I'm assuming IS = ID Demonstrate how this is unprovable.
Evolution: the question of whether this is well supported (regarding its occurence on a macro scale) is hardly settled. Even among the rank and file of your Biology Experts. Many people have come up with proposed mechanism's but no one has been able to prove the mechanism occured. The most they can come up with is "the pieces of this mechanism exist in nature. Therefore this mechanism is a possible explanation for our existence." No one has been able to point to any definitive proof that they did occur. Only as to their relative likelihood. And no, Assuming that since life exists is proof that they did occur doesn't logically follow. You can prove life exists. You haven't been able to prove how it got here yet though. So any idea is fair game. Even if that idea can't yet be proven. I'll make you a deal: you show how Macro Scale Evolution can be proven to the same degree that gravity can. And I'll accept your argument.
Gravity is directly observable and has directly observable effects. Macro Scale Evolution in Biology does not. (just a hint: saying complex lifeforms exist doesn't count as an observable effect) We already know they exist the question is how they got here. No circular reasoning allowed. There is no fossile evidence of it. There is no observable species change occuring today.
Micro scale evolution is a whole other ballgame. It is an easily provable method of biological change. It, however, has observable limits on what it can do.
Alien Seeding: I'll agree with you there. Given the right theory it is provable with evidence. (Aliens showing up and telling about our ancestors in the stars for instance.) Of course ID is provable in roughly that same way so I guess you could say it is just about as provable.
I have challenged many many creationist/ID supporters and every single one has shut up and gone away. They dont' have any valid arguments so they use crutches like logically fallacies to argue their point. Evolution is like gravity, you can't assualt it scientifically. Your trying a more orthoganal arguement and trying to reason that it should not be taught because it is an origin theory however this doesn't make any sense. There isn't any rationale. You are argueing entirly from a politically/religiously motivated point of view and you don't care for the truth because it doesn't support your case. Should we stop teaching organic chem because it contributes to an orgin theory, how about quantum physics, statistics? geology? Eartha nd Atmospheric sciences? all of these contribute to one theory about the origin of life. Evolution also contributes but is not the whoel theory. What makes any of this non scientific? Whats yrou rationale for making such a absurd arguement?
I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument. You have in fact just proved my point. You assume that evolution can't be taught as anything other than an origin theory. If that is true then expect counter theories to be provided on origins. Whether those theories are intelligent design or a lotus blossom on an ocean. Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific. And you still haven't made an argument for it to be otherwise.
I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
Your problem isn't with "evolution as a origin theory" your problem is that you need to have god directly intervene to create people or else your religion has somewhat less meaning. You can't just say "well evolution is a origin story so it must be lumped in with other origin stories". The chinese origin story abotu a lotus blossum on the sea of the universe is a quaint story, evolution is a well supported branch of biology. Not theory, it's a whole freaking branch. It's actually the lions share of biology.
Your reading things into what I wrote. All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours. If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
Evolution explains a mechanism. This mechanism removes the need to have a "origin" story or to have direct divine intrvention. This upsets you. This does not however change anything.
Let me check.... Nope not upset. Just like a good stimulating intellectual discussion. Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one. Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it.
Again missing the point. If that was how evolution was taught in schools then there would be no problem. It isn't though. It is taught in the exact opposite fashion. Instead it goes far past that into the "lets discredit the idea of a creator" arena.
So, like I said, if you want to stray into the metaphysical in your science class don't complain if people follow you in. Regardless of how you put evolution, That is they way most curriculums put it. There is a definite bias present. If you think you can push through a trend to keep the question of origins out of your science classrooms then I wish you all the power in the world. Not much chance you'll succeed but hey go for it.
Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life" and if you intend to present it in the classroom as such then don't get upset if someone want's to present the only possible counter argument. I can see where you got confused though.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
1-here are no valid alternatives to evolution, only ID/creationism. Evolution has help up to a lot of tests, we haven't formulated anything close to be as solid as evolution. Refinements to evolution are introduced all the time but evolution stands. Just like GR isn't 100% right but it still stands as a basic accepted theory.
