"Well, when the normal resolution of an laptop or an desktop computer is 1024x768, a 320x480 compared to that is minimal"
A desktop or laptop computer is not a mobile phone, so this statement is as specious as me claiming that laptop and desktop computers have minimal resolution because IMAX cinemas are 10000x7000.
"The point here is that the normal content is too large."
And normal IMAX content is too large for laptop and desktop computers. There is a simple reason for this: laptop and desktop computers aren't cinemas.
"The iPhones displays web content by scaling it down"
This is due to the small size of the display, not its resolution. It could be capable of IMAX 10000x7000 and they'd still have to scale it because people with normal vision wouldn't be able to read the text on a web page that was displayed in its entirety on a 3.5" diagonal display.
"And to add in the end. Every post I have read about iPhone has too felt like reading an ad."
You must be reading a very limited subset of posts, because I've seen more negative or neutral ones than positive ones. Your post however went further into Adsville than anything I've seen by even the rabid Apple fans who crawl out of the woodwork whenever Slashdot has a vaguely Apple-connected topic, and this one contains a whole load more of the same, e.g:
"It really is incredible, you should try new Nokia phones and see yourself how long way they have come just in few years."
It's also incredible how people who write stuff like this can seriously expect us to believe aren't Nokia astroturfers.
"Right, because evidence that they are corrupt is totally 100% visible to everyone in the country?"
The only US legislator that's elected by the country is the President. All the others represent people who live in a specific are, and can only be elected by people who live in that area, and there's a great deal of evidence that's both locally and generally available to indicate that some who are constantly re-elected have been shills to various corporate interests for decades.
"Not everyone starts out corrupt either"
This has no relevance whatsoever to the phenomenon of people re-electing them after they are known to be corrupt.
"Why is that the threat that the smartphone presents to corporate security doesn't grab headlines until Apple makes a phone?"
Because boring articles with no useful content in them can get web hits by riding the coat-tails of the Apple buzz machine.
Headline: "Analysts Speculate That Smart Phones Have Potential Security Flaws Because They Run Software".
Result: I wonder if there are any singing dogs on YouTube.
Headline: "Analysts Claim iPhone Is A Potential Security Risk"
Result: click through lots of ad-laden pages with half a paragraph on each to discover that it's the same tripe that analysts spout about every topic they deal with.
"Remember that Apple XServe thing a while back? I think that's what it was called. How did that end up doing?"
They're are still selling them, and still updating both the hardware and OS, so there must be a market for them somewhere.
"I only ever saw one"
That seals it then: you only saw one, therefore nobody uses them.
"I have friends who work in large enterprise IT shops, and they all agree Apple products simply do not cut the mustard."
And your friends can obviously give plenty of specific examples detailing the ways that, after evaluating them, said "Apple products" (no specifics given, just anything from Apple) do not "cut the mustard".
"As someone else said earlier, they understand marketing very very well. And as such they're able to dominate the consumer market."
Apple do not dominate the consumer market in anything except portable media players, and that's mostly because the competition when the iPod was launched didn't make an equivalent device that anybody except geeks wanted.
"But for all they understand about the consumer market, they're still relatively clueless when it comes to the needs of businesses."
Are they? Please elucidate...
"Apple, stick to what you're good at - making toys."
And leave the serious business to you and your friends.
" the interface is not that good (for example, the lack of MDI can be really confusing; another example: the dock makes me search all the time for the items I want)."
In other words, you expected it to be like Windows but better, and found out that it wasn't Windows at all.
"I don't like how dismissive Hawking is of people who claim to have seen aliens"
He would I think place them in the same category as people who claim to have seen fairies, mermaids, or angels.
"If you're gonna allow for aliens in your world view... or rather universe view..., then I think you have to entertain the possibility that some of the sightings could be real."
It is indeed _possible_ that they are true, but then it's _possible_ that sightings of fairies and angels are true as well, especially given the fact that witnesses of supernatural beings can offer exactly the same amount of supporting evidence as those who say they've seen aliens.
"Consider that an advanced civilisation one of it's major achievements would be the elimination of old age."
Unless of course it is populated by organisms with naturally long life spans. There are many examples on Earth, and while none of them could remotely be described as intelligent, the fact that they exist at all here means that there's no reason to think that alien intelligences would have life spans remotely like our own, or that those with similar (or shorter) ones would share our obsession with extending them.
"Here is the deal. Any civilization advanced enough to travel those long distances (or through time) would be sufficiently advanced to simulate any information (on computers) they need to inquire about any species or observe them without even entering the atmosphere (deep scanning)."
You are assuming that (a) their life spans and perception of time are sufficiently similar to ours that (for example) taking hundreds of thousands of years to cross interstellar space wouldn't be acceptable to them; and (b) that being more advanced in one set of related technologies equates to being more advanced in all other technologies, despite the fact that human history is filled with cases where this is demonstrably untrue.
"But my theory is that any species sufficiently advanced to travel those long distances would either come for conquering or liberation and enlightenment (depending on how you view it)."
And my theory is that anyone who comes up with theories which attribute even remotely human motivations to alien intelligences has been watching far too much of what TV and movie producers say is "science fiction".
"Anyways... As soon as humans get the ability to colonize how well do you think we'll adhere to the respects of other species?"
What makes you think that the places alien intelligences might evolve in would be ones that humans would want to colonise? If we accept the possibility of intelligent alien life forms, we must also accept the possibility that intelligence evolving on the surface of an Earth-like planet could be extremely rare, with most of the others having been produced by circumstances that wouldn't result in any competition between them and us for space or resources.
"It only means either all other species are not interested in colonization, no other races have reached the technological level of space or time travel, or we are alone."
It could also mean that they haven't discovered it (our galaxy is a big place, and there are many, many galaxies), or evolved in circumstances that make them discount the surface of the Earth (or maybe even planets in general) as capable of supporting life. An intelligent species that evolved on the surface of a neutron star for example would be likely to look for life on other neutron stars, so they'd have no reason whatsoever for visiting our solar system, let alone our planet.
"I suspect we just might be the first because as soon as a human like race actually figures out how to spread out planet to planet, its only a matter of time it will seek to colonize and conform the entire galaxy to its needs regardless of what other species things."
