While I feel the same - do you really think elections make a difference? Our elected officials rape us all the same, the main difference is that they employ a few PR experts to undo the damage, but as someone else said in a different thread: All we really choose is who rapes us, not if.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected, and neither of them shot any congress or judges. The whole system was based on compliance because the pressures to comply were very high, and that's the whole point.
I get so sick of this debate. This is US data from the 1950's, it makes sense to present it in the manner that it was measured. We're not talking ells here. Is it really that hard to divide by 3? Is it that hard to look up a fathom?
Nope, I agree on that.
There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system.
But I disagree on this. Yes, there is something inherently superior about the metric system. We calculate in base 10, so using a non-base-10 system for measurement means that you must convert twice to do any calculations. Substract 16 inches from 7"8'. Write down all steps of your calculation. Then substract 46 cm from 2,20 m and do the same. Compare and you see the inherent superiority.
date-based is good for continuous processes, which the development isn't and shouldn't be. From the user perspective, my primary concerns are comparisons - is this driver for my kernel version? Do I run the latest kernel version? Is this function available in my current version?
Numbers are easier to compare than dates. They are also international, while dates aren't. 07.01. means 1st of July in some countries and January 7th in others.
Major and minor numbers have their place, too. They tell me something about the amount of change. I'll update from 2.6.25 to 2.6.26 without a second thought, as I expect nothing important to have changed. I'll spend a few minutes on the Changelog when I go from 2.6 to 2.7 because I expect a couple of minor things to have changed. I know that going from 2 to 3 will be a major update and might result in all kinds of incompatabilities, so I'd better make sure all my apps are ready first.
That's why I hate MS year-based versioning system. "Word '97" tells me absolutely nothing about how it compares to '95, '96 or '98. A version number would at least tell me what the manufacturer thinks it's "worth" (even though with MS that was mostly a lie as well).
And if Linus thinks that "big" (26, yeah right) numbers are a problem for people, then dates will be as well. Quick, how many releases were between 2.6.20 and 2.6.24? Good. Now quick, how many days were between January 17 and March 11? And... how many releases?
Just try thinking of it from the company's point of view. The government orders them to hand over records. The government obviously shows a disdain for the constitution and considers anyone who stands in their way to be terrorist accomplices. What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?
Congratulations, you have just outlined very concisely why fascism worked. Because everyone made that calculations for themselves, came up with the answer that compliance is the only rational choice, and complied with a system they knew to be evil.
Well, almost everyone. The rest got killed or exiled by people who were "just following orders".
This whole thing sounds like hogwash to me. Not the facts, but the reporting. First, they take the splash damage size as the wave height, even though one sentence later it's acknowledged that wasn't the case. And two, this isn't a Tsunami at all. It's a huge wave, certainly, but it's not a Tsunami. Among other things, you don't notice Tsunamis as huge waves on a boat - that's where the whole name comes from ("big wave at the harbour") - because japanese fishermen came home from the sea, hadn't noticed anything unusual, and found the entire village devastated.
If I was stuck in jail for 10 years, I'd be doing the same thing -- sucking as MUCH money out of the system as possible, just for something to do. Plus they might let him out to shut him up.
Either that, or he's good a weird sense of humour. I could imagine that he actually enjoys the stuff, and has fun doing it.
By using the fact that they still have physical access? Resetting his password, or re-enabling other admin accounts is trivial if you can boot the target server with a recovery disk or something along those lines.
Assuming that the system was not secured against exactly this attack scenario. I've built systems that you can't get into without the proper password, boot disk or no boot disk. There's even specialized hardware on the market to protect against physical tampering.
Really? So when a program is written that doesn't require admin privileges, or needs them much less oftern, it's not going to help?
Not in this context, no. A workaround for a broken system doesn't solve the problem. On the contrary, it helps keeping the broken system around un-repaired, because it isn't that bad, after all.
You see that in security issues all the time. When the stuff breaks things horribly for everyone, it gets fixed. If it just makes things a little worse for some people, it often sticks around for months (or more) until someone bothers with a patch.
The military isn't "behind" in development - the rest of us are behind in testing and quality.
Yeah, you laugh that they use CPUs an order of magnitude slower than your notebook. But they can't afford a BSOD, a floating-point error or any of the other nonsense that you put up with every day. Their processors might be slower, but I wouldn't bet that - taking all things into account - their total productivity is.