That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
So the only possible counterpoint is: "There is a Creator."
And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom. It belongs in a Philosophy or World religion classroom. If you are going to teach it in the Science class though, then don't use that as a convenient excuse to exclude the only possible counter argument. That's just Intellectual dishonesty. Evpolution as a non origin's study, if you can keep it that way, is perfectly acceptable in the classroom. It's not presented that way currently though, nor is there any discernable desire to do so.
The beauty of how google does business is that even if this fails to really take off at first they haven't lost a whole lot. It doesn't cost that much to offer the service and since they are basing it off Open Office and Open Standards large portions of the work of development has already taken place. This low cost of startup, means they can afford a slow adoption. Factor in the famous "its still in beta" mantra of Google offerings and they get both the first to market and the time to test and polish with all the benefits of each. Open Source has empowered companies like Google to compete in ways that Microsoft can't. Microsoft's size and Beauraucracy can't maneuver quick enough to meet the rapidly changing market. They are obviously trying to fix that. The only question becomes will they do it quick enough?
Either way their reign as software king is over. No one will be able to have that kind of position again. How do you compete with products like Open Office hanging over your head?
How on earth does that translate to loophole? It's not a loophole. Its common sense. You want to limit adoption of GPL products in the commercial sector? This is the way to do it. You can forget me ever releasing under GPL 3 if this is true.
Exactly. Like those old Man From Uncle movies and TV series. Bittorrent? nope, Gnutella? nope, eMule? Yep. Rare hard to find content is easier to find on eMule.
Walmart doesn't have anything I can't find somewhere else either. So what does that have to do with anything. Google sells a service. Services while not being a "tangible" item do have value. They charge for that value with screen realestate on your browser page. They do have a valid business model and while the stock may be overpriced that is no reason to think that there is cause for litigation or imprisonment. Show in detail how they misled the investors and I might be persuaded.
I basically look at just a few things when trying to decide what package to try:
1. does it have the features I need listed currently or are they just on the future roadmap.
2. Do they have screenshots of the app in action? Screenshots can tell you a lot about the design philosophy of the app and what features are actually implemented.
3. How much documentation is there on the App. The more actual user documentation there is the more mature and established it is (for the most part anyway).
4. Google for people using it. A strong userbase drives OSS development forward.
That will cut down the choices quite a bit. After that you really just have to try some out. It won't cost you anything if they are OSS and you can get a first hand look at the App in action.
using power point for presentations is little better than using the whiteboard. Maybe the animations make it a little better but that's about it. Did you Chem teacher incorporate Excel in his labs? How about using some of the simple chemical modelling apps out there for demonstrating basic chemical interactions. PowerPoint is the most useless and yet most pointed to demonstration of technology in the classroom. Did he _show_ the students how they will be using technology in their future? Teachers are hung up on this "how can I use technology to teach?" idea and forgetting that the real need is to show how technology is useful in real life.
Agreed but that same professor may also want you to do some homework using computer. CAD drafting or Complex calculations in an excel spreadsheet being too examples. If the teacher can't use those tools then how in the world is he going to show the students how to?
In high school there are other good examples. Take High School statistics classes. Why not have the students do a statistical analysis using Excel. There are many ways to incorporate technology into the curriculum so they learn the practical applications of the computer. It may not belong in the lecture hall but it sure as heck belongs in the curriculum for some classes.
Yes, many of the teachers don't understand what a login screen is, or why it is useful. But most of them are willing to listen to an explaination, and try to learn what it means.
If only my schools were like this. Case in point: A teacher just recently sent in three trouble tickets one right after another. After showing her how to logon three seperate times she was still hitting the cancel button on her 98 machine. Then she wondered why she couldn't access the printers or network drives. Now you would think three times would be enough but she still wasn't doing it. It's not because she hadn't been shown. It's because she treated the instruction the same way most of her students treated their homework. She didn't want to be bothered with it.