I on the other hand suspect that the specific set of cataclysms and other accidents that shaped life on this planet is so unlikely to occur elsewhere that the probability of any alien intelligences being even remotely human-like is effectively nil.
Read a little about brane cosmology for just one example of why it is, as I said, a gross oversimplification.
"Sure it would have to be extremely complex. But that is irrelevant when we are talking about the evolution of what we know and this complex inteligence is relative to a worlds we don't know."
I have already responded with a dictionary definition of supernatural to show why this assertion, while not impossible, is not science (clue: science is entirely concerned with, and restricted to nature, and leaves supernatural matters to theologians and philosophers).
"Maybe I can illustrate this point a little better."
I fail to see how (a) this makes anything whatsoever clear, or (b) has any relevance to ID whatsoever. If you wanted an ID analogy using the same actors, then you should have written something like this:
A scientist sets up an experiment to falsify a theory. The janitor messes with his control, so the experimental and control data end up being the same. Having discovered the janitorial tampering, our scientist therefore repeats the same experiment in a locked laboratory monitored by closed-circuit TV, trip-laser alarms, etc., and gets identical results. He does this over and over with ever more elaborate security measures, but still finds no difference between the control and the experiments. There are two possible conclusions he can draw from this:
1) Science: his theory is wrong. 2) ID: having observed that an experiment was once tampered with by a janitor, he formulates a hypothesis which he calls "Intelligent Tampering" which states that all his experimental results (or rather, the lack of them) can be explained by janitors. When other scientists ask how this can be true if no janitors can enter the laboratory, none were ever detected within it, and there were no physical signs of tampering, he first says that the nature of the janitors is irrelevant, but when pushed claims this can be explained by a special type of undetectable janitor who can pass through solid objects and influence experiments without touching them. This is, he says, a scientific theory because nobody can disprove it.
"Yes, they can frame the debate. If I said the light is green at 9 am every Tuesday, you can't say but it is red on Friday so you are wrong. If you wish to challenge my statements, you need to keep your responses within the confines of my statement."
I'm not asking you whether the traffic light is red though, but whether it existed at all when you said it was red, and if so, what type of traffic light it is. There could be many sources of red light on that street corner, e.g. vehicle stop lights, refracted sunlight, flashing signs, kids with toys that emit bright red lights, etc., so the mere presence of a red light doesn't prove there is a traffic light, and even if there is one, whether it was actually red merely than having been perceived as red can depend on its type (light from the older incandescent traffic lights for example can be difficult to distinguish when direct sunlight is hitting them, while the newer LED ones are much easier to see).
The entire foundation of your assertion about the redness of the traffic light is predicated on it existing and actually being red rather being you believing it was red, so protesting that these are either irrelevant or outside the topic at hand would be at best disingenuous.
"Similarly, ID is claiming that certain aspects of abiogenesis and evolution simply couldn't happen by random chance in the natural world and needed an intelligence push or design."
There is a big difference between claiming something and actually having some hard evidence to back it up.
"They have defined their position and you can't say that something outside it or ancillary to it somehow makes them wrong while claiming something else as right with just as little evidence behind it."
More straw men.
1) Saying that their ideas raise have certain logical impl
"Everything I saw described using IM only appending "with a touchscreen" to everything. Which would be ovbious if you were using a touch screen for imput."
If the number of patents that have been granted for well known methods and processes with "on a computer", "on a network", and "on the Internet" appended are anything to go by, the fact that Apple have used a new and hitherto unseen (by patent examiners) "on a" variant will be more than sufficient to prove how incredibly innovative it is.
"It seems our genetics code for cooperative behaviors over selfish ones. Is this simply the selfish best choice for individuals, to cooperate with each other, or can genes code for behaviors that are detrimental to the individual but good for the gene pool overall?"
There are many species of group-oriented animals ranging from insects through to the higher mammals who place group safety above individual safety, so it's pretty obvious that genes have been coding for this since animals evolved the strategy of living in organised groups.
"Exactly what I was thinking actually is that like the proposed "futuristic" weapon, the DU penetrators have a fun tendency to liquefy the poor government worshippers inside the armored vehicle."
All battlefield anti-tank weapons tend to do nasty things to the crew because it's the best way of ensuring that the thing stops shooting at you.
"Now that I think about it, military wars, where militaries are fighting on both sides, rather than just one military butchering civilians, is a good thing, in a way."
Wars have to be fought somewhere, and it's usually a place where at least some people live, so civilians inevitably suffer irrespective of whether either side is actively trying to kill them or not.
"Its a whole bunch of government worshippers reducing their own numbers."
Forcing others to fill their ranks hasn't been a problem for governments in the past, and it won't be in the future.
"The Leviathan State is self destructive. Those who value freedom have to merely side step it and let it run off the cliff."
History teaches us that (a) Leviathan States can take a very long time to destroy themselves; (b) they take a lot of people with them, the majority of which did nothing to deserve their fate; and (c) that which arises from the aftermath is usually significantly worse than the old Leviathan.
"I seem to be under the impression from my reading of the available literature on tanks, that most modern military tanks (with the exception of Israeli tanks which are remarkably reliable) tend to use several parts per mile."
They don't approach the reliability figures for civilian vehicles, but it's by no means as bad as you suggest. The standard endurance test that Western main battle tanks (i.e. the big, heavy ones) have to pass before being accepted for military use is 11 hours without a major systems failure, but it should be noted that these tests are usually performed on prototypes, which are far less reliable than production versions.
"Without massive manufacturing support, most military units of non Israeli nationality would quickly be forced to cannibalize units."
They would indeed have to cannibalise vehicles, but it would be over periods of weeks rather than days. Most of the components that fail during normal use are non-critical systems that aren't required for normal operation, or things that can be repaired without the need for replacement parts. A far more critical logistical requirement is keeping them supplied with the huge amounts of fuel they consume and ammunition for their weapons systems, none of which can be reclaimed after use.
"Thus, insurgents with RPGs are probably aiming at the easily destroyed, hard to armor parts. You know... treads, etc?"
Treads have carried stand-off plates to protect them from RPGs since WWII, so the main threat to drive trains is anti-tank mines. Infantry armed with RPGs who know what they're doing will therefore tend to aim for the vehicle's rear (or if they have a suitable vantage point, its top), both of which are much more thinly armoured than the massively reinforced front or lesser but often still formidable side armour.