Software quality on the "bleeding edge", where most of us live, is abysmal, and that's putting it very nicely. Regular users are beta-testers, and that's if they're lucky. There is software being sold today that shouldn't qualify as an alpha version. When's the last time you bought a game, just for an extreme example, that did not already have a patch available before the box was on sale the first day?
That's nonsense you can't afford in a billion-dollar plane with nuclear weapons on board.
Perhaps we should look at the reason why we switched to Macs or to Linux.
Because they aren't made by MS? So what you're saying is that in order for Win7 to be successful, MS should outsource it, or publish it under a non-MS name? Brilliant!
A "Gaming Mode" to disable some services? When is the last time you said "Ah, crap, my error reporting service is making me lag?"
Hands up if it has ever happened to you that while you were playing some game, windos downloads some updates in the background with one or more of the following joyful moments:
At the beginning, it pops up a box saying "new downloads available", interrupting your gameplay at a critical moment and you die.
While it's downloading, it doesn't care that you're trying to play online, and if you have any excess bandwidth, or whether it causes any lags.
When it's done downloading, it pops up another box saying "done, installing noe", interrupting your gameplay at a critical moment and you die.
When it's done installing, it pops up another box saying "done, wanna reboot?", interrupting your gameplay at a critical moment and you die.
After you're done cursing it and picking up your game, it interrupts you again every few minutes, asking if you want to reboot, each time interrupting... you know the drill.
Finally, when you were just about to go reboot just so it shuts the fuck up, but right now you're almost done killing the boss, and then right after that... you forgot to tell it to go away the last time, the (secret) timer ran out, and the piece of crap decides that no answer must mean "yes" and reboots for you. This time, at least you don't have to watch as you die, because you'll be roughly at the loading screen when it happens.
So even if "gaming mode" would only mean "don't fucking disturb me with the crap that you stupid piece of shit consider important", that alone would be a huge step forward.
Once Windows programs are written with UAC in mind, UAC won't be such a problem.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some, that is some great stuff.
UAC is fundamentally flawed, and no amount of re-working it will solve that problem. The problem being that you are asking the person with the least information, who is in the worst position to make a good decision, and who almost always has no understanding of the consequences, to make the call.
Metaphorically speaking, you're giving the red "being WW3" button to some dofus in a trailer park, tell him what the ruskies have done five minutes ago, and ask him to press or not press, right now.
Even as an expert in computer security, UAC does nothing to allow even me to make a really informed decision. It tries to dumb down an inherently non-trivial problem. With the predictable result: Experts are turned into dummies on the decision level (lack of information) while dummies remain dummies (lack of understanding).
UAC is fundamentally flawed as a concept, not as an implementation. The whole idea holds no water. The only thing it is good for - and for which Apple has the better implementation - is to inform you that something is going on that requires admin priviledges, so you can be alarmed if you didn't expect that to happen. Again, this is mostly for non-novice users who have at least a basic grasp of what should require admin privs and what shouldn't.
It seems like the low-hanging fruit would be to copy the parts of Linux and OS X where Windows is still behind.
They tried that with Vista and failed horribly. It was so obvious that even mainstream media ran laugh-at-microsoft blurbs and Apple had a field day ("widgets, gadgets, totally not the same thing").
MS has already proven they can't copy. That's because they try to "improve" things that they copy, but they don't understand them in the first place, so the "improvement" is actually not. Famous example: When they copied the first mouse-pointer (from Apple), they wanted to make it more "slick" and removed the black border. Looked slicker - until you had it on a white background when it would be invisible. There was a reason Apple had put those black border around the arrow, but MS didn't grasp it. Same with gadgets, desktop search, UAC and practically anything else.
I have karma to burn, so here's for a counterpoint:
I like it that they fight bots. As a player, bots make the game less enjoyable for me. While I think games should be built without grinding, bots provide other players with an unfair advantage, in a competitive sense. I've seen many games in which bots have destroyed the in-game economy. Where, for example, you can forget about crafting the way it was intended, because only the top 1% of craftable items sell at all, since there are so many on the market that nobody would buy anything less.