If that was an isolated incident then I could understand. But this is the norm. Like I said: A perception has to change. The teachers don't think it's their responsibility to learn and use technology. They don't employ it effectively in their curriculum and they don't want to know how to use it themselves.
I agree with some of the posters here that computers don't have a real role in the classroom but they do belong in the curriculum. And if your school requires you enter grades and attendance through a networked application then by golly you need to put forth the effort and learn how to do so. I don't care if you have been teaching there 30 years and never had to before.
I work in over 20 schools supporting their networks. Teachers may very well be dedicated to teaching but they have a remarkably low desire to learn. Tech will never benefit education till teachers are willing to embrace it. Most of them can't even logon to the schools network. The students run rings around them in the computer lab, and don't even get me started their use of computers in the curriculum.
Certification? It doesn't test anything useful that I can see. Peer review? none of their peers no what technology is good for either. There are exceptions but those just prove the rule. There is a lot of perception to change out there before technology starts to actually benefit education. Or maybe I just live in a strange alternate reality where I manage to work for a company that supports the schools with the worst teachers for technology.
I can truthefully say that I rarely get my support from a mailing list or IRC. Actually I just use google. 99.9% of the time it has the info I need and I'm intelligent enough to understand it. IT workers are paid to "think". Solve the problem. If I have to solve a windows server problem I hit the msdn website. If I have to solve a linux problem I hit google. both get me the answers I need in roughly the same amount of time. Oh and one other thing at least when I hit Linux HOWTO sites they haven't moved the content and forgotten to redirect you to the right spot. How many broken links are on msdn now? Or maybe that's just me.
Wow someone sounds bitter. Computer skills will be a necessity even for scientist type jobs. Heck many researchers write their own test software to run simulations sometimes. Teaching your kids those skills will give him an edge. Computer skills cross boundaries. Knowing how to program doesn't mean you can only use that information working for a software company. It also teaches valuable thinking skills. Knowing how to research on the web is useful anywhere.
By all means the ability to think and read and discover things out by himself is of the most importance. But that doesn't mean avoiding computers. Not even slightly. He'll need those skills later you can guarantee it.
The real question here is why did you wan't to GPL the code if you didn't already see tangible benefits to doing so. Don't get me wrong I love Open Source. I use it all the time in my job and at home. But if you don't already have tangible benefits in mind toward opens-ourcing the code then why did you want to open-source it in the first place.
Or were you asking for benefits your companies exec's would understand? That may be a trifle more difficult to expound upon since we don't even know what your company does.
Why is this a bad thing? One of the primary benefits of open source in the software economy is competition. They filled the vacuum caused by Microsofts rapid rise to the top. Even if they never rise to the top they will always be their helping to drive down prices and increase quality. Their very presence causes those companies to behave less like a monopoly and more like a competitor. Don't knock that benefit because it's huge for the consumer.
I don't usually get involved in these conversations. However everyone seems to be forgetting something. Those rough edges that got sanded off on the server side of things? It happened because some company decided to pay someone to sand them off. IBM, RedHat, Suse, and others. There will be other companies that will be willing to pay other people to sand off the rough edges on the desktop. Any Discussion about Open Source not being up to the job ignores this facet. Open Source does not automatically mean unpaid. People do and will continue to be paid to work on open source. That includes the linux desktop too. KDE and GNOME are not Linux only. Other Unix companies may decide to adopt one and help sand off it's rough edges. Or maybe a company somewhere will come up with a way to make money creating a better X-windows desktop system. The landscape of software development, marketing, and selling is changing. It's changing slowly but it is changing. The real question here is.
Prediction: No complete fossil lines delineating a full evolutionary climb crossing species lines will be found. Result: Verified up to this point
Prediction: Evidence of Massive WorldWide catastrophe can be seen in the geological record. Result: Verified
Prediction: Fossil record will show "recent" forms and "ancient forms" mixed together. Most forms present today will be present in most all strata including ancient strata. Result: Verified so far.
