It's a generational issue. Many here may be too young to remember (and it was before my time, too), but practically all the claims that are made about the evils of computer games today used to be made about Rock'n'Roll music back in the days when that was new.
Please, everyone, let us be smarter and wiser when we grow old and face whatever the new thing is going to be then.
We should replace the juvenile "pics or it didn't happen" with a more adult and badly required meme: "Sources or it's not true."
And in more depth: there are two questions here. One is: "has it?" and the other is: "is this link disputed or has it been independently repeated?"
I find our society in a very sad state regarding how we deal with easy questions. We KNOW that faith, magic, miracles, prayer, herbs and folklore don't make planes fly, computers work or factories produce stuff. We know what does. Why do we still apply methods PROVEN TO HAVE FAILED US to the questions of our life?
If I would be king of the world for one day, I would pass a meta-law making it a requirement for every new law to list in plain english the assumptions it is based on and the sources that show these assumptions to be true. That's it. No requirement for the sources to actually check or or be undisputed, I think we can sort that out ourselves, and many questions in politics are too complicated for simple solutions. But this tiny bit of evidence would reveal many of our politicians to be the gut-driven, ignorant fools they actually are. And prove to us that a random 9 year old could do most of their job.
True, a lot of the specifics depend on what exactly you are doing.
Still you can do parts. Even if you have fixed office hours during which people at the office expect you to be online, you can have your pets in your home office and enjoy their company, for example. I never realized how uplifting the company of my pets is until I started spending most of my day at home.
You can still do your grocery shopping, except that you do it during lunch break, for example.
My main point wasn't on the details, but on trying to make the most of the situation instead of slavishly trying to emulate the office as close as possible. If all you are doing is making things exactly like they are in the office, you are certainly better off simply going to the office.
Everyone seems to be telling you to act as if you wouldn't be working from home. If that is so, then what's the point?
I'm currently running my (small) company from home. It was founded recently, so it's too early to say if I'm doing this all wrong or all right, but here's my experience so far:
Do take advantage of this style of working. I absolutely enjoy being able to have breakfast and lunch when I feel hungry and not when the clock says it's the time and my co-workers are waiting for me at the usual place. I enjoy the company of my pets - lots better having them there in person than having photographs on your desk. Children might be more difficult to stuff back into the cage after a few minutes of raising your spirits, so you may want to develop a protocol, but if you have any, they are probably one of the reasons you are working your ass off, so do what you couldn't do at the office - at the very least, have lunch with your family or something.
Do enjoy the flexibility. Doing grocery shopping during the day, when the shops are empty, is so much more relaxing compared to doing it in the evening when everyone does it after work (YMMV depending on how shops are open in your place).
Keep time. Software or good old watch, doesn't matter, but keep a record of the time you actually spend working. This will help you much, much more in keeping in line than some arbitrary "working hours". And it will help you in both directions, stopping you not only from working too little, but also from working too much.
My personal opinion is that pretending that it's just like work at the office isn't the best way to do it. The number of comments advising it suggest that it is definitely a workable way. Still, there is quite a bit of potential for making it better than work at the office, at least in some respects.
Our ancestors often didn't have any seperation between work and private life. If you are a farmer or something like that, that is still pretty much the case today. Then again, your job probably doesn't feed you and doesn't have the same kind of immediacy and direct meaning. Still, it's a point to think about when people tell you to keep the two strictly seperated.
The base station would essentially be a router - no content on it, neither legal nor illegal. The court case for taking it down would be very interesting indeed, and might get some big players (backbone providers or anyone else running routers for a living) worried enough to chip in on the defending side.
Your distorted view is one reason why you really should learn more about the law.
Criminal law is but one small part of the law, and crimes with prison sentences an even smaller part of that. Now I understand why someone from the US - which has turned prisons into a commercial enterprise forgetting that all for-profit entities share one goal: Growth - would have this distorted view. But that doesn't make it right.
Law is a cornerstone of civilization. Law governs commerce. Law is what allows me to buy something in a store without doing my own background check on the owner or his business. Law is what allows me to sign a contract with someone I don't know. Law is what guarantees me that the house I buy really is mine and that I will get my salary at the end of the month. Law allows me to buy food without being an expert on spotting overdue product.
