's a perfect time to demonstrate transactions as a way to save the developer time.
Which drizzle wouldn't have.
In many ways, the sheer popularity of MySQL gives it legitimacy.
I find any argument based on "popularity" fundamentally flawed. Windows is very popular. So is velvita "cheese."
Of course, if you're one that thinks MySQL et al have no place in a production environment, maybe they SHOULDN'T be listening to you...
Ahh, the defense of the indefensible. MySQL is a bad system and drizzle will just be worse. I was not talking about "transactions" or data integrity in my first post. That is a WHOLE different stupidity in MySQL. I was talking about keeping "data logic" close to the data and out of the application.
Little known fact: MySQL, when using isam -- and everyone uses isam, locks out table updates during READS. MySQL is woefully inadequate is in query optimization. So, while your team is doing simple SQL select and doing further processing on the data in the application because MySQL can't or your team doesn't want to do it in the database, you are locking out writes and updates. More over, the extra data you are retrieving from the database, because you are doing additional processing and selection in the application, means you are performing more I/O on the database server, which adds to the I/O bottleneck.
Anyone who argues that MySQL has a place a real enterprise seriously lacks the experience and/or education to make such a statement. MySQL is insanely bad at being a SQL database.
But hey, if you think it is worth while, I'll be willing to debate you. I'll even let you start. Imagine you are a CTO and you are choosing a database for your web site, please write an executive summary explaining your choice and the criteria for your selection, why MySQL was a better choice than PostgreSQL, DB2, Oracle, SQLite, or Sybase. Then create a list of features and limitations of the various systems and indicate for each feature why MySQL was better or that it did not matter.
I have done this many times, MySQL has never been the right choice.
You mean, the battery location on my laptop is not appropriate ?
Not in a server environment, no.
A couple seconds of runtime should be enough to do an "emergency shutdown" and avoid data corruption.
As I said in another post, it is very much more complicated than just a few seconds.
Who the hell is talking about 5 minutes!? I'm saying you should be able to get a clean shutdown in 5 seconds if you prioritize it correctly.
I'm not sure what your system is, but for this to be a general purpose device, it needs to work within the realm of real life systems. Have you ever typed "sync" on a busy system and had it go away for a minute or more?
5 minutes is a "safe" number. It takes time to detect a power failure more than a mere "spike." You don't want to start a shut down and suddenly have the power come back on. How would you know to restart the system?
If this were a real product, it would need a hell of a lot more than just a big capacitor.
Computer power supplies should be built with enough spare capacitance to run things long enough for the computer to save critical data
Here's a question for you: Calculate the size of the capacitor needed that can hold enough power to run a 200W load for 5 minutes and maintain a voltage level within a specific usable range.
Hint: its BIG. batteries are more space efficient, but the chemicals and outgassing make them inappropriate for location INSIDE the computer box.
I remember a discussion on the PostgreSQL hacker's list about recoverability and transaction logs.
You can't make a system that will not lose data, you can only make a system that knows the last save point of 100% integrity.
There are too many variables and too much randomness on a cold hard power failure. You absolutely need a UPS that gives you time to shut down cleanly.
Sorry, it is incomprehensible that this sort of project would be started.
The problem with MySQL, to BEGIN WITH, is that it doesn't support enough SQL or the SQL it does support well enough, to construct efficient queries. What ends up happening is that you move your "data logic" to your application and out of your database. This means the database handles simpler queries, but returns more data. While these simple queries appear faster, they hit more data on the disk and actually cause the system to become I/O bound.
"Real" databases handle the "data logic" close to the data and can estimate the most efficient access to the data needed, thus REDUCING the I/O bottleneck, making more complex queries more efficient than simple queries. CPU time is virtually free with respect to data access.
Every time I see some Java, PHP, or .NET guy go off about MySQL being faster, I just shake my head. Data access is a real science grounded in math and the physical realities of actual computers and storage devices. A "good" database has YEARS of research and unless you are a god (and you are not) it will be very hard for you to beat it.
I've been in the business for about 28 years and I don't understand why software developers have this blind spot about databases. Maybe it is a "not written by me" attitude, but I just don't get it. A "good" database has so many facilities to make your data access efficient and fast as hell. Yet, most developers that I have to direct, simply refuse to learn about databases, specifically SQL. They go out of their way to write elaborate functionality in their language of choice that could have been constructed in a moderately interesting SQL query, that could be wrapped in a function and been more efficient.
The "drizzle" product is just another avoidance of an important semester of computer science that people don't want to understand and will ultimately create even more poorly designed web sites.