Those are just some off the top of my head. They don't of course form definitive proof. They do however offer partial corroborating evidence of Creation. This is really not related to the argument either though. My only point is "don't call it crackpot just because it's not your personal belief.
It's not substantive because it's totally unrelated to the argument at hand. It's a logical fallacy. It is in fact a "straw man" argument: The existence or non existence of Pink Unicorns on mars has no relation to ID.
My point was that just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it isn't stupid to believe it.
Again a "straw man" argument. For something to be classified as "stupid to believe in" it must have a "reason" for it to be stupid. Therefore you do indeed have to disprove something for it to be stupid to believe it. Now, perhaps you were intending to demonstrate that with evolution you have no "reason" or need to have ID. That perhaps would be true. Just as there is no reason or need for me to believe in Pink Unicorns on mars. That however does not prove that there are or are not Pink Unicorns on Mars. Neither does it prove that ID is not the mechanism for existence. Logic does have rules and you do have to follow them.
You most definitely were not substantive. You were however humerous
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming IS = ID Demonstrate how this is unprovable.
Evolution: the question of whether this is well supported (regarding its occurence on a macro scale) is hardly settled. Even among the rank and file of your Biology Experts. Many people have come up with proposed mechanism's but no one has been able to prove the mechanism occured. The most they can come up with is "the pieces of this mechanism exist in nature. Therefore this mechanism is a possible explanation for our existence." No one has been able to point to any definitive proof that they did occur. Only as to their relative likelihood. And no, Assuming that since life exists is proof that they did occur doesn't logically follow. You can prove life exists. You haven't been able to prove how it got here yet though. So any idea is fair game. Even if that idea can't yet be proven. I'll make you a deal: you show how Macro Scale Evolution can be proven to the same degree that gravity can. And I'll accept your argument.
Gravity is directly observable and has directly observable effects. Macro Scale Evolution in Biology does not. (just a hint: saying complex lifeforms exist doesn't count as an observable effect) We already know they exist the question is how they got here. No circular reasoning allowed. There is no fossile evidence of it. There is no observable species change occuring today.
Micro scale evolution is a whole other ballgame. It is an easily provable method of biological change. It, however, has observable limits on what it can do.
Alien Seeding: I'll agree with you there. Given the right theory it is provable with evidence. (Aliens showing up and telling about our ancestors in the stars for instance.) Of course ID is provable in roughly that same way so I guess you could say it is just about as provable.
I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument. You have in fact just proved my point. You assume that evolution can't be taught as anything other than an origin theory. If that is true then expect counter theories to be provided on origins. Whether those theories are intelligent design or a lotus blossom on an ocean. Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific. And you still haven't made an argument for it to be otherwise.
I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
Your reading things into what I wrote. All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours. If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
Let me check.... Nope not upset. Just like a good stimulating intellectual discussion. Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one. Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it.
Again missing the point. If that was how evolution was taught in schools then there would be no problem. It isn't though. It is taught in the exact opposite fashion. Instead it goes far past that into the "lets discredit the idea of a creator" arena.
So, like I said, if you want to stray into the metaphysical in your science class don't complain if people follow you in. Regardless of how you put evolution, That is they way most curriculums put it. There is a definite bias present. If you think you can push through a trend to keep the question of origins out of your science classrooms then I wish you all the power in the world. Not much chance you'll succeed but hey go for it.
Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life" and if you intend to present it in the classroom as such then don't get upset if someone want's to present the only possible counter argument. I can see where you got confused though.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
So the only possible counterpoint is: "There is a Creator."
And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom. It belongs in a Philosophy or World religion classroom. If you are going to teach it in the Science class though, then don't use that as a convenient excuse to exclude the only possible counter argument. That's just Intellectual dishonesty. Evpolution as a non origin's study, if you can keep it that way, is perfectly acceptable in the classroom. It's not presented that way currently though, nor is there any discernable desire to do so.