"I'm curious, has the US Army actually FOUGHT anything that actually was capable of putting up a fight with all that hardware they have? "
Yes. The Battle Of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War had US and British armoured groups against the Iraqi Republican Guard, professional soldiers who knew how to use their tanks properly, and fought with determination and courage. There are plenty of details on the Web if you Google for them.
The key phrase here is "offers the potential", which is not the same thing as "will be able to do so". Many weapons technologies have offered the potential to do all sorts of wonderful things, but the history of arms development is littered with examples of ones which failed to live up to the promises that were made for them, fulfilled those promises in ways that were either impractical or too expensive, or were a solution to problem that no longer existed by the time they were deployed.
With the above in mind, I will believe that this weapon actually fulfils its claimed _potential_ when they can demonstrate a version with all the advertised characteristics that doesn't cost an order of magnitude more for each round than the crappy tanks that America's enemies are fielding.
"This seems to work on the SAME exact principle as the Depleted Uranium Penetrator."
As the articles in the summary links correctly say, it's actually far closer to the way HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) projectiles work. HEAT warheads use the Neumann effect to project a hypersonic jet of molten metal up to 2 metres, so unlike kinetic energy rounds such as APFSDS, they can be carried by low-velocity projectiles. They've been around since WWII, and have the advantage of being extremely simple and cheap to manufacture, hence the common sight of "insurgents" carrying shoulder launched rocket propelled grenades (RPG) in news reports.
The problem HEAT warheads have is that armour designers found various cheap and easy ways of defeating them almost as soon as they appeared. Simple measure such as attaching stand-off plates or cages to the outside of vehicles will result in the jet being used up before it reaches the main hull, and some German tanks were fitted with these during WWII. Spaced armour and explosive-reactive armour also effectively defeat HEAT, and I doubt that this new system will be more effective against countermeasures that can be easily added to any medium or heavy AFV in a field workshop.
"50/50 isnt too shabby for historical accuracy;) "
I agree entirely. However, the fact that a controversy exists means that the question of whether we are dealing with a real man is still open, although the fact that new texts are periodically being discovered in unusual places means that it may not always be.
"Not a straw man, I think you misuse that term here."
You wrote the following:
"the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists"
I did not describe a situation where Jesus did not exist, but one where the evidence for his existence is at best debatable. It was therefore entirely correct to use the term "straw man" for your answer.
"The problem is, the eyewitness's of Jesus were largely turned Christian and their writings Canonized if they had any legitimacy to them. Unfortunately today that means they are discredited."
The problem is actually the fact that we don't have very much at all that can be directly attributed to eyewitnesses, or for that matter anyone who'd spoken to an eyewitness.
"There were systematic massacres [of pagans]. One ordered by [Christian emperor] Theodosius in 380 in Thessalonica was unique. The pagans were invited to `games' at the Circus. The entrances were blocked and the soldiers of Theodosius killed 15,000 women and children for the true glory of Christ"
"Sorry there bud, he is definitely a part of history. He just happens to be a religious figure as well. You will be hard pressed to find historians who say otherwise."
You'll be even harder pressed to find historians who say he was _definitely_ part of history. Many claim that a preponderance of evidence indicates he was _probably_ a real historical figure, but few of the neutral ones would say that it's definite,
"Not to mention that even now we are contesting his authenticity yet don't apply the same level of scrutiny to other historical figures."
I think we do apply an equal level of scrutiny to other historical figures from the period. We know for example that Alexander The Great existed, and have a pretty good idea what he looked like because there were many statues of him built during and after his life, cities were named after him also during and after his life, and many chronicles from widely different sources were written during Alexander's "eyewitness" period. Most Roman emperors are equally well supported by both physical and historical evidence, likewise Egyptian Pharoahs, etc.
"If there were not a religion tied to him no one would debate historical documents."
If there wasn't a religion based around him, there wouldn't be any historical documents about a Jewish carpenter who, like tens of thousands of other completely anonymous people that nobody except their friends and families cared about, fell afoul of the Romans and ended up being executed for it.
Note also that religions all over the world and throughout history have a notable penchant for incorporating both completely fictitious elements, and ones that are aggregates of others, some of which get "borrowed" from older religions and then modified to fit with whatever dogma the religion is based on. It's not therefore either surprising or a sign of bias for historians to question whether the central figures in any religion are entirely or partially mythical.
"no push to rid us of the greek gods prevalent in society, talking of buddah and Muhammed is encouraged"
1) Nobody is trying to claim that the Greek gods anything other than myths. 2) Buddhists don't care what anyone else says about their religion or the various figures that are a part of it. 3) Discussion of any
"In the beginning, with ID or science, you reach a point that just was. Take the big bang theory, how do you ascribe the stuff that was there to create the energy and release it without resorting to a it was just there as some point."
Whether a singularity did or did not exist is a matter of considerable debate among cosmologists, so claiming that science says there was one is a gross oversimplification.
"But the thing is, with ID, the inteligence doesn't have to be of this world or understood by this dimension."
It would still have to be extremely complex to be capable of intelligence.
"We are only considering life on earth and how it started and evolved"
"We" are not doing anything of the sort. ID supporters might try to restrict the debate to that so they can avoid having to deal with the logical consequences of their claim about complexity being evidence of intelligent design, but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it.
"Most of which has heaping gaps in the science which at present is just assumed to be true to the extent that other parts of other theories work nicely."
The theories that attempt to fill the gaps in our knowledge aren't "assumed to be true", hence the fact that there are several competing ones that are subjects for heated debates in scientific circles.
"But as you attempted to allude to, it doesn't create a logic loop because we are only concerned with the here and us."
You and other ID proponents clearly doesn't include everyone else who sees this as a transparent attempt to avoid having to deal with the logical flaws in their own claims, so saying that "we" are concerned with the here and us is patently false.
"If and only if, you confine the inteligence to what you understand and percieve to be applicable today."
It's actually a case of if, and only if, one assumes that "intelligence" is a word with a specific set of definitions rather than something that ID supporters can arbitrarily change the meaning of to avoid dealing with the logical fallacies in their own arguments.
"The inteligence can be withing or outside that dimension and doesn't necessarily have to be confined to the same subset of rules we are."