I'm really starting to get pissed off. Corporate America is infringing on freedoms more and more, but in insidious ways.
Challenging free speech with law suits.
Challenging freedom of "fair use" with lobbyists who write laws and get them passed.
The patent system affects our freedom of expression.
If these were invading armies, we'd get our guns and defend ourselves. With internationalization, private entities are acting more like governments with no democratic feedback.
I tell you, "patent trolls" wouldn't dare file stupid law suits if we stormed their offices and took the corporate officers as POWs.
I know this is hyperbole, but I'm also kind of serious, we need to start fighting these extra-legal entities who abuse our laws and have no personal legal responsibility.
The ACLU that bastion of fairness that it is. NOT! They have a vendetta against religion in society.
No, just violations of the 1st amendment. As an atheist, why should *my* tax dollars go to faith based anything? The government may not recognize the establishment of religion, thus should not be involved with it in any way.
Look, I don't know why you can't understand the constitution
The constitution is a document about specific ideas on the foundations of this country. Where there has been ambiguity, the supreme court has referenced contemporary documents of the authors to understand better the meaning of the words as used. John Hancock's own words were used for the interpretation of religion clause of the 1st amendment as creating a "wall of separation between church and state." No church, no religion in government. That means public places including public schools.
You are like Hitler in that respect.
Godwin violation, you lose.
Answer: Because the same being created them that way? All your evidence goes both ways.
Why would a creator do this? It makes far more sense, and it can be seen in the fossil record that we descended from a common ancestor.
It's the argument that maybe life came out of something which itself was already intelligent and ordered.
As a scientist, where is the proof? Maybe the universe was created by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," without fact, ID is no more or less relevant than the easter bunny.
Congress cannot be the thought police and they can't dictate that religion cannot be taught about in public school.
That, of course, is wrong. The 1st amendment specifically forbids "law respecting an establishment of religion," and using hogwash created by evangelical christians to get around this restrictions is wrong.
Luckily my school (Which was public) didn't take your moronic interpretation of the Constitution and did have classes about Religion and all sorts of other things people like to get their panties in a twist about.
It isn't *my* interpretation, it is *the* interpretation of the 1st amendment. If you would care to say which school is teaching ID, maybe I can pass that info to the ACLU.
I assure you that *my* public schools, should they ever try to teach ID crap, will be sued for a 1st amendment violation ASAP.
I'm sorry but what part of the first amendment are you talking about? The part that says we have a freedom of speech? Maybe the free press part? Just what are you talking about? I love when people reference the Bill of Rights and then don't even know what's in it.
As a member of the ACLU I can quote the bill of rights. The part that is important is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This passage has been interpreted, using John Hancock's supporting papers, to establish a separation of church and state.
The ID people try to wiggle around this by creating a plausible science-ish sounding religious movement.
What astounds people is how far pseudo-scientific people then expand upon that and say that basically life came out of nothing and there was no order and then bang order and no being had anything to do with the order appearing out of disorder and it was all of natural consequence.
It isn't "pseudo-science" at all, I woulkd hardly call our world "ordered," and lastly, just people are astounded doesn't make it not true. People were "astounded" that the earth wasn't in the center of the universe and it wasn't flat.
First off where to the laws of nature come from.
Why do they have to come from anywhere?
For that matter where to the laws of logic and reasoning come from.
Again, why do they have to come from anywhere?
All ID is saying is that maybe species were designed to a point where they took the shape/form/arraignment of organs etc. of the creatures we now see walking the earth and swimming the oceans.
ID is not saying "maybe" it is saying that they "are." ID offers no proof.
I personally also have a hard time with speciation happening because of evolution. In other words entirely new species popping up just because of natural selection.
News flash: The earth is round, it orbits the sun, the sun is in our galaxy. Species do not "pop up," over many thousands or millions of years, they genetically drift apart and separate.
Why are bonobos so close, genetically, to humans?
First off you need to understand that Intelligent Design is just a
Why do people, upon disagreement with another, assume the other person does not know or understand?
It may be a purpose driven argument, but the "ID" movement itself is based on evangelical christians trying to get past the first amendment.
The rapture ready link is such bunk, numerology is not statistics.
Ahh, I knew an idiot would try to promote "Irreducible complexity" it is nonsense and throughly debunked. I'm just waiting for the "watch on the beach" argument.
ID is a scam and nonsense put forth by an intellectually dishonest group of evangelical christians in an effort to preach religion in the secular classroom against the U.S. constitution.
The problem is, again, ethics. Rather than accept facts and law, they construct plausible sounding theories that less knowledgeable will accept or the cynical can use. The problem is that "plausible sounding" is not the same thing as "plausible."