The beauty of how google does business is that even if this fails to really take off at first they haven't lost a whole lot. It doesn't cost that much to offer the service and since they are basing it off Open Office and Open Standards large portions of the work of development has already taken place. This low cost of startup, means they can afford a slow adoption. Factor in the famous "its still in beta" mantra of Google offerings and they get both the first to market and the time to test and polish with all the benefits of each. Open Source has empowered companies like Google to compete in ways that Microsoft can't. Microsoft's size and Beauraucracy can't maneuver quick enough to meet the rapidly changing market. They are obviously trying to fix that. The only question becomes will they do it quick enough?
Either way their reign as software king is over. No one will be able to have that kind of position again. How do you compete with products like Open Office hanging over your head?
How on earth does that translate to loophole? It's not a loophole. Its common sense. You want to limit adoption of GPL products in the commercial sector? This is the way to do it. You can forget me ever releasing under GPL 3 if this is true.
Exactly. Like those old Man From Uncle movies and TV series. Bittorrent? nope, Gnutella? nope, eMule? Yep. Rare hard to find content is easier to find on eMule.
Yes I have and pardon me if I don't share your sentiments. In fact I hold pretty much the exact opposite opinion that you do.
Walmart doesn't have anything I can't find somewhere else either. So what does that have to do with anything. Google sells a service. Services while not being a "tangible" item do have value. They charge for that value with screen realestate on your browser page. They do have a valid business model and while the stock may be overpriced that is no reason to think that there is cause for litigation or imprisonment. Show in detail how they misled the investors and I might be persuaded.
I basically look at just a few things when trying to decide what package to try:
1. does it have the features I need listed currently or are they just on the future roadmap.
2. Do they have screenshots of the app in action? Screenshots can tell you a lot about the design philosophy of the app and what features are actually implemented.
3. How much documentation is there on the App. The more actual user documentation there is the more mature and established it is (for the most part anyway).
4. Google for people using it. A strong userbase drives OSS development forward.
That will cut down the choices quite a bit. After that you really just have to try some out. It won't cost you anything if they are OSS and you can get a first hand look at the App in action.
using power point for presentations is little better than using the whiteboard. Maybe the animations make it a little better but that's about it. Did you Chem teacher incorporate Excel in his labs? How about using some of the simple chemical modelling apps out there for demonstrating basic chemical interactions. PowerPoint is the most useless and yet most pointed to demonstration of technology in the classroom. Did he _show_ the students how they will be using technology in their future? Teachers are hung up on this "how can I use technology to teach?" idea and forgetting that the real need is to show how technology is useful in real life.
Agreed but that same professor may also want you to do some homework using computer. CAD drafting or Complex calculations in an excel spreadsheet being too examples. If the teacher can't use those tools then how in the world is he going to show the students how to?
In high school there are other good examples. Take High School statistics classes. Why not have the students do a statistical analysis using Excel. There are many ways to incorporate technology into the curriculum so they learn the practical applications of the computer. It may not belong in the lecture hall but it sure as heck belongs in the curriculum for some classes.
If only my schools were like this. Case in point:
A teacher just recently sent in three trouble tickets one right after another. After showing her how to logon three seperate times she was still hitting the cancel button on her 98 machine. Then she wondered why she couldn't access the printers or network drives. Now you would think three times would be enough but she still wasn't doing it. It's not because she hadn't been shown. It's because she treated the instruction the same way most of her students treated their homework. She didn't want to be bothered with it.
If that was an isolated incident then I could understand. But this is the norm. Like I said: A perception has to change. The teachers don't think it's their responsibility to learn and use technology. They don't employ it effectively in their curriculum and they don't want to know how to use it themselves.
I agree with some of the posters here that computers don't have a real role in the classroom but they do belong in the curriculum. And if your school requires you enter grades and attendance through a networked application then by golly you need to put forth the effort and learn how to do so. I don't care if you have been teaching there 30 years and never had to before.