You could argue that if everyone would use bots, the playing field would be level as well. Yes, it would. It would also remove the main reason for actually playing the game, when most of it is automated. You see, maybe I would like to enjoy being just a mid-level crafter and still be able to sell my stuff? Lots of us who have jobs and wives and a real life don't have any ambitions of slugging it out with the 16-hours-a-day gamers in the top-tier PvP areas. We're quite happy with the game below level 50 (or whatever the max is), as weird as that concept might appear to some hardcore gamers who apparently consider the first 49 levels to be some kind of tutorial and a challenge to get through as quickly as possible.
But being able to enjoy gameplay at level 10 means that the stuff you can make there has to have value - for you or for others. That works when the level 20 people have better things to do with their time, and would, for example, pay the level 10s for harvesting, farming or crafting the low-level ressources they need for their level 20 stuff. If bots allow them to automatically harvest during their off time, the interplay between various levels vanishes.
No, if MS wants to have even a tiny chance of winning this geeks approval, they should include less not more features.
Don't replace UAC with something else, just remove it entirely. Kick out the browser, minesweeper and all the other non-essential bullshit feature-crap. Come up with a rock-solid core OS. Then, if you want, bundle additional crap in as extras. But prove to us just one time that you can actually still write an operating system. Not some do-everything-(but-nothing-well) moloch of shit.
Why has there got to be one "right" mindset? The world is large enough for more than one approach. If the US wants to test every new technology irrespective of the risks, let them reap the benefits - and pay the price if there is danger. More conservative regions of the planet can at the same time hold back, avoiding both the risks and the benefits of early adopters.
Why insist on experting your mindset instead of letting other people simply keep theirs?
Oh, I have absolutely no problem with distributors being distributors.
I wonder, however, why they are always exclusive. I can buy the same food, DVD player or clothes in dozens of different shops and from different distributors. In that markets, there is usually a link between distributors and shops, not distributors and producers.
Why can't I buy Spore from both EA and Sony, for example? They could package and prize it differently, or something. There's no natural law that says the channel has to be 1:1 all the way down.
I do not support ID, but there is a difference between ID and Creationism; if just a small one.
The difference is a very thin layer of paint, applied specifically so they could label it something else, claim it's not the same thing, and force it through to kids who are especially vulnerable.
Religions almost always target the weak-minded (not trying to put anyone down here, I'm serious) - the kids, the poor (who usually have no or very low education), the distressed (when your wife or husband just died, you'll be glad for any consolation, no matter what kind of totally made-up bullshit it is) and so on.
ID is the same thing.
The difference with ID, from creationism, is that it teaches that something intelligent designed life. It does not go into what intelligence.
Errr, no? I have yet to meet even a single non-christian "ID" supporter. In theory they could exist and would fit into the concept, but in real life the vast majority is outright creationists, and the rest are very close.
Of course, I could be wrong. Give me the URL of some Hindu ID supporters, or maybe of the "International Shinto Society for Intelligent Design".
(And if anyone has a favorite replacement term for "piracy," in the context of electronic copyright violation, please suggest it below.)
Well, while we're at it with the silly ones:
Monopoly Competition
Copyright is just a state-granted distribution monopoly. "Piracy" is the competition where there can be no legal one.
Yes, it's ridiculous. Or is it? When's the last time you bought a game from the developer? Mine was DEFCON, and that was at least 18 months ago. The games industry isn't that different from the music industry - a small group of large distributors holds the keys. It's not quite the same, as the roles are different, there are less developers than bands and they are often fairly large companies themselves. Also, since they are companies, the distributors often own them, instead of only practically owning them through crazy contracts.
You're probably right, though I don't know for sure, either.
Ok, tell them the Hindu version, or the Aborigines version or whatever. The point was: I guarantee that the same bible-thumping fucktards who forced this law through will come after your ass and declare in no uncertain terms that the law was definitely, absolutely, totally never ever nie und niemals designed (sorry) to protect bogus religious creation myths, except for their own, of course.
Welcome conspiracy theory, take a seat and make yourself comfortable.
A lot of very, very strange scientific theories are not exactly out of grant money and are taken seriously (even though considered false) by other scientists. The important difference is whether or not the theory is scientific. When cold fusion made its first headlines, the reaction of scientists was to attempt to reproduce the results. Only after they failed, en masse, did the ridiculing start.
ID is STILL new and coming out with testable, rational theories,
Namely?
from what I can tell, not everything was definitively disproven.