No, that's the one thing trolling idiots like you can't do. Can't take the risk of not getting that ego boost you get when you hit "submit" and get for one second the opportunity to think positive about yourself.:-)
Oh please. Look at the number of idiots on here who don't "believe" in climate change,
I didn't say that there is no other way towards being an idiot. However, simple stupidity can explain a lot. No need to get out the conspiracy theories if the simple fact that humans act like humans explains the phenomenon.
There is certainly plenty of incidental evidence of strange 'esp' type events with people.
incidental being the keyword here. Show me some real evidence. No, wait, show it to James Randi and get a check over $1,000,000
In my opinion,
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Also, people like me will ridicule you if your opinion is not based on facts.
we are likely to find that the mind is sensitive to quantum mechanics,
I've read books about quantum mechanics and the mind, from actual experts in those actual fields. While their theories are fascinating and quite a bit more out-there than most of the esoteric bullshit peddlers can even imagine, none of it hints at ESP or anything even remotely like it.
You might want to considerably boost up your science knowledge before you throw terms like "quantum mechanics" around. Do you even know what it is? Precisely? What does the "mechanic" part refer to, exactly? Or is it just a term you use because "magic" isn't en vogue anymore?
Actually, it is. The law makes a difference between taking something from someone with the intent of keeping it for yourself, and just taking it out of their hands and immediately dumping it somewhere else. If you smoke in a non-smoking zone and I take the damn cigarette out of your hands and toss it on the floor, that is legally not a theft. You could probably sue me for the 20 cents or so it is worth (though the counter-suit for smoking in a non-smoking area would spoil your victory). Ok, in the USA you could also sue me for $25 mio. for emotional damage or something.
Anyways, the law makes fine differences. Geeks, you need to be more proud of the law, it is much more geeky than most of us think.
Every sentence with an all-quantor is always wrong.;-)
Slides are sometimes useful. Most presentations would be twice as good if the one preparing it would've put more time into the content and less time into animations and clip-art.
The idea behind slides is sound, and you are right that providing material for multiple senses is a good strategy. However, the implementation of slides is usually somewhere between horrible and abysmal.
Unless you already can give great presentations, chances are you'll be the ten millionth idiot who puts up a wall of text and proceeds to read it to the audience.
Good slides augment the talk, they don't replace it. Good slides provide visuals that are informative, but not distractive. Good slides contain that part of the content that is more effectively transported visually than by speech. Good slides are maybe 1% of the slides in existence.
As such, statistically speaking, dropping powerpoint has a very high chance of dramatically improving any randomly selected presentation.
You don't have to be crazy. Uncritical or uneducated is enough. Keep in mind that the amount of logical and mathematical education most of the/. audience have is not representative for the general population.
There are a couple proven psychological traps at work here, such as confirmation bias, our inability to correctly estimate non-trivial probabilities, and more.
What do you think he wanted the audience to remember?
Probably not the dance. So mission failed.
Being entertaining is the point if you are in the entertainment business. Otherwise, be entertaining enough that the audience enjoys the presentation, but keep it subtle enough that it doesn't overshadow the content you are trying to bring across.
First thing you do is drop powerpoint. Don't start it up and open an empty presentation and then start to think what to put on the slides.
Work without slides. Focus on what you want to say. If there are diagrams, etc. - anything halfway complicated - make a handout instead of slides, because people won't remember the slides anyways, but they can take the handout with them and keep it as reference.
There are some cases, such as a demo or a walkthrough, where slides are useful, but most presentations can do entirely without, if only they were more interesting.
If you have something to say, you're already halfway there to an interesting presentation. If you are just giving a presentation because you were asked, and you think your topic boring yourself, then you need to get to the "something to say" step first. Find out what makes your job interesting. There must be something, or you wouldn't be doing it.
A good presentation doesn't try to say everything about its subject matter. It concentrates on the interesting, cool and/or important stuff and only hints at the fact that there's so much more.
I personally think that programming languages are a lot like medicine.
Your new language doesn't just have to solve a problem or two that you see with programming language, it has to do it better than existing languages while having less "side-effects" (quirks, difficulty, weaknesses).
If the advantages it provides aren't big enough to cover the costs (like learning a new language, using a new compiler, writing plugins to syntax-highlighting, etc. etc.) then they simply don't matter.
