This may be true, but as soon as programs start scanning for these tones to make use of them, software crackers will be all over it and a utility to strip the tones from the music will be released within days. Actually, even if it becomes a serious problem and these tones are screwing everyone up filesharing completely (which is unlikely), I forsee popular P2P programs integrating the stripping program to automatically strip mp3s/oggs the user is sharing.
Sigh... I just never learn. I know these arguments are completely fruitless in my head, but I can never seem to convince my fingers of that fact... But anyway, as a creationist myself, I would like to comment on this post. Oh, and forgive my crappy spelling, I'm a CS major not an English major;x
> Call me old-fashioned, but I really despise when "Intelligent Design" proponents pop up in > threads like this. "See, the number of genes to work with is so much lower than you'd expect, > so the complexity between each gene is more complex than chance would dictate. Ergo Something > had to have designed it."
First of all, I would like to point out that this post appears to have been posted in response to a nonexistant argument. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything in the above posts about this "proving" creationism. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
Secondly, no creationist with a brain will say anything similar to "OMG WE'RE SO COMPLEX THIS *PROVES* CREATION HAPPENED HAHAHA PWNED" This is because creationists and most intellegent evolutionists have both accepted one simple fact. As of right now, neither creation nor evolution is provable. Period. I personally believe that neither will ever be provable. I wasn't going to comment on this topic, but if I were to make a statement, I would say "This makes creationism even more -probable-."
> Please. I find that such distrust in the machinations of Nature itself shows us how narrow > minded these "scientists" are. "I can't understand it, so God must have done it," essentially. > This does not open the door to further research and understanding. On the contrary it closes the > door because there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".
I disagree with this. The purpose of science is not to find out how things originated, but it is to understand things. To find out how things can be used or manipulated to better mankind. That's what this whole genome thing is about, am I right? Who gives a crap about how all these genes got to be as complex as they are. The only thing genome researchers are interested in is how these genes can be manipulated to wipe out diseases, prevent birth defects, etc. That's the real goal. Thus, saying "well God must have done it" doesn't mean anything. Whether or not God directly created the human genome has no effect on our mission to actually -understand- them.
> Nature is a truly amazing thing. Evolution, Physics, Gravitation, the Stars, the Cells, > everything is absolutely beautiful. Why the need to spoil Gaia with your imaginary friend?
I find this most interesting. From the unexplainable gravitational force, to complex celluar structures, to the strict and perfect laws of physics... you see the beauty of it as well. Nature is indeed artistic masterpiece. Even though you view this masterpiece, this "Gaia", as having created itself, you too see nature as the beautiful mural that it is. You're just not willing to call the artist "God".
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, Microsoft sues you! Oh wait...
This may be true, but as soon as programs start scanning for these tones to make use of them, software crackers will be all over it and a utility to strip the tones from the music will be released within days. Actually, even if it becomes a serious problem and these tones are screwing everyone up filesharing completely (which is unlikely), I forsee popular P2P programs integrating the stripping program to automatically strip mp3s/oggs the user is sharing.
Actually Basic (VB now) still does that. But that doesn't make the concept of a single-line program any less stupid.
Sigh... I just never learn. I know these arguments are completely fruitless in my head, but I can never seem to convince my fingers of that fact... But anyway, as a creationist myself, I would like to comment on this post. Oh, and forgive my crappy spelling, I'm a CS major not an English major ;x
> Call me old-fashioned, but I really despise when "Intelligent Design" proponents pop up in
> threads like this. "See, the number of genes to work with is so much lower than you'd expect,
> so the complexity between each gene is more complex than chance would dictate. Ergo Something
> had to have designed it."
First of all, I would like to point out that this post appears to have been posted in response to a nonexistant argument. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything in the above posts about this "proving" creationism. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
Secondly, no creationist with a brain will say anything similar to "OMG WE'RE SO COMPLEX THIS *PROVES* CREATION HAPPENED HAHAHA PWNED" This is because creationists and most intellegent evolutionists have both accepted one simple fact. As of right now, neither creation nor evolution is provable. Period. I personally believe that neither will ever be provable. I wasn't going to comment on this topic, but if I were to make a statement, I would say "This makes creationism even more -probable-."
> Please. I find that such distrust in the machinations of Nature itself shows us how narrow
> minded these "scientists" are. "I can't understand it, so God must have done it," essentially.
> This does not open the door to further research and understanding. On the contrary it closes the
> door because there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".
I disagree with this. The purpose of science is not to find out how things originated, but it is to understand things. To find out how things can be used or manipulated to better mankind. That's what this whole genome thing is about, am I right? Who gives a crap about how all these genes got to be as complex as they are. The only thing genome researchers are interested in is how these genes can be manipulated to wipe out diseases, prevent birth defects, etc. That's the real goal. Thus, saying "well God must have done it" doesn't mean anything. Whether or not God directly created the human genome has no effect on our mission to actually -understand- them.
> Nature is a truly amazing thing. Evolution, Physics, Gravitation, the Stars, the Cells,
> everything is absolutely beautiful. Why the need to spoil Gaia with your imaginary friend?
I find this most interesting. From the unexplainable gravitational force, to complex celluar structures, to the strict and perfect laws of physics... you see the beauty of it as well. Nature is indeed artistic masterpiece. Even though you view this masterpiece, this "Gaia", as having created itself, you too see nature as the beautiful mural that it is. You're just not willing to call the artist "God".
Eh, close enough =p