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
If IDers want to claim that their ideas are science, then they should avoid trying to use magic as a way of avoiding the logical flaws in them.
"Think of our universe being a semi controlled experiment in a test tube like structure relative to objects so large and ominous that we can't fathom their conception without an imagination of some sorts."
The fact that you're trying to frame it in terms of test tubes and experiments doesn't change the fact that you're describing supernatural, and therefore magical entities.
"They don't have it both ways. They simply aren't placing artificial restrictions on the concept in order to prove/disprove their point."
Trying to frame the debate only in terms of life on Earth is a blatantly artificial restriction whose only purpose is to try and avoid revealing the fact that ID avoids its logical flaws by invoking the same supernatural magical explanations as Creationism.
It does not make any claims approaching the silliness of your assertion that alligators learned to fly.
"Darwin's "Tree of Life" as still printed in textbooks depicts all life originating in a common ancestor."
It does indeed.
"Evolutionists claim that all life began with "simple" one celled life forms and became more and more complex over time. There is no evidence whatsoever for this scenario."
There is excellent evidence in the fossil record, which shows that organisms become simpler the further back one goes in time.
"On the contrary, even evolutionists speak of stuff like "The Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced in the fossil record. An explosion is a sudden event, not something slowly happening over immense periods of time."
I suggest you actually read up on what the Cambrian Explosion (more commonly called the Cambrian Radiation nowadays) was, how long it took, and why various pieces of evidence (and the lack of other pieces) has led to considerable scientific controversy over whether it actually occurred. Note the term "scientific controversy" here, because despite the fact that creationists try to pretend that there's a big conspiracy by "evolutionists", disagreement about what some pieces of evidence actually signify is extremely common.
"The fundamental tenet of evolution is shown to be false in the laboratory and in every day life. "
Cannot be duplicated in a laboratory due to factors of scale does not equate to being disproved. As to every day life, the fact that said lives are measured in tens of years rather than tens of millions of years means that everyday life tells us absolutely nothing about processes that occur over hundreds of generations.
"Simple things NEVER, EVER become more complex without the activity of mind, involving thoughtful planning as well as energy."
1) Crystals clearly and demonstratively become more complex over time without planning.
2) The energy input bit is a straw man, because the Earth has, and still does receive gigantic amounts of energy.
"Undirected energy is almost always destructive"
An assertion which can only be described as utter balderdash. The light from stars we see at night is undirected energy, just like the light from our well known and considerably closer daytime star is undirected energy, yet without the latter our planet would be a ball of rock with a surface temperature approaching absolute zero.
NB: it's pretty clear you're parroting rubbish you've read in some silly texts written by creationists who don't know enough basic science to see the flaws in their own arguments. However, the fact that you're posting on the Internet means that you have access to copious amounts of real information about these and other topics, so there's no excuse for posting such obvious blather.
"On the other hand, I'm a bit troubled by the implication that Apple's EULA is the only thing keeping you in compliance, and that without it you'd be downloading it from The Pirate Bay."
This is a straw man, because I neither implied nor stated what I would do.
"I understand now. I had assumed that you were a native English speaker."
LOL!
"To native speakers, that clause could take two distinct and equally correct meanings: "a computer labeled by Apple", or "a computer labeled as an Apple"."
To native English speakers, the clause could indeed have several meanings, but only one of them is correct.
"For example, I am a Kirk-named person; my name is Kirk."
Kirk-named person would be somebody who is named by Kirk. What you're looking for is "Kirk named person", although I wonder why anybody would use such a grammatically clumsy phrase.
"My children are also Kirk-named people; they were named by Kirk."
See, you do understand English when you try. Well done!
"I apologize for the ambiguity in our language"
I don't find the hyphenation rules at all ambiguous. Of course, a lack of understanding can often make things seen ambiguous when they really aren't.
"Just because living things adapt to their surroundings doesn't mean alligators learned to fly and became birds. That is an assertion, for which there is not, as for much of evolution, an iota of "proof"."
Hence the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't claim alligators learned to fly. I find it strange how Creationists / IDers (same thing, different hat) have the temerity to criticise scientific theories that they obviously know absolutely nothing about.
"This is an issue with many historical references, however even tossing out the doctored one you still have his other section of text which IS actually widely accepted."
From what I've read, there seems to be a 50/50 split about whether either of them is authentic.
"Even thus, the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists."
1) I didn't say he didn't exist, so that's a straw man. 2) I'm not an atheist.
"the alternative is you are saying that a religion jumped out of nowhere"
I did not say this. Note though that unless you are willing to claim there was a factual basis for Thor, Apollo, Baal, and and various other pagan gods, you must also accept the fact that many religions have existed which appear to have sprung either from nothing, or very little.
"people were willing to die in the most horrific methods of the day, be ostracized from their families and culture, for no gain."
Many pagans also died for their beliefs, often in horrific circumstances and in very large numbers for no apparent gain.
"Yes there was a Christ, who he was is contestable, but the fact that he walked and breathed is just a part of history"
It is part of religion, not history. Note that I'm not claiming this proves he didn't exist, but rather that there isn't much proof that he did.
"if he was just a man then why is there such a ferocious need to wipe out his existence, you don't see that from many other historical figures."
Who has made a ferocious effort to wipe out his existence? There might be a few of the more rabid atheists who do this, but my position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and most of the claimed evidence has turned out to be mediocre rather than extraordinary.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, when the normal resolution of an laptop or an desktop computer is 1024x768, a 320x480 compared to that is minimal"
A desktop or laptop computer is not a mobile phone, so this statement is as specious as me claiming that laptop and desktop computers have minimal resolution because IMAX cinemas are 10000x7000.
"The point here is that the normal content is too large."
And normal IMAX content is too large for laptop and desktop computers. There is a simple reason for this: laptop and desktop computers aren't cinemas.
"The iPhones displays web content by scaling it down"
This is due to the small size of the display, not its resolution. It could be capable of IMAX 10000x7000 and they'd still have to scale it because people with normal vision wouldn't be able to read the text on a web page that was displayed in its entirety on a 3.5" diagonal display.
"And to add in the end. Every post I have read about iPhone has too felt like reading an ad."
