To me the solution appears rather simple, and the AllPeers project is a step in that direction. My father, both my brothers, my newphew, two of my nieces, my wife at work and I (with three in total) all have PCs. AllPeers is a way for us to share our stuff in an easy way. This should be expanded in the following way:
AllPeers allows you to set up a "Virtual Folder" where we all throw in all of our stuff. This virtual folder can be replicated on all our harddrives, or they can use a over-the-net-using-bittorrent RAID-type solution where things are here and there. As long as most of us have AllPeers running, the data will always be accessible. Upgrading for the future will only be a matter of updating the AllPeers software.
If this became popular all future solutions, be they wrist-strapped-super-computers or brain implants, would have to include backwards compatible similar solutions, and voila all is well.
P2P saves the (data of) the World, and we are all happy.
Very true, the Mac Mini is a very interesting device, and I have a feeling we will see another step in the direction of TV/Tivo/MediaCenter for the Mini next week. The Mini is going to be the main competitor to PlayStation3 and similar. Regular PCs on the other hand...
The negatives will surely have deteriorated over time
This is surely going to be an issue for some of the movies, but a lot of studios have re-mastered their stuff, and a lot of it is also stored very well. I don't think this is going to be a huge problem.
What's more, ultra-high-resolution HD processes probably won't be particularly flattering to the film stocks used at that time
This on the other hand seems like an absurd statement. Most of this stuff was shot on 35mm or better. It was shot to be viewed on huge screens with actors 15 feet tall. Sure, people are a little further away, but still. 35mm has far better "resolution" than does HD. Why would this not convert well?
Think about this, take one of your best 35mm slides, get a fantastic scanner for it, do you think you can scan this slide well in a resolution around 1900 by 1080 or do you think the blemishes on your girlfriends face will be far easier to see there than in the version you are showing on the projector? Why would the movie studios not be able to do the what you can?
I can see the difference between HD and SD with good source material, but really, how much of the stuff out there is good source material?
Huh? Most of it? Now, if they up-sample, it is going to be cr@p, but I seriously doubt that anyone will. I assume they have already digitized most of the film stuff with a pretty decent resolution. HD isn't really going to come as a surprise to the studios, they have known about it for some years. Remember, most of what you watch is shot on 35mm or better, which converts to HD very well.
he industry doesn't seem to understand is that a standard DVD is more than good enough for most people
Have you ever watched HD? I'm sorry, but have you? Compared to DVD? Resolution is not the only thing that plagues DVD, color space is horrible. In short, compared to HD DVD is pure junk quality, and you can really see that on higher quality large screens. People are going to adopt bigger screens slowly, and then they are going to buy Sony Playstations, and then they are going to say: Doesn't that Playstation play these new cool movies? And then they are going to buy one. And then they will never buy a DVD again if they can get the same movie in HD.
Now, is DVD to HD going to be slow. Definitely. I don't think anyone in the industry thinks there will be widespread HD adoption fast. If it happens in 5-10 years I think they will all be pleasently surprised.
The personal computer is not going to be a huge part of your entertainment system, a lot of what you currently use your computer for will be taken over by console type applications such as Playstation 3, and lo-and-behold, the PS3 will incorporate HD.
There is a simple reason for this, the PS3 will be significantly cheaper, and a lot easier to fit into your stereo system than your PC.
I agree that Hollywood is losing money because what they create is junk, and that watching the old stuff will keep most of us happy for a long time to come. Besides, your comments are just a little off, Hollywood is not seing a decline in DVD sales, they are seing a decline in Box Office sales. DVD sales are more than twice that of the Box Office.
You seem to imply that they want to push HD so that we will stop copying DVDs and start buying their cr@p, that is just not the case. In fact, Hollywood has seriously mixed feelings about HD. Why? Because they are afraid that it will make you and I stop going to the theatres. It probably will, but I do not think it will have a hugely negative impact on Hollywoods bottom line, they will just have to do business slightly differently.