But based on your criteria your argument is solid.
So let's follow it through then.
Your friend gives you his hard drive after filling it up with copies of LotR. Say it fits 1000 copies. Now that harddrive is worth $40,000 - seriously?
You copy the entire drive. Have you really just created $40,000 worth of goods? Out of what? Out of nothing?
We could solve the entire financial crisis by making enough copies of LotR if this argument were solid.
Suppose you have a third friend
That is not the same argument anymore. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of the item. Not some kind of arbitrary wage/hour equivalent. Your argument is nonsense, economically. I could spend 5 hours staring at the wall. Does that change the value of the wall, because I could've spent my time otherwise? No, of course not. How you spend your time doesn't change the value of the things you spend it with. The item of value is the time spent, not the method of spending it.
But the most important error in your argument is the word "transferred". Because that is exactly where the whole issue is. If your friend downloads something from your FTP server, the value does not get transferred. Transfer implies that something moves from me to you, i.e. before the transfer, I have it and you don't and after the transfer you have it and I don't. But that's not the case with digital copies. After copying, you have it and I also still have it.
And that's the trouble with assigning value to copies. If the copy has any value at all, then creating a copy creates value.
Digitial copying - and that is why this action of sending images of bills is so brilliant - destroys the relationship between value and money. We realize that they are not the same. No matter how you twist it, you have a problem - until you realize that "value" does not mean $$$ by necessity. Your friend making a copy of one of your files does indeed create value, but it does not create wealth.
Of course, the harddrive from above is not worth $40,000 because it contains only one movie worth $40, so the value of the drive (ignoring the hardware) is $40 because it contains one movie - no matter in how many copies.
A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.
Has it?
Thought experiment:
You own 1 DVD Set "Lord of the Rings Trilogy". Let's give it a value of $50. If this is your only posession (for this thought experiment), you own goods worth $50.
If I give you another identical DVD Set, you now own goods worth $100. If I give you 2 more, your posessions are now worth $200.
Your friend has a digital copy of the same DVD Set. How much is it worth? Following your argument, it is worth almost the same, so let's say $40.
#~ cp -r Lord_of_the_Rings LotR2
He now has two copies on his drive. According to your argument, their combined value is now $80. If he does that twice more he now owns movies worth $160.
AT&T promised something they didn't deliver. That's the case he brought and won. His tethering or not does not change the fact of AT&T failing to provide the advertised service.
Of course they are. You use words, a dictionary attack is the obvious weapon of choice, and of course it will fall.
The question is not if, the question is when. A good multi-word password (which according to my own calculations should have four words) has a searchspace as large as an 8-character password following one of the standard password policies. More importantly, it does not degrade as badly. What your password policy works out to on paper is one thing, what your users make of it is an entirely different thing.
In fact, it's horrible. Mathematically, your average password policy has a complexity on the order of 10^16. However, considering psychological factors and typical user preferences as we know them, the actual complexity is somewhere near 10^7. That's ridiculous from a security POV.
A four-words passphrase, however, degrades from a theoretical 10^18 down to 10^12 in a worst-case estimate. That's a better overall result and less degradation.
This is America, right? Land of the free and all that?
Instead of whining to the courts (aren't all the christian right nutjobs for less government involvement?) he should grow some balls and go and prove that he's right in the true american (capitalist) way:
Start up his own company. Beat NASA at their own game. Prove them that he is right and they are wrong.
In other words: Build rockets based on faith, propelled by belief and guided by god.
When he successfully lands a rover on Mars where all the parts are based solely on faith and reject science in every design principle, I will immediately convert to christianity.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, it isn't. And to say that is a strong clue that you haven't understood either.
Evolution does answer the why. Soundly, profoundly and finally. The answer is that there is no why. That's a bit tricky for us humans to wrap our heads around, because our brains are wired to look for agents, and thus intent, in our environment.
ID and evolution don't mix because evolution denies ID the basic assumption it needs to work at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a generational issue. Many here may be too young to remember (and it was before my time, too), but practically all the claims that are made about the evils of computer games today used to be made about Rock'n'Roll music back in the days when that was new.
Please, everyone, let us be smarter and wiser when we grow old and face whatever the new thing is going to be then.
The important question is: Has it?