You must be reading a very limited subset of posts, because I've seen more negative or neutral ones than positive ones. Your post however went further into Adsville than anything I've seen by even the rabid Apple fans who crawl out of the woodwork whenever Slashdot has a vaguely Apple-connected topic, and this one contains a whole load more of the same, e.g:
"It really is incredible, you should try new Nokia phones and see yourself how long way they have come just in few years."
It's also incredible how people who write stuff like this can seriously expect us to believe aren't Nokia astroturfers.
"Right, because evidence that they are corrupt is totally 100% visible to everyone in the country?"
The only US legislator that's elected by the country is the President. All the others represent people who live in a specific are, and can only be elected by people who live in that area, and there's a great deal of evidence that's both locally and generally available to indicate that some who are constantly re-elected have been shills to various corporate interests for decades.
"Not everyone starts out corrupt either"
This has no relevance whatsoever to the phenomenon of people re-electing them after they are known to be corrupt.
"Why is that the threat that the smartphone presents to corporate security doesn't grab headlines until Apple makes a phone?"
Because boring articles with no useful content in them can get web hits by riding the coat-tails of the Apple buzz machine.
Headline: "Analysts Speculate That Smart Phones Have Potential Security Flaws Because They Run Software".
Result: I wonder if there are any singing dogs on YouTube.
Headline: "Analysts Claim iPhone Is A Potential Security Risk"
Result: click through lots of ad-laden pages with half a paragraph on each to discover that it's the same tripe that analysts spout about every topic they deal with.
"Remember that Apple XServe thing a while back? I think that's what it was called. How did that end up doing?"
They're are still selling them, and still updating both the hardware and OS, so there must be a market for them somewhere.
"I only ever saw one"
That seals it then: you only saw one, therefore nobody uses them.
"I have friends who work in large enterprise IT shops, and they all agree Apple products simply do not cut the mustard."
And your friends can obviously give plenty of specific examples detailing the ways that, after evaluating them, said "Apple products" (no specifics given, just anything from Apple) do not "cut the mustard".
"As someone else said earlier, they understand marketing very very well. And as such they're able to dominate the consumer market."
Apple do not dominate the consumer market in anything except portable media players, and that's mostly because the competition when the iPod was launched didn't make an equivalent device that anybody except geeks wanted.
"But for all they understand about the consumer market, they're still relatively clueless when it comes to the needs of businesses."
Are they? Please elucidate...
"Apple, stick to what you're good at - making toys."
And leave the serious business to you and your friends.
"iPhones screen is 320x480, that's not high resolution, and not so much difference to normal smart phones which sport 320x240 screen."
A factor of two is a very significant difference in resolution.
NB: The rest of your post reads like an ad for Nokia.
"I blame the legislators that make themselves available to the highest bidder"
In a representative democracy, the ultimate blame for corrupt legislators lies with the people who vote for them.
" the interface is not that good (for example, the lack of MDI can be really confusing; another example: the dock makes me search all the time for the items I want)."
In other words, you expected it to be like Windows but better, and found out that it wasn't Windows at all.
"But for the cost of a mac, you could get a higher spec Dell"
Unfortunately, you would also be lumbered with a Dell.
"I don't like how dismissive Hawking is of people who claim to have seen aliens"
... or rather universe view ..., then I think you have to entertain the possibility that some of the sightings could be real."
He would I think place them in the same category as people who claim to have seen fairies, mermaids, or angels.
"If you're gonna allow for aliens in your world view
It is indeed _possible_ that they are true, but then it's _possible_ that sightings of fairies and angels are true as well, especially given the fact that witnesses of supernatural beings can offer exactly the same amount of supporting evidence as those who say they've seen aliens.
"Consider that an advanced civilisation one of it's major achievements would be the elimination of old age."
Unless of course it is populated by organisms with naturally long life spans. There are many examples on Earth, and while none of them could remotely be described as intelligent, the fact that they exist at all here means that there's no reason to think that alien intelligences would have life spans remotely like our own, or that those with similar (or shorter) ones would share our obsession with extending them.
"Most fantasy extraterestrial forms proposed, like those giant gas sacks, it's not clear how they'd evolve in the first place."
Perhaps they might might have evolved in a similar manner to the Portuguese Man o' War, which has a gas sack.
"Here is the deal. Any civilization advanced enough to travel those long distances (or through time) would be sufficiently advanced to simulate any information (on computers) they need to inquire about any species or observe them without even entering the atmosphere (deep scanning)."
You are assuming that (a) their life spans and perception of time are sufficiently similar to ours that (for example) taking hundreds of thousands of years to cross interstellar space wouldn't be acceptable to them; and (b) that being more advanced in one set of related technologies equates to being more advanced in all other technologies, despite the fact that human history is filled with cases where this is demonstrably untrue.
"But my theory is that any species sufficiently advanced to travel those long distances would either come for conquering or liberation and enlightenment (depending on how you view it)."
And my theory is that anyone who comes up with theories which attribute even remotely human motivations to alien intelligences has been watching far too much of what TV and movie producers say is "science fiction".
"Anyways... As soon as humans get the ability to colonize how well do you think we'll adhere to the respects of other species?"
What makes you think that the places alien intelligences might evolve in would be ones that humans would want to colonise? If we accept the possibility of intelligent alien life forms, we must also accept the possibility that intelligence evolving on the surface of an Earth-like planet could be extremely rare, with most of the others having been produced by circumstances that wouldn't result in any competition between them and us for space or resources.
"It only means either all other species are not interested in colonization, no other races have reached the technological level of space or time travel, or we are alone."
It could also mean that they haven't discovered it (our galaxy is a big place, and there are many, many galaxies), or evolved in circumstances that make them discount the surface of the Earth (or maybe even planets in general) as capable of supporting life. An intelligent species that evolved on the surface of a neutron star for example would be likely to look for life on other neutron stars, so they'd have no reason whatsoever for visiting our solar system, let alone our planet.
"I suspect we just might be the first because as soon as a human like race actually figures out how to spread out planet to planet, its only a matter of time it will seek to colonize and conform the entire galaxy to its needs regardless of what other species things."
I on the other hand suspect that the specific set of cataclysms and other accidents that shaped life on this planet is so unlikely to occur elsewhere that the probability of any alien intelligences being even remotely human-like is effectively nil.