Namely?
particularly since we're still trying to figure out how everything came to be in the first place (pre-big bang or whatever).
Since evolution is a thing of the past few million years, while the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, I fail to see why they are related here. Unless, of course, on your timescale both of these events happened roughly 4000 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
While I feel the same - do you really think elections make a difference? Our elected officials rape us all the same, the main difference is that they employ a few PR experts to undo the damage, but as someone else said in a different thread: All we really choose is who rapes us, not if.
You desperately need history classes.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected, and neither of them shot any congress or judges. The whole system was based on compliance because the pressures to comply were very high, and that's the whole point.
I get so sick of this debate. This is US data from the 1950's, it makes sense to present it in the manner that it was measured. We're not talking ells here. Is it really that hard to divide by 3? Is it that hard to look up a fathom?
Nope, I agree on that.
There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system.
But I disagree on this. Yes, there is something inherently superior about the metric system. We calculate in base 10, so using a non-base-10 system for measurement means that you must convert twice to do any calculations. Substract 16 inches from 7"8'. Write down all steps of your calculation. Then substract 46 cm from 2,20 m and do the same. Compare and you see the inherent superiority.
date-based is good for continuous processes, which the development isn't and shouldn't be. From the user perspective, my primary concerns are comparisons - is this driver for my kernel version? Do I run the latest kernel version? Is this function available in my current version?
Numbers are easier to compare than dates. They are also international, while dates aren't. 07.01. means 1st of July in some countries and January 7th in others.
Major and minor numbers have their place, too. They tell me something about the amount of change. I'll update from 2.6.25 to 2.6.26 without a second thought, as I expect nothing important to have changed. I'll spend a few minutes on the Changelog when I go from 2.6 to 2.7 because I expect a couple of minor things to have changed. I know that going from 2 to 3 will be a major update and might result in all kinds of incompatabilities, so I'd better make sure all my apps are ready first.
That's why I hate MS year-based versioning system. "Word '97" tells me absolutely nothing about how it compares to '95, '96 or '98. A version number would at least tell me what the manufacturer thinks it's "worth" (even though with MS that was mostly a lie as well).
And if Linus thinks that "big" (26, yeah right) numbers are a problem for people, then dates will be as well. Quick, how many releases were between 2.6.20 and 2.6.24? Good. Now quick, how many days were between January 17 and March 11? And... how many releases?
Just try thinking of it from the company's point of view. The government orders them to hand over records. The government obviously shows a disdain for the constitution and considers anyone who stands in their way to be terrorist accomplices. What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?
Congratulations, you have just outlined very concisely why fascism worked. Because everyone made that calculations for themselves, came up with the answer that compliance is the only rational choice, and complied with a system they knew to be evil.
Well, almost everyone. The rest got killed or exiled by people who were "just following orders".
This whole thing sounds like hogwash to me. Not the facts, but the reporting. First, they take the splash damage size as the wave height, even though one sentence later it's acknowledged that wasn't the case. And two, this isn't a Tsunami at all. It's a huge wave, certainly, but it's not a Tsunami. Among other things, you don't notice Tsunamis as huge waves on a boat - that's where the whole name comes from ("big wave at the harbour") - because japanese fishermen came home from the sea, hadn't noticed anything unusual, and found the entire village devastated.
If I was stuck in jail for 10 years, I'd be doing the same thing -- sucking as MUCH money out of the system as possible, just for something to do. Plus they might let him out to shut him up.
Either that, or he's good a weird sense of humour. I could imagine that he actually enjoys the stuff, and has fun doing it.
By using the fact that they still have physical access? Resetting his password, or re-enabling other admin accounts is trivial if you can boot the target server with a recovery disk or something along those lines.
Assuming that the system was not secured against exactly this attack scenario. I've built systems that you can't get into without the proper password, boot disk or no boot disk. There's even specialized hardware on the market to protect against physical tampering.
Number one rule in IT. If i have PHYSICAL access to a system i can get in. Some way, some how.
To an insecure system, yes. To a basic, simple, primitive system, like your average desktop machine or "enterprise" server, yes.
To a high-security system: No. Simple harddisk-encryption will stop you.
Really? So when a program is written that doesn't require admin privileges, or needs them much less oftern, it's not going to help?
Not in this context, no. A workaround for a broken system doesn't solve the problem. On the contrary, it helps keeping the broken system around un-repaired, because it isn't that bad, after all.
