Wow. And I thought only the Pope was infallible...
Nice. Very petty. Now anything you say amounts to "Kiss my ass." I'll try to forget this so we can proceed.
Obviously, you've tapped into some deep root repository of 'humanness' that simply leaves me breathless. Crap. You've assumed so many things in this statement that aren't in evidence...
Is it unreasonable to extrapolate to reach the conclusions I did? In fact, I thought what I did was very scientific given the topic. Observe and report. I can't eliminate bias, but nor do I think it is entirely necessary for this subject. Can't we look at societies and assume that they regularly acknowledge certain behaviors as deviant? "Socially acceptable" doesn't change an action's detrimental effects, does it? Can we really pretend there is no standard for human behaviour?
If murder became perfectly acceptable, it would still result in death. We would only have to reach a point where we are no longer acknowledging that intentional death at the hand of another human was "wrong" by ignoring the previous standard that defined it as opposite of "right".
Like "intent"; your statement implies that, if sex was 'intended' for something, there must have been some intelligence that 'intended' it; thus, atheists must not be intelligent adults, by your thesis. Or perhaps you're simply pointing out that sex was 'intended' (in the weak sense of 'fits the purpose') for procreation; but then you seem to be suggesting that any other use (like, oh, recreation, communion, etc) is somehow invalid.
How so? I was very specific. Sex for profit = bad. Is that easier for you? How did I imply other "uses" being invalid?
No I never suggested an "intelligence". I suggested that by whatever means humans have reached this point in time, that we have long acknowledged certain actions are appropriate, or "good", and other actions inappropriate, or "bad".
You also suggest that there is some difference in 'level' (please define?) between a sex worker of any type and a delivery person or fast-food employee. I'm not sure what you mean. Would you say those are on the 'same level' as a doctor? A professor of English? A Sanitation Engineer? And what does it matter if they are or aren't 'on the same level'?
That you are on Slashdot suggests you have enough mental capacity to understand what I was describing. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand. But to eliminate any confusion: "Providing and/or facilitating services and/or goods."
Yes, in terms of what I conclude is a deviant behavior, legalities (socially acceptable) aside, sex as a business falls into the same "bad" category as hitmen (as in hiring one to kill yourself) or pedophilia (as in a 17 year old who seeks a sexual partner).
No, none of that is relevant, because your statement here is typical semantically null, prudish rhetoric used to make people feel bad about their choices or good about their prudishness.
"Prudish rhetoric"? Since when did having standards and sharing them with others become prudish? Besides, "prude" is a relative term based on perspective.
Again, petty and useless for your argument. Quite the opposite, in fact, you negate any point you hope to make with your insults that assume you, let's say, fucking know me. Insults don't work when they have no base. Thus, baseless. It's like calling me "four eyes" when I'm not wearing glasses or "idiot" when in fact I may be a certified genius. See how you keep falling on your face here? You really should stop, it's only hurting you.
I must admit that the way to get me to withold sarcasm is *not* to assure me that you know exactly what I 'know' and 'won't admit'.
Where did you get that? That's all you got out of that statement? Are you catholic?
Absolutely. That is what a free society is about.
Everybody says that until the burning shit lands on their porch. That's a cop-out from actually processing the implications of a difficult topic.
What would a "sex worker" be doing if {,s}he was not in porn movies?
What in your opinion is the better option?
Are you serious? What sort of pedantic distraction are you attempting here?
...so is it not better that this is all legal and above board...
Sorry but nothing in what I said had anything to do with legalities of the matter. Perhaps you're a catholic lawyer? For all I know, or care, legalize it all or outlaw it. For that matter, let's try it just to see what happpens.
Do you think legal or not, global humanity is better? To me, that's the more perssing and relevant question on many topics.
If there were a demand by old men in Thailand who get off on 37 year old nerds who can code a virus with their eyes closed, then I'm sure we'd have alot of geeks being kidnapped internationally. And it wouldn't change the fact that it would be wrong.
Obviously, many people are just fine with being a morally ambiguous wuss, just becuase someone else demands it be acceptable. Although, I'm sure it makes their life "easier", not having to think about tough "stuff" avoiding any form of discomfort for anybody. can't have that.
America has led the push for turning apathy into an art worldwide.
How about you just say, "I have no problem with 18 year olds become sex toys and being brainwashed to think that's all they're good for."
I would accept that, despite a hearty and healthy disagreement on my part.