Which brings us to: most of what I like to watch already exists and isn't in HD format
Most of what you watch already exists, and in formats that are vastly superior to HD. It has been downconverted to DVD, but DVD is a pretty cr@ppy format for viewing on a big screen, try a DVD on a 50" screen, it actually looks pretty bad. Compare that to HD.
As HD is adopted, all your old stuff will also be released in HD, and believe me, you are not going to want to own a cr@ppy DVD once the HD version is out if it has been down converted well. Why do you think Sony bought the movie studio with the largest video library in the US? So that they can release all that old stuff on HD.
HD is coming, and once your TV size goes to 42", you are going to want to have it.
In our current post-modern world, since there's no such thing as absolute truth, no one has the right to claim their ideas as being of more value than anyone else's.
This is in fact where you are wrong, and this is also one of the main problems with the US at the moment. For a great article on the subject, I recommend the current Esquire, the article is called "Idiot America".
You are correct that there is no absolute truth, not unless you set up a framework in which this absolute truth is absolute truth by definition. For example, in the framework of mathematics, 2+2 is 4, and that is absolute truth. Within the framework of the world, the fact of Evolution as a process is absolute truth since it has been observed. We could argue that observation doesn't validate and that our world is only a figment of our imagination, but then all discussions become absurd.
The second part of your statement is that no ideas have more value than others is just plain absurd. I can claim that gravity doesn't exist, but I can't claim that my idea about gravity has the same value as the ideas of Newton.
The absurd notion that any idea, as long as enough people believe in it or if the few who do believe in it do so with enough fervor validates that idea or lifts its value to a higher level is simply utter nonsense.
Sadly the christian right have embarked upon yet another crusade against science. This is not the first time, the last time you guys imprisoned and murdered scientists that dared challenge your world view. Today you don't have enough power to do so, but that doesn't faze you, you still try to ban all teachings of science from our schools. Should you succeed you will set social and echonomical development in this country back at least 100 years.
The core issue (as I mentioned in a post above) is that those with a distinctly non-christian world view have hijacked the courts and the educational system in the US and are using it to indoctrinate the next generation with muck.
The horrifying truth is that the exact opposite is in fact true, and this is well documented. Over the past 20 years or so the extreme right, let's call you guys by your right name, the American Taliban, have filled courts across the country with right-wing religious judges, and education boards with right-wing christian nutcases (look at what happened tonight in Kansas). The idea is that, in complete defiance of the ideas of the founding fathers, the American Taliban wishes to create a Christian Fundament to build a new USA on. This fundament is diametrically opposite to the fundament the founding fathers used, and the poor guys must be spinning in their graves each time a religious nut uses the phrase "founding fathers".
One component of that muck is the concept that all life spontaneously appeared from essentially nothing. This is NOT a scientific view.
You are absolutely correct, this is not a scientific idea, it is a complete absurd notion about what science says that exists only in your head. This is called a straw-man attack. You live in a world of astonishing ignorance, you conjure up ideas about what science is, completely independent of what it actually is, and then you attack those ideas. Sadly there is probably nothing that can be done to fix this flaw in you.
Also, when you rail against the abuses of the religious right, I'd ask you to consider whether any other world view would allow as much freedom as is available to people of all stripes here in the US.
The works of the "founding fathers" when they created this great nation is unparallelled in history, both before and essentially after what they did. When creating a nation there were a few things that were extremely important to them, and those views had a significant impact on the country in which you and I live today. These are some of the important notions they had, and what impact it had on our country
Why do these same people never object to the non-existence of God being claimed (or assumed) in science class
I have never met a science teacher that spent time in class claiming the non-existence of God. Why would he? It is not part of the curriculum. On the other hand, the non-existence of God is the only scientific attidute towards God. Science has to assume the non-existence of God for the same reasons it assumes the non-existence of Santa Claus. There is no data indicating eithers existence.