"No, it isn't an over simplification."
Read a little about brane cosmology for just one example of why it is, as I said, a gross oversimplification.
"Sure it would have to be extremely complex. But that is irrelevant when we are talking about the evolution of what we know and this complex inteligence is relative to a worlds we don't know."
I have already responded with a dictionary definition of supernatural to show why this assertion, while not impossible, is not science (clue: science is entirely concerned with, and restricted to nature, and leaves supernatural matters to theologians and philosophers).
"Maybe I can illustrate this point a little better."
I fail to see how (a) this makes anything whatsoever clear, or (b) has any relevance to ID whatsoever. If you wanted an ID analogy using the same actors, then you should have written something like this:
A scientist sets up an experiment to falsify a theory. The janitor messes with his control, so the experimental and control data end up being the same. Having discovered the janitorial tampering, our scientist therefore repeats the same experiment in a locked laboratory monitored by closed-circuit TV, trip-laser alarms, etc., and gets identical results. He does this over and over with ever more elaborate security measures, but still finds no difference between the control and the experiments. There are two possible conclusions he can draw from this:
1) Science: his theory is wrong.
2) ID: having observed that an experiment was once tampered with by a janitor, he formulates a hypothesis which he calls "Intelligent Tampering" which states that all his experimental results (or rather, the lack of them) can be explained by janitors. When other scientists ask how this can be true if no janitors can enter the laboratory, none were ever detected within it, and there were no physical signs of tampering, he first says that the nature of the janitors is irrelevant, but when pushed claims this can be explained by a special type of undetectable janitor who can pass through solid objects and influence experiments without touching them. This is, he says, a scientific theory because nobody can disprove it.
"Yes, they can frame the debate. If I said the light is green at 9 am every Tuesday, you can't say but it is red on Friday so you are wrong. If you wish to challenge my statements, you need to keep your responses within the confines of my statement."
I'm not asking you whether the traffic light is red though, but whether it existed at all when you said it was red, and if so, what type of traffic light it is. There could be many sources of red light on that street corner, e.g. vehicle stop lights, refracted sunlight, flashing signs, kids with toys that emit bright red lights, etc., so the mere presence of a red light doesn't prove there is a traffic light, and even if there is one, whether it was actually red merely than having been perceived as red can depend on its type (light from the older incandescent traffic lights for example can be difficult to distinguish when direct sunlight is hitting them, while the newer LED ones are much easier to see).
The entire foundation of your assertion about the redness of the traffic light is predicated on it existing and actually being red rather being you believing it was red, so protesting that these are either irrelevant or outside the topic at hand would be at best disingenuous.
"Similarly, ID is claiming that certain aspects of abiogenesis and evolution simply couldn't happen by random chance in the natural world and needed an intelligence push or design."
There is a big difference between claiming something and actually having some hard evidence to back it up.
"They have defined their position and you can't say that something outside it or ancillary to it somehow makes them wrong while claiming something else as right with just as little evidence behind it."
More straw men.
1) Saying that their ideas raise have certain logical impl
"Everything I saw described using IM only appending "with a touchscreen" to everything. Which would be ovbious if you were using a touch screen for imput."
If the number of patents that have been granted for well known methods and processes with "on a computer", "on a network", and "on the Internet" appended are anything to go by, the fact that Apple have used a new and hitherto unseen (by patent examiners) "on a" variant will be more than sufficient to prove how incredibly innovative it is.
"It seems our genetics code for cooperative behaviors over selfish ones. Is this simply the selfish best choice for individuals, to cooperate with each other, or can genes code for behaviors that are detrimental to the individual but good for the gene pool overall?"
There are many species of group-oriented animals ranging from insects through to the higher mammals who place group safety above individual safety, so it's pretty obvious that genes have been coding for this since animals evolved the strategy of living in organised groups.
"Of course, it isn't the lawyer's morals and ethics who are circumspect....it is that lawyer's clients."
The lawyer does however have a choice about whether to take a case or not.
"The lawyer isn't the person suing the drug company...the person with the dispute is the one who is suing."
But the lawyer is voluntarily acting on that person's behalf.
"The lack of ethics and morality stands squarely on the shoulders of the person who is the client"
A client who the lawyer has specifically chosen to represent.
"the lawyer must always act within the bounds of the law and represent the client zealously, since that is his duty."
The lawyer does not however have a duty to accept anyone as a client.
"An ordinary foot soldier is not to blame for an immoral war, so long as his individual actions do not violate the laws of war"
But a mercenary who chooses to work for the bad side of such an immoral war in full knowledge of their nature can and should be blamed.
"Exactly what I was thinking actually is that like the proposed "futuristic" weapon, the DU penetrators have a fun tendency to liquefy the poor government worshippers inside the armored vehicle."
All battlefield anti-tank weapons tend to do nasty things to the crew because it's the best way of ensuring that the thing stops shooting at you.
"Now that I think about it, military wars, where militaries are fighting on both sides, rather than just one military butchering civilians, is a good thing, in a way."
Wars have to be fought somewhere, and it's usually a place where at least some people live, so civilians inevitably suffer irrespective of whether either side is actively trying to kill them or not.
"Its a whole bunch of government worshippers reducing their own numbers."
Forcing others to fill their ranks hasn't been a problem for governments in the past, and it won't be in the future.
"The Leviathan State is self destructive. Those who value freedom have to merely side step it and let it run off the cliff."
History teaches us that (a) Leviathan States can take a very long time to destroy themselves; (b) they take a lot of people with them, the majority of which did nothing to deserve their fate; and (c) that which arises from the aftermath is usually significantly worse than the old Leviathan.
"I seem to be under the impression from my reading of the available literature on tanks, that most modern military tanks (with the exception of Israeli tanks which are remarkably reliable) tend to use several parts per mile."
They don't approach the reliability figures for civilian vehicles, but it's by no means as bad as you suggest. The standard endurance test that Western main battle tanks (i.e. the big, heavy ones) have to pass before being accepted for military use is 11 hours without a major systems failure, but it should be noted that these tests are usually performed on prototypes, which are far less reliable than production versions.
"Without massive manufacturing support, most military units of non Israeli nationality would quickly be forced to cannibalize units."