I understand your point, but if you can withhold sarcasm for a moment, what are the odds that somewhere there are thousdands of men (and 7 women) masturbating to a fantasy scene of someone *pretending* to enjoy engineering a waste treatment facility and charging for viewing it.
Whether they admit it or not, any intelligent adult knows sex wasn't intended for profit-generation. That it isn't on same level as a delivery driver or a fast-food worker.
Regardless of the level of enjoyment or satisfaction, the primary reason people don't work for free is sustenance. Plain and simple. Basic survival. That hasn't changed in thousands of years.
It's entirely possible there were hunters who quite enjoyed doing what they had to do to live each day. And just as likely is that there were lazy-ass freeloaders who made it through winters on the hard work of others, though I doubt that situation, or they, lasted very long.
I find it fascinating, but mostly devastating, that as long as something isn't perceived socially as deviant or "hurting" anybody without their consent, that it's OK.
Is that REALLY a society we all want to live in? How about our children and our grandchildren?
Naw, we don't give a shit about them. They can fend for themselves in the Fastasmic Craptopia we're creating.
Based on my daily experience and anti-user/useful corporate sh**-shoveling aside, I see the ideal "One Box Solution" (eventually) being along these lines:
-Dreamweaver
"GoLive was for web pages?? I thought it was for database management."
-InDesign
F***ing Quark, why won't you just die? Actually a version of Quark from 1996 is listed in the "Goodies" section of the install DVD. It's better than the last 2 versions and easily runs on a Palm Vx.
-Photoshop
Will now take an extra 45 seconds to load. Just becuase they can. Holding Shift while opening "About..." will reveal the dev team.
Mooning you.
With unwiped arses.
-Fireworks
Nothing can touch its JPEG efficiency, though the sooner JPEG is taken out to the shed and euthanized the better. Animated GIF support is secretly replaced by a fly swatter that shoots from the floor and slaps you when you try to select it.
-Illustrator
Totally reworked with the soul of Freehand; though it STILL will have sucky microscopic node/path editing. Again: becuase they can. CorelDraw will continue to be superior at path/curve manipulation, cheaper, and still completely ignored by "professionals."
-Adobe Type Manager
This priceless utility will be neutered by the removal of the few menus/functions it did have and the UI features replaced with ads for $400 "sunlight" lamps and $7000 "ergonomic" desk chairs.
MSRP & CDW price: $2999
MacWarehouse Price: $2994
Street and E-tailer Price: $1699
Amazon.com/CostCo Price: $197 w/Free Second Day Shipping
For $879 more ($96 on Amazon; no one else carries it), a Premium box will have Acrobat, Flash DevEd, and a Spanish Dubloon. Not becuase anyone SHOULD have to pay extra for any of those anymore, but becuase you can't NOT have them and be legit.
All the analogies I read in this forum, and have read elsewhere/elsewhen, fail to reach their goal on this topic.
Many appear in the same post with a statement alluding to the "new world" of distribution via the internet.
So these analogies, despite some of them being quite good in their attempt, fail us in the same way the media companies have failed us: none has yet captured the essence of the internet.
More specifically to this issue: none have discovered (or at least "deployed") the killer app for electronic (perhaps "mediumless"?) distribution of intellectual property.
To stimulate conversation:
I work for a church (graphic designer/webmaster NOT pastor/theologian, so...). As a registered nonprofit organization, when someone gives us money and does not receive a tangible "thing" in return, or gives more than the market value for a "thing", the amount is tax-deductible, or the "overage" is in the case of a "thing" (physical item or not, such as a conference or camp).
However, should not a business (simple definition being: intent to profit) have the power to place what ever controls/limits/etc. on their "widget", physical or not?
Obviously, I haven't taken much of the current laws into consideration simply because my knowledge is limited to my understanding of layman's interpretations of those laws.
I think firefighters would have shot water in through windows and any places where fire itself had "opened" the roof.
Another thought is: I hope there isn't a individual(s) that was singly responsible for any poor storage methods that may have contributed to the extent of the loss.
In that case, they'll bear the brunt of much blame and guilt along with the consequences.
My thinking was if I had a collection of items that were one-of-a-kind, I'd be concerned with their protection enough to figure out a less susceptible storage method.
The room wouldn't need to be so exotic as "fireproof". Simply planned out such that an obvious possibility as fire, intentional or not, wouldn't be so devastating.
From my limited layman's perspective, I thought that's what firedoors, sprinkler zones and properly-spaced aisles were about.
Don't get me wrong though, I feel for them.