A true scientist will be open to new ideas, test them and evaluate whether they fit the facts or not. If ID is completely baseless, then science can investigate, falsify and then ignore the whole thing.
If ID was a new scientific theory, you are absolutely correct, that is what a scientist should (and would) do. ID isn't a new scientific theory however, it is a political move to ban the teaching of science from our schools. Barring such a ban, the goal of the ID proponent is to garble the teachings of science to such a degree that our children will leave school with a little knowledge as possible about anything that isn't written in the bible. In short, ID is the latest in a number of attempts to imprison and preferrably execute Copernicus.
Sadly, the currents in our society today is that each idea, as long as it is held by people with enough "faith" has equal value. In such times, ID and other nut-case ideas like UFO landings at Roswell and the like will gain a lot of momentum, and our children will suffer for it.
The current popularity of the religious right and all of it nutty ideas is, in the long run, a far greater threat to the US than is a bunch of religious lunatics running around the mountains of Afghanistan plotting to blow up our buildings. Bin Laden can tear down our houses and kill some of our children, the religious right is trying to destroy the very foundations that has made the US the country in the world where just about "everybody" wants to live.
It is simply not true that evolution has been proved beyond doubt
Evolution as a method has been more than "proved beyond doubt", it has been observed, and as such is not a matter of debate. Even the ID proponents have recognized this fact. Evolution as a theory to explain the appearance of man on this planet has not been "proved beyond doubt", but it is currently the only theory that explains the observed phenomena. Is that so hard for the religious people to understand? There are no other theories. There is superstition and conjecture, but no other theories.
he fact that evolution is taught in classrooms as mere fact is an affront to many Americans
Why should this matter? Should the fact that the majority of a group of people shows a tremendous amount of ignorance stop us from teaching children science? Why is it that you right-wing christians hate science so? Is it such a threat to the feeble foundations on which your world-views rest?
Answer this. Considering the fact that Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains what we see. It may or may not be right, it doesn't matter. Why are you so scared of it that you need to ban it?
The side effects of contraception in general:
50% divorce rate
A high rate of marital infidelity
Significant decay of families
If this was related to religion etc, as the poster seems to imply, why is it that the more religion you have in a society, the higher the teen pregnancy rate is? The more relgion you have the higher the divorce rate and the higher the abortion rate. Why is it that the states in the US who have the most churches also have the most strip clubs?
The sheer number seem to indicate that if you remove God from a society it will become less criminal, less prone to infidelity and abortion and in general, nicer.
to say that einstein "threw out" newton is rediculous
No, it isn't. f=ma is true, but not for all values of f, m and a. Newton assumes that f=ma doesn't change for values of these variables, but once it was observed that it does, we had to disregard Newton for Einstein. Since the values of f, m and a for which Newton is wrong however are not very relevant for our daily life, we still use Newton as a good approximation, and somewhat easier to work with than Einstein.
When those who believe in Evolution present it and mandate it as a fact in schools, it is an affront to those who believe in Creation
No, it is in fact not. Evolution isn't a belief, but a matter of observed fact, and as such we should teach it in school. Evolution as the method at which humans appeared on the planet is a scientific theory based on the observed realities. As a scientific theory it should also be taught in school, in science class. ID and Creationism are, along side with Astrology, belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, belief systems with no basis in any observed reality. As such they should be taught in school too, but not in science class.
There are many scientific examples of data that contradict the theory of evolution that are not explained.
Eh, no, there isn't. There is in fact not a single piece of scientific data that contradict the theory of evolution. There are parts of evolution process that we do not fully understand, but none of them contradict the theory of evolution.
It would be best to present multiple theories and state that is what they are.
I agree completely, and to my knowledge that is currently what happens. In science class all available theories that describe the creation of humans are taught. Alle one of them. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories, they never have been and they never will be, and as such don't belong in science class. If you do not know what a scientific theory is I would recommend you read up on it.
I get the feeling I'm using a different deffiniton of "belief" then you are.