I work in over 20 schools supporting their networks. Teachers may very well be dedicated to teaching but they have a remarkably low desire to learn. Tech will never benefit education till teachers are willing to embrace it. Most of them can't even logon to the schools network. The students run rings around them in the computer lab, and don't even get me started their use of computers in the curriculum.
Certification? It doesn't test anything useful that I can see. Peer review? none of their peers no what technology is good for either. There are exceptions but those just prove the rule. There is a lot of perception to change out there before technology starts to actually benefit education. Or maybe I just live in a strange alternate reality where I manage to work for a company that supports the schools with the worst teachers for technology.
I can truthefully say that I rarely get my support from a mailing list or IRC. Actually I just use google. 99.9% of the time it has the info I need and I'm intelligent enough to understand it. IT workers are paid to "think". Solve the problem. If I have to solve a windows server problem I hit the msdn website. If I have to solve a linux problem I hit google. both get me the answers I need in roughly the same amount of time. Oh and one other thing at least when I hit Linux HOWTO sites they haven't moved the content and forgotten to redirect you to the right spot. How many broken links are on msdn now? Or maybe that's just me.
Wow someone sounds bitter. Computer skills will be a necessity even for scientist type jobs. Heck many researchers write their own test software to run simulations sometimes. Teaching your kids those skills will give him an edge. Computer skills cross boundaries. Knowing how to program doesn't mean you can only use that information working for a software company. It also teaches valuable thinking skills. Knowing how to research on the web is useful anywhere.
By all means the ability to think and read and discover things out by himself is of the most importance. But that doesn't mean avoiding computers. Not even slightly. He'll need those skills later you can guarantee it.
oh and this and this might also be of interest
as a matter of fact yes Not quite as complete a selection what you might find with the ReaderRabbit series but it's getting there.
The real question here is why did you wan't to GPL the code if you didn't already see tangible benefits to doing so. Don't get me wrong I love Open Source. I use it all the time in my job and at home. But if you don't already have tangible benefits in mind toward opens-ourcing the code then why did you want to open-source it in the first place.
Or were you asking for benefits your companies exec's would understand? That may be a trifle more difficult to expound upon since we don't even know what your company does.
Why is this a bad thing? One of the primary benefits of open source in the software economy is competition. They filled the vacuum caused by Microsofts rapid rise to the top. Even if they never rise to the top they will always be their helping to drive down prices and increase quality. Their very presence causes those companies to behave less like a monopoly and more like a competitor. Don't knock that benefit because it's huge for the consumer.
I don't usually get involved in these conversations. However everyone seems to be forgetting something. Those rough edges that got sanded off on the server side of things? It happened because some company decided to pay someone to sand them off. IBM, RedHat, Suse, and others. There will be other companies that will be willing to pay other people to sand off the rough edges on the desktop. Any Discussion about Open Source not being up to the job ignores this facet. Open Source does not automatically mean unpaid. People do and will continue to be paid to work on open source. That includes the linux desktop too. KDE and GNOME are not Linux only. Other Unix companies may decide to adopt one and help sand off it's rough edges. Or maybe a company somewhere will come up with a way to make money creating a better X-windows desktop system. The landscape of software development, marketing, and selling is changing. It's changing slowly but it is changing. The real question here is.
Can Microsoft change with it?
Very Well:
Prediction: No complete fossil lines delineating a full evolutionary climb crossing species lines will be found.
Result: Verified up to this point
Prediction: Evidence of Massive WorldWide catastrophe can be seen in the geological record.
Result: Verified
Prediction: Fossil record will show "recent" forms and "ancient forms" mixed together. Most forms present today will be present in most all strata including ancient strata.
Result: Verified so far.
Those are just some off the top of my head. They don't of course form definitive proof. They do however offer partial corroborating evidence of Creation. This is really not related to the argument either though. My only point is "don't call it crackpot just because it's not your personal belief.