But sadly, simple human ignorance so often is the difference between a small/near accident and painful tragedy.
Think smoke detectors with dead batteries, unworn seat belts, underinflated SUV tires, or unattended children near pools, ad nauseum.
i think your first point is valid in regards to people's needs.
my underlying point is something is amiss with the iPod price structure. ALL of Apple's pricing is pure bunk.
i will admit, reviewing the lineup, the nano is a superior (killer?) value relative to the hard drive-based iPods.
but sorry, i stand that a solid state memory player is by no means an innovation. the nano just follows Apple's format for packaging up day-old technology in a shiny new wrapper and slapping tomorrow's price on it.
(full disclosure: i think SUVs are stupid.)
don't mistake me for a M$ lackey either, i'm just able to see the man behind the curtain...
i thnk the solid state memory is "neat", but c'mon apple, what's with the lack of TECHNICAL innovation?!
when will people stop being satisfied with shiny white plastic as a substitue for true innovation?
It could be said we've come full-circle, though I think I've made it unabashedly clear that I feel the whole topic is intertwined with inseparable questions of life and existence. Clearly that is open to debate from various sides. Perhaps more than 6 billion sides.
And, as I said early on, I find it stimulating to interject various viewpoints for the sake of having a more complete picture, though not all will like the picture that is painted. Nor will all be accurate.
What I had been trying to do is make logical assumptions from your statements. That became tedious since the validity of evolution crumbles quite easily for me, especially to to the level of credence it has been given. So I made some off-handed and lighthearted jabs. They weren't intended as optimal examples of intelligent design. I apologize if they clouded the issue.
As for my metaphysics being "extraordinarily sloppy and facile", let's beat the dead horse: Evolution is true in whatever cold hard scientific form you please. Now what?
God desired to share love in it's purest sense: love that is chosen. It is in our capacity to choose, unique among all other creatures, that that ultimate fulfillment lies. The physical form of that creature,us, wasn't the point. Indeed is of so little consequnce that, upon our mistake of not choosing to fully rely on God, He decided that we will, at some point, no longer inhabit our bodies.
Where do any theories come from, if not the imagination of the originator?
I'll admit it was a facetious statement made out of context but... whoa whoa whoa "well-being"? "satisfaction"?
As you yourself said, science is not concerned with such matters. Though "Health" I will half-give you arguably, but we've been there already.
I've RTFM and science confirms it, while you've decided it's some "fairy tale" and choose to believe observations made by fallible humans billions of years after the alleged fact. Who's really dreaming here?
If evolution were true, then who cares if science "leads to tremendous advances in improving the health, well-being, and satisfaction of humanity"? So what? Our existence is entirely meaningless.
There's the cold hard scientific reality for you.
So if I am correct and you are not, then there are deeper implications. While if indeed you are correct and I, the sad sack that you believe me to be, am wrong, then who cares?
On a platform of evolution you have no basis for higher ideals, no basis for improvement, no basis for existence.
You have nothing.
Evolution does allow for much more in the realm of imagination: Why didn't we just evolve to clay-based beings like Gumby? It would make the medical fields all but nonexistent. Or what the heck is taking so long?! When do we get to be a bodyless consciousness that is unbound by linear space-time! Or maybe we are just sentient cells, part of some infinitely large creature? I suppose the Bible doesn't allow for those possibilities. Though it doesn't prevent us from imagining it...
Slashdot Mirror
No jokes about a post-apocalyptic Kevin Costner and a group of ragtag teenage revolutionaries?
I feeling hungry for some ass... donkey! I meant DONKEY!
(OK, but you asked for it.)
Wow. And I thought only the Pope was infallible...
Nice. Very petty. Now anything you say amounts to "Kiss my ass." I'll try to forget this so we can proceed.
Obviously, you've tapped into some deep root repository of 'humanness' that simply leaves me breathless. Crap. You've assumed so many things in this statement that aren't in evidence...
Is it unreasonable to extrapolate to reach the conclusions I did? In fact, I thought what I did was very scientific given the topic. Observe and report. I can't eliminate bias, but nor do I think it is entirely necessary for this subject. Can't we look at societies and assume that they regularly acknowledge certain behaviors as deviant? "Socially acceptable" doesn't change an action's detrimental effects, does it? Can we really pretend there is no standard for human behaviour?
If murder became perfectly acceptable, it would still result in death. We would only have to reach a point where we are no longer acknowledging that intentional death at the hand of another human was "wrong" by ignoring the previous standard that defined it as opposite of "right".