No, you do not, but you are demonstrating, again and again, that you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of what science is, and you are mixing theory (which is a scientific concept) and belief over and over. You really need to learn a little bit more about what science is before you can critisize it.
You've brought up probability again. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional 'simple' cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse then 1 in 10^57800.
This is almost hysterically funny. I thought that Christians weren't supposed to lie, why do you feel that lying is OK in print? OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, you are not lying, you are just utterly ignorant. Not entirely surprising of course, religion and ignorance tend to go hand in hand. The absolutely absurd idea above, that the formation of a simple cell is "acknowledged to be worse" than a specific number is an old, dumb, christian critique of evolution that has been refuted a long time ago.
Before continuing these rather ignorant attacks on something you have no knowledge about whatsoever, I recommend you gather a little knowledge about the subject matter. You are making a fool out of your self in public.
What I meant is that I believe ID is true. You obviously believe that evolution is true. It's faith-based either way.
Sigh, why is this so bloody hard to understand for the religious nuts? I do not believe in evolution. Never have. Never will. I know that evolution as a process is fact simply because we have observed it. I think the theory that this process has lead to speciation is an interesting theory, and as long as it is the only theory, I have no choice but to assume that the probability for it being close to the truth is high. None of the ideas described in this paragraph require any amount of belief.
If ID is not falsifiable, why do so many people here say it's wrong?
Noone has said that it is wrong, as I said in another theory, even on the off-chance that ID is an accurate description of what happened it still isn't a scientific theory. Now, do I have scientific reason to assume that ID is wrong? Yes, I do. Simple really. The following three ideas have the exact same probability of being true:
The universe and humans were created by an intelligent designer (ID).
The universe was a result of a cold that a pan-dimentional hedge-hog had
where he coughed up the universe inststead of a fur ball. Later when he
suffered from Diahrreah, he shat the mud that was to become man
The world was created by the pan-dimentiona flying spaghetti monster one
day when he was unsuccessfully trying to branch into the pan-dimentional
pizza business.
Since all of the ideas above have the exact same probability of being true, why would I want to believe in either of them?
I see a lot of attacks on ID because of who is presenting it.
There have been none in this discussion, at least not by me. My point has always been that ID is a religious belief, and as such it should be taught along side of other religious beliefs. It doesn't belong in science class.
This being said, I believe in ID. My opinions may or may not be true, but they are not automatically false because I am a Christian.
Noone is saying they are false, we are just saying that your belief is not science. Consider what the first sentence is that I quoted above, the word "belief" is important. You don't "b elieve" in science, belief has no place at all in science.
Why is [the badly designed human spine] not fixed yet? Survival of the fittest and all that.
Here you are just innundating us with your immesurable ignorance. You really should take a look at evolution before you ask such, rather silly, questions. Short though: Evolugion is not design, it doesn't have a goal or a purpose. It can not fix the spine, but humans have altered slightly over time to adapt to the problem with the bad spine. The problem is that the spine evolved over a far longer time period than humans have been walking up-right, so it is still mainly good for quad-ped movement.
You did completely miss the point though. The badly designed spine is something that evolution can explain very well, but ID can not explain it at all. In fact, the very badly design spind and rib-cage shows us that there was definitely not any intelligent design behind humans.
Ah, but [what's inside the whale abdomen] are not legs - we don't know what they are.
Oh, but we do. They are legs.
Because, to the body, cancer seems like a normal cell. There is absolutely no reason for pain to kick in.
This is not true on several accounts. A cancerous growth can easily be distinguished from regular tissue. Even through cursory examination. The fact that we are designed with a damage warning system that completely omits checking for some of the most dangerous problems we can have, but at the same time issues dire, and dibilitating, warnings for rather mundane problem is another proof that the idiot who designed it didn't know shit about what he was doing. ID should consequently change it's name to MD, Moronic Design.
In closing, I'd like to make the point that ID is a scientific theory. It would be foolish of anyone to make the logical error of claiming it is not.