They would indeed have to cannibalise vehicles, but it would be over periods of weeks rather than days. Most of the components that fail during normal use are non-critical systems that aren't required for normal operation, or things that can be repaired without the need for replacement parts. A far more critical logistical requirement is keeping them supplied with the huge amounts of fuel they consume and ammunition for their weapons systems, none of which can be reclaimed after use.
"Thus, insurgents with RPGs are probably aiming at the easily destroyed, hard to armor parts. You know... treads, etc?"
Treads have carried stand-off plates to protect them from RPGs since WWII, so the main threat to drive trains is anti-tank mines. Infantry armed with RPGs who know what they're doing will therefore tend to aim for the vehicle's rear (or if they have a suitable vantage point, its top), both of which are much more thinly armoured than the massively reinforced front or lesser but often still formidable side armour.
"I'm curious, has the US Army actually FOUGHT anything that actually was capable of putting up a fight with all that hardware they have? "
Yes. The Battle Of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War had US and British armoured groups against the Iraqi Republican Guard, professional soldiers who knew how to use their tanks properly, and fought with determination and courage. There are plenty of details on the Web if you Google for them.
The key phrase here is "offers the potential", which is not the same thing as "will be able to do so". Many weapons technologies have offered the potential to do all sorts of wonderful things, but the history of arms development is littered with examples of ones which failed to live up to the promises that were made for them, fulfilled those promises in ways that were either impractical or too expensive, or were a solution to problem that no longer existed by the time they were deployed.
With the above in mind, I will believe that this weapon actually fulfils its claimed _potential_ when they can demonstrate a version with all the advertised characteristics that doesn't cost an order of magnitude more for each round than the crappy tanks that America's enemies are fielding.
"This seems to work on the SAME exact principle as the Depleted Uranium Penetrator."
As the articles in the summary links correctly say, it's actually far closer to the way HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) projectiles work. HEAT warheads use the Neumann effect to project a hypersonic jet of molten metal up to 2 metres, so unlike kinetic energy rounds such as APFSDS, they can be carried by low-velocity projectiles. They've been around since WWII, and have the advantage of being extremely simple and cheap to manufacture, hence the common sight of "insurgents" carrying shoulder launched rocket propelled grenades (RPG) in news reports.
The problem HEAT warheads have is that armour designers found various cheap and easy ways of defeating them almost as soon as they appeared. Simple measure such as attaching stand-off plates or cages to the outside of vehicles will result in the jet being used up before it reaches the main hull, and some German tanks were fitted with these during WWII. Spaced armour and explosive-reactive armour also effectively defeat HEAT, and I doubt that this new system will be more effective against countermeasures that can be easily added to any medium or heavy AFV in a field workshop.
"50/50 isnt too shabby for historical accuracy ;) "
I agree entirely. However, the fact that a controversy exists means that the question of whether we are dealing with a real man is still open, although the fact that new texts are periodically being discovered in unusual places means that it may not always be.
"Not a straw man, I think you misuse that term here."
You wrote the following:
"the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists"
I did not describe a situation where Jesus did not exist, but one where the evidence for his existence is at best debatable. It was therefore entirely correct to use the term "straw man" for your answer.
"The problem is, the eyewitness's of Jesus were largely turned Christian and their writings Canonized if they had any legitimacy to them. Unfortunately today that means they are discredited."
The problem is actually the fact that we don't have very much at all that can be directly attributed to eyewitnesses, or for that matter anyone who'd spoken to an eyewitness.
"Citation needed."
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/hypatia.html
"There were systematic massacres [of pagans]. One ordered by [Christian emperor] Theodosius in 380 in Thessalonica was unique. The pagans were invited to `games' at the Circus. The entrances were blocked and the soldiers of Theodosius killed 15,000 women and children for the true glory of Christ"
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm
Many incidents here.
"Sorry there bud, he is definitely a part of history. He just happens to be a religious figure as well. You will be hard pressed to find historians who say otherwise."
You'll be even harder pressed to find historians who say he was _definitely_ part of history. Many claim that a preponderance of evidence indicates he was _probably_ a real historical figure, but few of the neutral ones would say that it's definite,
"Not to mention that even now we are contesting his authenticity yet don't apply the same level of scrutiny to other historical figures."
I think we do apply an equal level of scrutiny to other historical figures from the period. We know for example that Alexander The Great existed, and have a pretty good idea what he looked like because there were many statues of him built during and after his life, cities were named after him also during and after his life, and many chronicles from widely different sources were written during Alexander's "eyewitness" period. Most Roman emperors are equally well supported by both physical and historical evidence, likewise Egyptian Pharoahs, etc.
"If there were not a religion tied to him no one would debate historical documents."
If there wasn't a religion based around him, there wouldn't be any historical documents about a Jewish carpenter who, like tens of thousands of other completely anonymous people that nobody except their friends and families cared about, fell afoul of the Romans and ended up being executed for it.
Note also that religions all over the world and throughout history have a notable penchant for incorporating both completely fictitious elements, and ones that are aggregates of others, some of which get "borrowed" from older religions and then modified to fit with whatever dogma the religion is based on. It's not therefore either surprising or a sign of bias for historians to question whether the central figures in any religion are entirely or partially mythical.
"no push to rid us of the greek gods prevalent in society, talking of buddah and Muhammed is encouraged"
1) Nobody is trying to claim that the Greek gods anything other than myths.
2) Buddhists don't care what anyone else says about their religion or the various figures that are a part of it.
3) Discussion of any
"In the beginning, with ID or science, you reach a point that just was. Take the big bang theory, how do you ascribe the stuff that was there to create the energy and release it without resorting to a it was just there as some point."
Whether a singularity did or did not exist is a matter of considerable debate among cosmologists, so claiming that science says there was one is a gross oversimplification.
"But the thing is, with ID, the inteligence doesn't have to be of this world or understood by this dimension."
It would still have to be extremely complex to be capable of intelligence.
"We are only considering life on earth and how it started and evolved"
"We" are not doing anything of the sort. ID supporters might try to restrict the debate to that so they can avoid having to deal with the logical consequences of their claim about complexity being evidence of intelligent design, but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it.
"Most of which has heaping gaps in the science which at present is just assumed to be true to the extent that other parts of other theories work nicely."