Like "intent"; your statement implies that, if sex was 'intended' for something, there must have been some intelligence that 'intended' it; thus, atheists must not be intelligent adults, by your thesis. Or perhaps you're simply pointing out that sex was 'intended' (in the weak sense of 'fits the purpose') for procreation; but then you seem to be suggesting that any other use (like, oh, recreation, communion, etc) is somehow invalid.
How so? I was very specific. Sex for profit = bad. Is that easier for you? How did I imply other "uses" being invalid?
No I never suggested an "intelligence". I suggested that by whatever means humans have reached this point in time, that we have long acknowledged certain actions are appropriate, or "good", and other actions inappropriate, or "bad".
You also suggest that there is some difference in 'level' (please define?) between a sex worker of any type and a delivery person or fast-food employee. I'm not sure what you mean. Would you say those are on the 'same level' as a doctor? A professor of English? A Sanitation Engineer? And what does it matter if they are or aren't 'on the same level'?
That you are on Slashdot suggests you have enough mental capacity to understand what I was describing. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand. But to eliminate any confusion: "Providing and/or facilitating services and/or goods."
Yes, in terms of what I conclude is a deviant behavior, legalities (socially acceptable) aside, sex as a business falls into the same "bad" category as hitmen (as in hiring one to kill yourself) or pedophilia (as in a 17 year old who seeks a sexual partner).
No, none of that is relevant, because your statement here is typical semantically null, prudish rhetoric used to make people feel bad about their choices or good about their prudishness.
"Prudish rhetoric"? Since when did having standards and sharing them with others become prudish? Besides, "prude" is a relative term based on perspective.
Again, petty and useless for your argument. Quite the opposite, in fact, you negate any point you hope to make with your insults that assume you, let's say, fucking know me. Insults don't work when they have no base. Thus, baseless. It's like calling me "four eyes" when I'm not wearing glasses or "idiot" when in fact I may be a certified genius. See how you keep falling on your face here? You really should stop, it's only hurting you.
I must admit that the way to get me to withold sarcasm is *not* to assure me that you know exactly what I 'know' and 'won't admit'.
I CAN safely assume what yo
That's not to say I won't respond.
But I won't bother until you review your post and eliminate all the baseless insinuations.
So, masturbation is evil?
...so is it not better that this is all legal and above board...
Where did you get that? That's all you got out of that statement? Are you catholic?
Absolutely. That is what a free society is about.
Everybody says that until the burning shit lands on their porch. That's a cop-out from actually processing the implications of a difficult topic.
What would a "sex worker" be doing if {,s}he was not in porn movies?
What in your opinion is the better option?
Are you serious? What sort of pedantic distraction are you attempting here?
Sorry but nothing in what I said had anything to do with legalities of the matter. Perhaps you're a catholic lawyer? For all I know, or care, legalize it all or outlaw it. For that matter, let's try it just to see what happpens.
Do you think legal or not, global humanity is better? To me, that's the more perssing and relevant question on many topics.
If there were a demand by old men in Thailand who get off on 37 year old nerds who can code a virus with their eyes closed, then I'm sure we'd have alot of geeks being kidnapped internationally. And it wouldn't change the fact that it would be wrong.
Obviously, many people are just fine with being a morally ambiguous wuss, just becuase someone else demands it be acceptable. Although, I'm sure it makes their life "easier", not having to think about tough "stuff" avoiding any form of discomfort for anybody. can't have that.
America has led the push for turning apathy into an art worldwide.
How about you just say, "I have no problem with 18 year olds become sex toys and being brainwashed to think that's all they're good for."
I would accept that, despite a hearty and healthy disagreement on my part.
What the FUCK?!
Your assumptions are ridiculous.
I understand your point, but if you can withhold sarcasm for a moment, what are the odds that somewhere there are thousdands of men (and 7 women) masturbating to a fantasy scene of someone *pretending* to enjoy engineering a waste treatment facility and charging for viewing it.
Whether they admit it or not, any intelligent adult knows sex wasn't intended for profit-generation. That it isn't on same level as a delivery driver or a fast-food worker.
Regardless of the level of enjoyment or satisfaction, the primary reason people don't work for free is sustenance. Plain and simple. Basic survival. That hasn't changed in thousands of years.
It's entirely possible there were hunters who quite enjoyed doing what they had to do to live each day. And just as likely is that there were lazy-ass freeloaders who made it through winters on the hard work of others, though I doubt that situation, or they, lasted very long.