We should replace the juvenile "pics or it didn't happen" with a more adult and badly required meme: "Sources or it's not true."
And in more depth: there are two questions here. One is: "has it?" and the other is: "is this link disputed or has it been independently repeated?"
I find our society in a very sad state regarding how we deal with easy questions. We KNOW that faith, magic, miracles, prayer, herbs and folklore don't make planes fly, computers work or factories produce stuff. We know what does. Why do we still apply methods PROVEN TO HAVE FAILED US to the questions of our life?
If I would be king of the world for one day, I would pass a meta-law making it a requirement for every new law to list in plain english the assumptions it is based on and the sources that show these assumptions to be true. That's it. No requirement for the sources to actually check or or be undisputed, I think we can sort that out ourselves, and many questions in politics are too complicated for simple solutions. But this tiny bit of evidence would reveal many of our politicians to be the gut-driven, ignorant fools they actually are. And prove to us that a random 9 year old could do most of their job.
True, a lot of the specifics depend on what exactly you are doing.
Still you can do parts. Even if you have fixed office hours during which people at the office expect you to be online, you can have your pets in your home office and enjoy their company, for example. I never realized how uplifting the company of my pets is until I started spending most of my day at home.
You can still do your grocery shopping, except that you do it during lunch break, for example.
My main point wasn't on the details, but on trying to make the most of the situation instead of slavishly trying to emulate the office as close as possible. If all you are doing is making things exactly like they are in the office, you are certainly better off simply going to the office.
Everyone seems to be telling you to act as if you wouldn't be working from home. If that is so, then what's the point?
I'm currently running my (small) company from home. It was founded recently, so it's too early to say if I'm doing this all wrong or all right, but here's my experience so far:
Do take advantage of this style of working. I absolutely enjoy being able to have breakfast and lunch when I feel hungry and not when the clock says it's the time and my co-workers are waiting for me at the usual place.
I enjoy the company of my pets - lots better having them there in person than having photographs on your desk. Children might be more difficult to stuff back into the cage after a few minutes of raising your spirits, so you may want to develop a protocol, but if you have any, they are probably one of the reasons you are working your ass off, so do what you couldn't do at the office - at the very least, have lunch with your family or something.
Do enjoy the flexibility. Doing grocery shopping during the day, when the shops are empty, is so much more relaxing compared to doing it in the evening when everyone does it after work (YMMV depending on how shops are open in your place).
Keep time. Software or good old watch, doesn't matter, but keep a record of the time you actually spend working. This will help you much, much more in keeping in line than some arbitrary "working hours". And it will help you in both directions, stopping you not only from working too little, but also from working too much.
My personal opinion is that pretending that it's just like work at the office isn't the best way to do it. The number of comments advising it suggest that it is definitely a workable way. Still, there is quite a bit of potential for making it better than work at the office, at least in some respects.
Our ancestors often didn't have any seperation between work and private life. If you are a farmer or something like that, that is still pretty much the case today. Then again, your job probably doesn't feed you and doesn't have the same kind of immediacy and direct meaning. Still, it's a point to think about when people tell you to keep the two strictly seperated.
Attacking a vessel in international waters would probably be actual piracy...
The base station would essentially be a router - no content on it, neither legal nor illegal. The court case for taking it down would be very interesting indeed, and might get some big players (backbone providers or anyone else running routers for a living) worried enough to chip in on the defending side.
Your distorted view is one reason why you really should learn more about the law.
Criminal law is but one small part of the law, and crimes with prison sentences an even smaller part of that. Now I understand why someone from the US - which has turned prisons into a commercial enterprise forgetting that all for-profit entities share one goal: Growth - would have this distorted view. But that doesn't make it right.
Law is a cornerstone of civilization. Law governs commerce. Law is what allows me to buy something in a store without doing my own background check on the owner or his business. Law is what allows me to sign a contract with someone I don't know. Law is what guarantees me that the house I buy really is mine and that I will get my salary at the end of the month. Law allows me to buy food without being an expert on spotting overdue product.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No, that's the one thing trolling idiots like you can't do. Can't take the risk of not getting that ego boost you get when you hit "submit" and get for one second the opportunity to think positive about yourself. :-)
Newsflash: Hot girls don't fall for losers who change their opinions on a whim and can't stand up for themselves.