The theories that attempt to fill the gaps in our knowledge aren't "assumed to be true", hence the fact that there are several competing ones that are subjects for heated debates in scientific circles.
"But as you attempted to allude to, it doesn't create a logic loop because we are only concerned with the here and us."
You and other ID proponents clearly doesn't include everyone else who sees this as a transparent attempt to avoid having to deal with the logical flaws in their own claims, so saying that "we" are concerned with the here and us is patently false.
"If and only if, you confine the inteligence to what you understand and percieve to be applicable today."
It's actually a case of if, and only if, one assumes that "intelligence" is a word with a specific set of definitions rather than something that ID supporters can arbitrarily change the meaning of to avoid dealing with the logical fallacies in their own arguments.
"The inteligence can be withing or outside that dimension and doesn't necessarily have to be confined to the same subset of rules we are."
"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural"
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
If IDers want to claim that their ideas are science, then they should avoid trying to use magic as a way of avoiding the logical flaws in them.
"Think of our universe being a semi controlled experiment in a test tube like structure relative to objects so large and ominous that we can't fathom their conception without an imagination of some sorts."
The fact that you're trying to frame it in terms of test tubes and experiments doesn't change the fact that you're describing supernatural, and therefore magical entities.
"They don't have it both ways. They simply aren't placing artificial restrictions on the concept in order to prove/disprove their point."
Trying to frame the debate only in terms of life on Earth is a blatantly artificial restriction whose only purpose is to try and avoid revealing the fact that ID avoids its logical flaws by invoking the same supernatural magical explanations as Creationism.
"No, it claims much more than that."
It does not make any claims approaching the silliness of your assertion that alligators learned to fly.
"Darwin's "Tree of Life" as still printed in textbooks depicts all life originating in a common ancestor."
It does indeed.
"Evolutionists claim that all life began with "simple" one celled life forms and became more and more complex over time. There is no evidence whatsoever for this scenario."
There is excellent evidence in the fossil record, which shows that organisms become simpler the further back one goes in time.
"On the contrary, even evolutionists speak of stuff like "The Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced in the fossil record. An explosion is a sudden event, not something slowly happening over immense periods of time."
I suggest you actually read up on what the Cambrian Explosion (more commonly called the Cambrian Radiation nowadays) was, how long it took, and why various pieces of evidence (and the lack of other pieces) has led to considerable scientific controversy over whether it actually occurred. Note the term "scientific controversy" here, because despite the fact that creationists try to pretend that there's a big conspiracy by "evolutionists", disagreement about what some pieces of evidence actually signify is extremely common.
"The fundamental tenet of evolution is shown to be false in the laboratory and in every day life. "
Cannot be duplicated in a laboratory due to factors of scale does not equate to being disproved. As to every day life, the fact that said lives are measured in tens of years rather than tens of millions of years means that everyday life tells us absolutely nothing about processes that occur over hundreds of generations.
"Simple things NEVER, EVER become more complex without the activity of mind, involving thoughtful planning as well as energy."
1) Crystals clearly and demonstratively become more complex over time without planning.
2) The energy input bit is a straw man, because the Earth has, and still does receive gigantic amounts of energy.
"Undirected energy is almost always destructive"
An assertion which can only be described as utter balderdash. The light from stars we see at night is undirected energy, just like the light from our well known and considerably closer daytime star is undirected energy, yet without the latter our planet would be a ball of rock with a surface temperature approaching absolute zero.
NB: it's pretty clear you're parroting rubbish you've read in some silly texts written by creationists who don't know enough basic science to see the flaws in their own arguments. However, the fact that you're posting on the Internet means that you have access to copious amounts of real information about these and other topics, so there's no excuse for posting such obvious blather.
"On the other hand, I'm a bit troubled by the implication that Apple's EULA is the only thing keeping you in compliance, and that without it you'd be downloading it from The Pirate Bay."
This is a straw man, because I neither implied nor stated what I would do.
"I understand now. I had assumed that you were a native English speaker."
LOL!
"To native speakers, that clause could take two distinct and equally correct meanings: "a computer labeled by Apple", or "a computer labeled as an Apple"."
To native English speakers, the clause could indeed have several meanings, but only one of them is correct.
"For example, I am a Kirk-named person; my name is Kirk."
Kirk-named person would be somebody who is named by Kirk. What you're looking for is "Kirk named person", although I wonder why anybody would use such a grammatically clumsy phrase.
"My children are also Kirk-named people; they were named by Kirk."
See, you do understand English when you try. Well done!
"I apologize for the ambiguity in our language"
I don't find the hyphenation rules at all ambiguous. Of course, a lack of understanding can often make things seen ambiguous when they really aren't.
"Just because living things adapt to their surroundings doesn't mean alligators learned to fly and became birds. That is an assertion, for which there is not, as for much of evolution, an iota of "proof"."
Hence the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't claim alligators learned to fly. I find it strange how Creationists / IDers (same thing, different hat) have the temerity to criticise scientific theories that they obviously know absolutely nothing about.
"This is an issue with many historical references, however even tossing out the doctored one you still have his other section of text which IS actually widely accepted."
From what I've read, there seems to be a 50/50 split about whether either of them is authentic.
"Even thus, the situation you are describing, that Christ did not exist (as a man or god) is a stretch even for atheists."
1) I didn't say he didn't exist, so that's a straw man.
2) I'm not an atheist.
"the alternative is you are saying that a religion jumped out of nowhere"
I did not say this. Note though that unless you are willing to claim there was a factual basis for Thor, Apollo, Baal, and and various other pagan gods, you must also accept the fact that many religions have existed which appear to have sprung either from nothing, or very little.
"people were willing to die in the most horrific methods of the day, be ostracized from their families and culture, for no gain."
Many pagans also died for their beliefs, often in horrific circumstances and in very large numbers for no apparent gain.
"Yes there was a Christ, who he was is contestable, but the fact that he walked and breathed is just a part of history"
It is part of religion, not history. Note that I'm not claiming this proves he didn't exist, but rather that there isn't much proof that he did.
"if he was just a man then why is there such a ferocious need to wipe out his existence, you don't see that from many other historical figures."
Who has made a ferocious effort to wipe out his existence? There might be a few of the more rabid atheists who do this, but my position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and most of the claimed evidence has turned out to be mediocre rather than extraordinary.