You see that in security issues all the time. When the stuff breaks things horribly for everyone, it gets fixed. If it just makes things a little worse for some people, it often sticks around for months (or more) until someone bothers with a patch.
The military isn't "behind" in development - the rest of us are behind in testing and quality.
Yeah, you laugh that they use CPUs an order of magnitude slower than your notebook. But they can't afford a BSOD, a floating-point error or any of the other nonsense that you put up with every day. Their processors might be slower, but I wouldn't bet that - taking all things into account - their total productivity is.
Software quality on the "bleeding edge", where most of us live, is abysmal, and that's putting it very nicely. Regular users are beta-testers, and that's if they're lucky. There is software being sold today that shouldn't qualify as an alpha version. When's the last time you bought a game, just for an extreme example, that did not already have a patch available before the box was on sale the first day?
That's nonsense you can't afford in a billion-dollar plane with nuclear weapons on board.
Perhaps we should look at the reason why we switched to Macs or to Linux.
Because they aren't made by MS? So what you're saying is that in order for Win7 to be successful, MS should outsource it, or publish it under a non-MS name? Brilliant!
A "Gaming Mode" to disable some services? When is the last time you said "Ah, crap, my error reporting service is making me lag?"
Hands up if it has ever happened to you that while you were playing some game, windos downloads some updates in the background with one or more of the following joyful moments:
So even if "gaming mode" would only mean "don't fucking disturb me with the crap that you stupid piece of shit consider important", that alone would be a huge step forward.
Once Windows programs are written with UAC in mind, UAC won't be such a problem.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some, that is some great stuff.
UAC is fundamentally flawed, and no amount of re-working it will solve that problem. The problem being that you are asking the person with the least information, who is in the worst position to make a good decision, and who almost always has no understanding of the consequences, to make the call.
Metaphorically speaking, you're giving the red "being WW3" button to some dofus in a trailer park, tell him what the ruskies have done five minutes ago, and ask him to press or not press, right now.
Even as an expert in computer security, UAC does nothing to allow even me to make a really informed decision. It tries to dumb down an inherently non-trivial problem. With the predictable result: Experts are turned into dummies on the decision level (lack of information) while dummies remain dummies (lack of understanding).
UAC is fundamentally flawed as a concept, not as an implementation. The whole idea holds no water. The only thing it is good for - and for which Apple has the better implementation - is to inform you that something is going on that requires admin priviledges, so you can be alarmed if you didn't expect that to happen. Again, this is mostly for non-novice users who have at least a basic grasp of what should require admin privs and what shouldn't.
It seems like the low-hanging fruit would be to copy the parts of Linux and OS X where Windows is still behind.
They tried that with Vista and failed horribly. It was so obvious that even mainstream media ran laugh-at-microsoft blurbs and Apple had a field day ("widgets, gadgets, totally not the same thing").
MS has already proven they can't copy. That's because they try to "improve" things that they copy, but they don't understand them in the first place, so the "improvement" is actually not. Famous example: When they copied the first mouse-pointer (from Apple), they wanted to make it more "slick" and removed the black border. Looked slicker - until you had it on a white background when it would be invisible. There was a reason Apple had put those black border around the arrow, but MS didn't grasp it. Same with gadgets, desktop search, UAC and practically anything else.
So please, don't try to copy more stuff.
I have karma to burn, so here's for a counterpoint:
I like it that they fight bots. As a player, bots make the game less enjoyable for me. While I think games should be built without grinding, bots provide other players with an unfair advantage, in a competitive sense. I've seen many games in which bots have destroyed the in-game economy. Where, for example, you can forget about crafting the way it was intended, because only the top 1% of craftable items sell at all, since there are so many on the market that nobody would buy anything less.
You could argue that if everyone would use bots, the playing field would be level as well. Yes, it would. It would also remove the main reason for actually playing the game, when most of it is automated. You see, maybe I would like to enjoy being just a mid-level crafter and still be able to sell my stuff? Lots of us who have jobs and wives and a real life don't have any ambitions of slugging it out with the 16-hours-a-day gamers in the top-tier PvP areas. We're quite happy with the game below level 50 (or whatever the max is), as weird as that concept might appear to some hardcore gamers who apparently consider the first 49 levels to be some kind of tutorial and a challenge to get through as quickly as possible.