That doesn't mean you need to be an asshole. There's a middle ground.
Oh please. Look at the number of idiots on here who don't "believe" in climate change,
I didn't say that there is no other way towards being an idiot. However, simple stupidity can explain a lot. No need to get out the conspiracy theories if the simple fact that humans act like humans explains the phenomenon.
There is certainly plenty of incidental evidence of strange 'esp' type events with people.
incidental being the keyword here. Show me some real evidence. No, wait, show it to James Randi and get a check over $1,000,000
In my opinion,
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Also, people like me will ridicule you if your opinion is not based on facts.
we are likely to find that the mind is sensitive to quantum mechanics,
I've read books about quantum mechanics and the mind, from actual experts in those actual fields. While their theories are fascinating and quite a bit more out-there than most of the esoteric bullshit peddlers can even imagine, none of it hints at ESP or anything even remotely like it.
You might want to considerably boost up your science knowledge before you throw terms like "quantum mechanics" around. Do you even know what it is? Precisely? What does the "mechanic" part refer to, exactly? Or is it just a term you use because "magic" isn't en vogue anymore?
This is no different than pick pocketing someone.
Actually, it is. The law makes a difference between taking something from someone with the intent of keeping it for yourself, and just taking it out of their hands and immediately dumping it somewhere else. If you smoke in a non-smoking zone and I take the damn cigarette out of your hands and toss it on the floor, that is legally not a theft. You could probably sue me for the 20 cents or so it is worth (though the counter-suit for smoking in a non-smoking area would spoil your victory). Ok, in the USA you could also sue me for $25 mio. for emotional damage or something.
Anyways, the law makes fine differences. Geeks, you need to be more proud of the law, it is much more geeky than most of us think.
You need to look up words you don't understand before using them, such as "sane".
Slides are always useful
Every sentence with an all-quantor is always wrong. ;-)
Slides are sometimes useful. Most presentations would be twice as good if the one preparing it would've put more time into the content and less time into animations and clip-art.
The idea behind slides is sound, and you are right that providing material for multiple senses is a good strategy. However, the implementation of slides is usually somewhere between horrible and abysmal.
Unless you already can give great presentations, chances are you'll be the ten millionth idiot who puts up a wall of text and proceeds to read it to the audience.
Good slides augment the talk, they don't replace it.
Good slides provide visuals that are informative, but not distractive.
Good slides contain that part of the content that is more effectively transported visually than by speech.
Good slides are maybe 1% of the slides in existence.
As such, statistically speaking, dropping powerpoint has a very high chance of dramatically improving any randomly selected presentation.
You don't have to be crazy. Uncritical or uneducated is enough. Keep in mind that the amount of logical and mathematical education most of the /. audience have is not representative for the general population.
There are a couple proven psychological traps at work here, such as confirmation bias, our inability to correctly estimate non-trivial probabilities, and more.
What do you think he wanted the audience to remember?
Probably not the dance. So mission failed.
Being entertaining is the point if you are in the entertainment business. Otherwise, be entertaining enough that the audience enjoys the presentation, but keep it subtle enough that it doesn't overshadow the content you are trying to bring across.
First thing you do is drop powerpoint. Don't start it up and open an empty presentation and then start to think what to put on the slides.
Work without slides. Focus on what you want to say. If there are diagrams, etc. - anything halfway complicated - make a handout instead of slides, because people won't remember the slides anyways, but they can take the handout with them and keep it as reference.
There are some cases, such as a demo or a walkthrough, where slides are useful, but most presentations can do entirely without, if only they were more interesting.
If you have something to say, you're already halfway there to an interesting presentation. If you are just giving a presentation because you were asked, and you think your topic boring yourself, then you need to get to the "something to say" step first. Find out what makes your job interesting. There must be something, or you wouldn't be doing it.
A good presentation doesn't try to say everything about its subject matter. It concentrates on the interesting, cool and/or important stuff and only hints at the fact that there's so much more.
I personally think that programming languages are a lot like medicine.
Your new language doesn't just have to solve a problem or two that you see with programming language, it has to do it better than existing languages while having less "side-effects" (quirks, difficulty, weaknesses).
If the advantages it provides aren't big enough to cover the costs (like learning a new language, using a new compiler, writing plugins to syntax-highlighting, etc. etc.) then they simply don't matter.