The process of evolution has been proved. It is a fact that organisms change and adjust over generations to changing environments in accordance with survivability and reproduction. This has been documented and proved beyond any possible argument. The "Theory of Evolution" is the explanation of this process. "Evolution" isn't "just a theory" it is the process by which life has come to be so varied on this planet.
Charles Darwin, in the origin of species, knowing the religious implications of his work, was careful and meticulous in his research. It is a very large body of well documented work. Wehn the "ID" people can come up with real facts and not just "plausible sounding" arguments (which they can't) I'll listen.
ID is devoid of reason. It is vacant of fact or evidence. It makes no predictions and can not be verified. It is not science.
One of the things that have me worried is the ever present unintended consequences that no one every considers.
My unintended consequence is weather momentum. The weather system on this planet is a fairly will balanced machine. While global warming is affecting it, it is slowly adjusting.
Now, the CO2 has been rising, the weather patterns are adjusting creating severe weather. The jet stream and other wind currents are still fundamentally working. Now, we dump a bunch of lime into the oceans, reduce the acidity, make it a nice place for the fish (assuming their gills can still extract dissolved oxygen in the CO2 rich sea water.)
The CO2 levels drop. The atmosphere no longer holds the heat it once did. A lot of energy in the weather system is lost. What happens? Isn't this like slamming on the breaks of a moving train?
Next ice age? HUGE storms?
Can't we just plant some more trees and drive less?
May I refer to parent as Exhibit A for my GP post.
What "GP post?"
Evolution is the upstart pseudo-science with pick-and-choose evidence and no proof
There is a HUGE body of evidence to support the evolutionary process. Everything from germs acquiring resistance to antibiotics to butterflies wing color changes as an adaptation to pollution.
The process of evolution is hardly pseudo-science, indeed, it is probably the single most important scientific discovery of man. It represents a victory over religious and superstitious nonsense and an important step in understanding our place on this planet.
Genetics? Yes, of course. Evolution? No. Not one single person. Evolution, correct or incorrect, has less scientific importance than the discovery of bananas being rich in potassium.
I would submit to you that "genetics" as a science would not be possible without an understanding of the evolutionary process.
As for the "value" of studying the path of human evolution, you may say that has no value, but that view also would tend to assert that sciences like anthropology or archeology have no value either.
Someone mod parent up.
This is a very excellent statement. I agree 100%
ID does have statistics behind it and statistics are a kind of science.
If you care to post one, that's right, one credible argument that supports ID, I'll apologize and retract what I wrote. BTW: it must not be an obfuscated "god did it" argument.
No, hear me out. All a "program" is is "data" to something that interprets the data.
The whole problem with your point of view is that it is wrong. :-)
The problem is trust and predictability. It is an easy line to cross, like java script in an HTML page. I personally dislike the practice.
Computer science is a science. There are "protocols" for the proper study and practice. Not that other things are impossible, but that we understand and can predict the outcome of what we do know.
In hardware terms, this is the debate between the "Harvard Architecture" and the "Von Newman architecture." While Von Newman more or less the hardware architecture because of costs, the "Harvard Architecture" is implemented in software.
Separating "program" from "data" is an important security device. It allows you to "trust" something, the program, to safely interact with something "untrusted," the data. If there is no trusted way to interact with data, which is "untrusted," then there is no way to secure your system.
In a very real sense, separating programs from data is like wearing a bio-hazard suit while treating Ebola victims. You are the program, the Ebola victim is data. Would invite an Ebola victim into your house, unprotected, to mean your wife and kids? Of course not.
I make this point at least once a month.
There used to be an assumption of ethics. If someone was caught in a lie or fabrication, it would be shameful and cause harm to the individual or an organization. Even organizations with which you disagree would probably be telling the truth.
Those days are long gone. There isn't any effort into presenting the truth. No one cares. Everyone merely selects facts that support their position and tosses the rest. If you dare to present opposing facts, it just becomes a dispute.
Look at "intelligent design" for some reason news agencies seem to think they they deserve equal time with actual science. That is no different than putting astronomers and astrologers on equal footing. Yes, Carl Sagan said there are billions of stars, but madam Maria predicts that there only 100,000 and half of them are in retrograde until 2012. Dial in, who do you believe? 1-900-USA-fucked
There is no ethics or common sense. There is no public outcry or demand that public statements be factually accurate. We expect people to lie. We then use the lies we like to bolster our opinions based on our prejudices.
Communication is impossible when everyone is lying.