I find it fascinating, but mostly devastating, that as long as something isn't perceived socially as deviant or "hurting" anybody without their consent, that it's OK.
Is that REALLY a society we all want to live in? How about our children and our grandchildren?
Naw, we don't give a shit about them. They can fend for themselves in the Fastasmic Craptopia we're creating.
^Thus reinforcing the notion that certain elements of society should not be permitted to reproduce.^
They're called females (plus the 7 male pr0nstrz) and they aren't supposed to be sex toys for the perverts of the world.
Certain males and females who are the result of regrettable circumstances of life shouldn't be commodified.
That said, I don't believe in censorship in any form. As you so eloquently stated, we should be free to see and hear what we choose.
But we shouldn't be free of the consequences or we'll never grow.
Based on my daily experience and anti-user/useful corporate sh**-shoveling aside, I see the ideal "One Box Solution" (eventually) being along these lines:
-Dreamweaver
"GoLive was for web pages?? I thought it was for database management."
-InDesign
F***ing Quark, why won't you just die? Actually a version of Quark from 1996 is listed in the "Goodies" section of the install DVD. It's better than the last 2 versions and easily runs on a Palm Vx.
-Photoshop
Will now take an extra 45 seconds to load. Just becuase they can. Holding Shift while opening "About..." will reveal the dev team.
Mooning you.
With unwiped arses.
-Fireworks
Nothing can touch its JPEG efficiency, though the sooner JPEG is taken out to the shed and euthanized the better. Animated GIF support is secretly replaced by a fly swatter that shoots from the floor and slaps you when you try to select it.
-Illustrator
Totally reworked with the soul of Freehand; though it STILL will have sucky microscopic node/path editing. Again: becuase they can. CorelDraw will continue to be superior at path/curve manipulation, cheaper, and still completely ignored by "professionals."
-Adobe Type Manager
This priceless utility will be neutered by the removal of the few menus/functions it did have and the UI features replaced with ads for $400 "sunlight" lamps and $7000 "ergonomic" desk chairs.
MSRP & CDW price: $2999
MacWarehouse Price: $2994
Street and E-tailer Price: $1699
Amazon.com/CostCo Price: $197 w/Free Second Day Shipping
For $879 more ($96 on Amazon; no one else carries it), a Premium box will have Acrobat, Flash DevEd, and a Spanish Dubloon. Not becuase anyone SHOULD have to pay extra for any of those anymore, but becuase you can't NOT have them and be legit.
"Jailed Spammer's Ass Victim of DOS Attack" ...Bandwidth Severely Affected...
All the analogies I read in this forum, and have read elsewhere/elsewhen, fail to reach their goal on this topic.
Many appear in the same post with a statement alluding to the "new world" of distribution via the internet.
So these analogies, despite some of them being quite good in their attempt, fail us in the same way the media companies have failed us: none has yet captured the essence of the internet.
More specifically to this issue: none have discovered (or at least "deployed") the killer app for electronic (perhaps "mediumless"?) distribution of intellectual property.
To stimulate conversation:
I work for a church (graphic designer/webmaster NOT pastor/theologian, so...). As a registered nonprofit organization, when someone gives us money and does not receive a tangible "thing" in return, or gives more than the market value for a "thing", the amount is tax-deductible, or the "overage" is in the case of a "thing" (physical item or not, such as a conference or camp).
However, should not a business (simple definition being: intent to profit) have the power to place what ever controls/limits/etc. on their "widget", physical or not?
Obviously, I haven't taken much of the current laws into consideration simply because my knowledge is limited to my understanding of layman's interpretations of those laws.
Thoughts???
I figured as much. And I do appreciate the irony.
I still think the extent of damage would have been substantially less given the presence of a proper functioning fire suppresion system.
I think it's a horrible loss and an unfortunate lesson.
(thus sparking an inappropriate pun: Trial by Fire, I suppose... *double moan*)
Assuming you're not being facetious...
I think firefighters would have shot water in through windows and any places where fire itself had "opened" the roof.
Another thought is: I hope there isn't a individual(s) that was singly responsible for any poor storage methods that may have contributed to the extent of the loss.
In that case, they'll bear the brunt of much blame and guilt along with the consequences.
I understand your point from a news-worthy/value perspective.
But if you're an artist who worked on it you are concerned with the loss, regardless of attention it garners.
As for value, the only thing sadder than physical loss was if it was all uninsured!
I pondered the same Catch-22.