But based on your criteria your argument is solid.
So let's follow it through then.
Your friend gives you his hard drive after filling it up with copies of LotR. Say it fits 1000 copies. Now that harddrive is worth $40,000 - seriously?
You copy the entire drive. Have you really just created $40,000 worth of goods? Out of what? Out of nothing?
We could solve the entire financial crisis by making enough copies of LotR if this argument were solid.
Suppose you have a third friend
That is not the same argument anymore. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of the item. Not some kind of arbitrary wage/hour equivalent. Your argument is nonsense, economically. I could spend 5 hours staring at the wall. Does that change the value of the wall, because I could've spent my time otherwise? No, of course not. How you spend your time doesn't change the value of the things you spend it with. The item of value is the time spent, not the method of spending it.
But the most important error in your argument is the word "transferred". Because that is exactly where the whole issue is. If your friend downloads something from your FTP server, the value does not get transferred. Transfer implies that something moves from me to you, i.e. before the transfer, I have it and you don't and after the transfer you have it and I don't. But that's not the case with digital copies. After copying, you have it and I also still have it.
And that's the trouble with assigning value to copies. If the copy has any value at all, then creating a copy creates value.
Digitial copying - and that is why this action of sending images of bills is so brilliant - destroys the relationship between value and money. We realize that they are not the same. No matter how you twist it, you have a problem - until you realize that "value" does not mean $$$ by necessity. Your friend making a copy of one of your files does indeed create value, but it does not create wealth.
Of course, the harddrive from above is not worth $40,000 because it contains only one movie worth $40, so the value of the drive (ignoring the hardware) is $40 because it contains one movie - no matter in how many copies.
A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.
Has it?
Thought experiment:
You own 1 DVD Set "Lord of the Rings Trilogy". Let's give it a value of $50.
If this is your only posession (for this thought experiment), you own goods worth $50.
If I give you another identical DVD Set, you now own goods worth $100.
If I give you 2 more, your posessions are now worth $200.
Your friend has a digital copy of the same DVD Set. How much is it worth? Following your argument, it is worth almost the same, so let's say $40.
#~ cp -r Lord_of_the_Rings LotR2
He now has two copies on his drive. According to your argument, their combined value is now $80.
If he does that twice more he now owns movies worth $160.
Or does he?
I for one wonder why he won
Because the matters are unrelated.
AT&T promised something they didn't deliver. That's the case he brought and won. His tethering or not does not change the fact of AT&T failing to provide the advertised service.
Of course they are. You use words, a dictionary attack is the obvious weapon of choice, and of course it will fall.
The question is not if, the question is when. A good multi-word password (which according to my own calculations should have four words) has a searchspace as large as an 8-character password following one of the standard password policies. More importantly, it does not degrade as badly. What your password policy works out to on paper is one thing, what your users make of it is an entirely different thing.
In fact, it's horrible. Mathematically, your average password policy has a complexity on the order of 10^16. However, considering psychological factors and typical user preferences as we know them, the actual complexity is somewhere near 10^7. That's ridiculous from a security POV.
A four-words passphrase, however, degrades from a theoretical 10^18 down to 10^12 in a worst-case estimate. That's a better overall result and less degradation.
So, in other words Windows 8 is a user-acceptance test at the full price of an OS?
He's not totally nuts, that certainly has a ring of familiarity to it when it comes to MS.
This is America, right? Land of the free and all that?
Instead of whining to the courts (aren't all the christian right nutjobs for less government involvement?) he should grow some balls and go and prove that he's right in the true american (capitalist) way:
Start up his own company.
Beat NASA at their own game.
Prove them that he is right and they are wrong.
In other words: Build rockets based on faith, propelled by belief and guided by god.
When he successfully lands a rover on Mars where all the parts are based solely on faith and reject science in every design principle, I will immediately convert to christianity.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, it isn't. And to say that is a strong clue that you haven't understood either.
Evolution does answer the why. Soundly, profoundly and finally. The answer is that there is no why. That's a bit tricky for us humans to wrap our heads around, because our brains are wired to look for agents, and thus intent, in our environment.
ID and evolution don't mix because evolution denies ID the basic assumption it needs to work at all.