But being able to enjoy gameplay at level 10 means that the stuff you can make there has to have value - for you or for others. That works when the level 20 people have better things to do with their time, and would, for example, pay the level 10s for harvesting, farming or crafting the low-level ressources they need for their level 20 stuff. If bots allow them to automatically harvest during their off time, the interplay between various levels vanishes.
No, if MS wants to have even a tiny chance of winning this geeks approval, they should include less not more features.
Don't replace UAC with something else, just remove it entirely. Kick out the browser, minesweeper and all the other non-essential bullshit feature-crap. Come up with a rock-solid core OS. Then, if you want, bundle additional crap in as extras. But prove to us just one time that you can actually still write an operating system. Not some do-everything-(but-nothing-well) moloch of shit.
Which is the right mindset?
Why has there got to be one "right" mindset? The world is large enough for more than one approach. If the US wants to test every new technology irrespective of the risks, let them reap the benefits - and pay the price if there is danger. More conservative regions of the planet can at the same time hold back, avoiding both the risks and the benefits of early adopters.
Why insist on experting your mindset instead of letting other people simply keep theirs?
Oh, I have absolutely no problem with distributors being distributors.
I wonder, however, why they are always exclusive. I can buy the same food, DVD player or clothes in dozens of different shops and from different distributors. In that markets, there is usually a link between distributors and shops, not distributors and producers.
Why can't I buy Spore from both EA and Sony, for example? They could package and prize it differently, or something. There's no natural law that says the channel has to be 1:1 all the way down.
I do not support ID, but there is a difference between ID and Creationism; if just a small one.
The difference is a very thin layer of paint, applied specifically so they could label it something else, claim it's not the same thing, and force it through to kids who are especially vulnerable.
Religions almost always target the weak-minded (not trying to put anyone down here, I'm serious) - the kids, the poor (who usually have no or very low education), the distressed (when your wife or husband just died, you'll be glad for any consolation, no matter what kind of totally made-up bullshit it is) and so on.
ID is the same thing.
The difference with ID, from creationism, is that it teaches that something intelligent designed life. It does not go into what intelligence.
Errr, no? I have yet to meet even a single non-christian "ID" supporter. In theory they could exist and would fit into the concept, but in real life the vast majority is outright creationists, and the rest are very close.
Of course, I could be wrong. Give me the URL of some Hindu ID supporters, or maybe of the "International Shinto Society for Intelligent Design".
(And if anyone has a favorite replacement term for "piracy," in the context of electronic copyright violation, please suggest it below.)
Well, while we're at it with the silly ones:
Monopoly Competition
Copyright is just a state-granted distribution monopoly. "Piracy" is the competition where there can be no legal one.
Yes, it's ridiculous. Or is it? When's the last time you bought a game from the developer? Mine was DEFCON, and that was at least 18 months ago. The games industry isn't that different from the music industry - a small group of large distributors holds the keys. It's not quite the same, as the roles are different, there are less developers than bands and they are often fairly large companies themselves. Also, since they are companies, the distributors often own them, instead of only practically owning them through crazy contracts.
You're probably right, though I don't know for sure, either.
Ok, tell them the Hindu version, or the Aborigines version or whatever. The point was: I guarantee that the same bible-thumping fucktards who forced this law through will come after your ass and declare in no uncertain terms that the law was definitely, absolutely, totally never ever nie und niemals designed (sorry) to protect bogus religious creation myths, except for their own, of course.
Welcome conspiracy theory, take a seat and make yourself comfortable.
A lot of very, very strange scientific theories are not exactly out of grant money and are taken seriously (even though considered false) by other scientists. The important difference is whether or not the theory is scientific. When cold fusion made its first headlines, the reaction of scientists was to attempt to reproduce the results. Only after they failed, en masse, did the ridiculing start.
ID is STILL new and coming out with testable, rational theories,
Namely?
from what I can tell, not everything was definitively disproven.
Namely?
particularly since we're still trying to figure out how everything came to be in the first place (pre-big bang or whatever).Since evolution is a thing of the past few million years, while the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, I fail to see why they are related here. Unless, of course, on your timescale both of these events happened roughly 4000 years ago.
errr... yes.
Looks like I type faster than I think today. A blackberry would be just the right thing to slow down my typing... :)