My thinking was if I had a collection of items that were one-of-a-kind, I'd be concerned with their protection enough to figure out a less susceptible storage method.
The room wouldn't need to be so exotic as "fireproof". Simply planned out such that an obvious possibility as fire, intentional or not, wouldn't be so devastating.
From my limited layman's perspective, I thought that's what firedoors, sprinkler zones and properly-spaced aisles were about.
Don't get me wrong though, I feel for them.
But sadly, simple human ignorance so often is the difference between a small/near accident and painful tragedy.
Think smoke detectors with dead batteries, unworn seat belts, underinflated SUV tires, or unattended children near pools, ad nauseum.
...was there no preventative measures in place to protet the irreplaceable memorabilia?!
i think your first point is valid in regards to people's needs.
my underlying point is something is amiss with the iPod price structure. ALL of Apple's pricing is pure bunk.
i will admit, reviewing the lineup, the nano is a superior (killer?) value relative to the hard drive-based iPods.
but sorry, i stand that a solid state memory player is by no means an innovation. the nano just follows Apple's format for packaging up day-old technology in a shiny new wrapper and slapping tomorrow's price on it.
(full disclosure: i think SUVs are stupid.)
don't mistake me for a M$ lackey either, i'm just able to see the man behind the curtain...
i thnk the solid state memory is "neat", but c'mon apple, what's with the lack of TECHNICAL innovation?! when will people stop being satisfied with shiny white plastic as a substitue for true innovation?
Compelling the entire geek community to respond with a resoundingly indifferent, "Oh."
"The Dolefully Obvious Daily"
Not only was that the first EVER review I've seen even UNintentionally for the genre, it was informative and insightful.
Well done. I honorarily mod you +2.
Looks as though there's a demand for pre-recorded PC noise.
Then all you whackos can rip it and play it back on your IPods to relax wherever you are...
You'll know we've really arrived when you see it on those kiosks that sell other Environmental/New Age CDs.
Oh OK, so Michael Jackson is really just a privacy extremist.
It could be said we've come full-circle, though I think I've made it unabashedly clear that I feel the whole topic is intertwined with inseparable questions of life and existence. Clearly that is open to debate from various sides. Perhaps more than 6 billion sides.
And, as I said early on, I find it stimulating to interject various viewpoints for the sake of having a more complete picture, though not all will like the picture that is painted. Nor will all be accurate.
What I had been trying to do is make logical assumptions from your statements. That became tedious since the validity of evolution crumbles quite easily for me, especially to to the level of credence it has been given. So I made some off-handed and lighthearted jabs. They weren't intended as optimal examples of intelligent design. I apologize if they clouded the issue.
As for my metaphysics being "extraordinarily sloppy and facile", let's beat the dead horse: Evolution is true in whatever cold hard scientific form you please. Now what?
God desired to share love in it's purest sense: love that is chosen. It is in our capacity to choose, unique among all other creatures, that that ultimate fulfillment lies. The physical form of that creature,us, wasn't the point. Indeed is of so little consequnce that, upon our mistake of not choosing to fully rely on God, He decided that we will, at some point, no longer inhabit our bodies.
Where do any theories come from, if not the imagination of the originator?
I'll admit it was a facetious statement made out of context but... whoa whoa whoa "well-being"? "satisfaction"?
As you yourself said, science is not concerned with such matters. Though "Health" I will half-give you arguably, but we've been there already.
I've RTFM and science confirms it, while you've decided it's some "fairy tale" and choose to believe observations made by fallible humans billions of years after the alleged fact. Who's really dreaming here?
If evolution were true, then who cares if science "leads to tremendous advances in improving the health, well-being, and satisfaction of humanity"? So what? Our existence is entirely meaningless.
There's the cold hard scientific reality for you.
So if I am correct and you are not, then there are deeper implications. While if indeed you are correct and I, the sad sack that you believe me to be, am wrong, then who cares?
On a platform of evolution you have no basis for higher ideals, no basis for improvement, no basis for existence.
You have nothing.
Evolution does allow for much more in the realm of imagination: Why didn't we just evolve to clay-based beings like Gumby? It would make the medical fields all but nonexistent. Or what the heck is taking so long?! When do we get to be a bodyless consciousness that is unbound by linear space-time! Or maybe we are just sentient cells, part of some infinitely large creature? I suppose the Bible doesn't allow for those possibilities. Though it doesn't prevent us from imagining it...
Which is why cold hard "science" will be the end of us.
Pity.