This is a bold-faced lie, or a statement made by someone who has noe clue whatsoever. Science is a methodology, and that methodology requires that theories has two properties. The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable
. This is not something I am making up just to put ID in the box of non-science, it is the very definition of science.
ID can not be tested since it is far too vague to test, and it can not be falsified for some of the same reasons. It is therefore not a scientific theory. It is a belief, but not a theory. As you showed well when you said "I believe in ID". I don't believe in evolution, I relate to it as fact on the micro level, and accept the fact that it is the only available theory that explains speciation.
Ask ten people to design the same thing, and you will get ten different designs
If you asked ten engineers to design the spine and the ribcage are of a quadruped, one, or even several, of them might come up with an idea similar to the one you see in the quadrupeds around us. Cows. Horses. Dogs. If you asked them to design the same area for an up-right biped, none of them would come up with the same design. Not a single one. The spine and rib-cage design that is common to all humans and most mammals is very good for a quadruped, it is just plain dumb for a biped. We aren't talking about dumb as in, "I don't like that design", we are talking dumb as in "That will never work idiot, you fail engineering 101".
On the other hand, if humans evolved from earlier quadrupeds, the design makes perfect sense.
Just because you can't see why the code was designed and written the way it was doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason for it.
The problem with the code that was written is not that I do not understand it, the problem is that it doesn't solve the problem and that it crashes and causes horrible damage all the time. For some reason it is perfect for a completely different application, but using it in the one where we are currently doing code review is not only bad coding, it is active sabotage.
most of that list seems to be merely design flaws, not evolution evidence itself.
Not at all. If there is any intelligence behind the design, using the same spine design for a bi-pedal creature that you use for quad pedal use is not design flaws, it is gross negligence. Our spince is perfectly designed for an animal where the spine is parallell, not perpendicular to the ground. If you assume ID, the only reason for such a design error is gross incompetence, while evolution describes the problem perfectly, the spine is the way it is because an animal that used to walk on four, now walks on two.
Saying ID is appropriate for a Social Science or Philosophy class, shows great contempt for those subjects. ID is junk, it doesn't belong in any class.
That's an absurd statement. A good bit of what we learn in school is what things some people believe in. Saying that ID doesn't belong at all in any form in our education system is the same as saying teaching people about Buddhism doesn't belong in our schools, or learning about religion an philosophy doesn't belong in schools. That would severly limit what is taught in school.
Testability of macro evolution will probably have to happen on the genetical level. Map genes, "damages" to genes (which are inherited) etc. I do not think the evidence of macro evolution will be found in fossils.
A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design. It studies the science of intelligence or intelligent life.
This his simply a lie, and I thought Christians were not allowed to lie. Intelligent Design doesn't study anything, ID has postulated a set of theories that are beyond study and therefore not scientific, even if, by an astonishing miracle ID was a correct description of the world, it would be wrong to teach it in science class.
Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically.
This is another lie, the Christian is really going at it today. ID has never been tested simply because it is not testable. Also, the sentence above shows with utter clarity why you are so amazingly wrong, you are just ignorant. Science, outside of a rather narrow field, doesn't deal with proving things much, it deals with falsifying things, and the difference is enormous.
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
This could probably said to be true, close to the first true sentence in your posting. There is a huge problem with it though, there is no characteristic signature in life that would imply intelligent design.
I propose the followers if the ID ideology change the name of it to BSD. The Theory of Bloody Stupid Design. You see, in all the life we see around us there is evidence after evidence of a Bloody Stupid Designer, if you look. A few examples:
Why is mankind created with a spine that is perfectly designed for waking on all fours when we walk on two? In fact, the spine is designed so horribly badly for bi-pedal movement that any engineering student could do significantly better after the first 6 months in engineering school.
What kind of idiot would design a sea-living mammal like the whale, with the remnants of legs inside its lower abdomen? What on earth would a whale do with legs in it's abdomen?
The human pain system is designed in a marvellously stupid way. If I suffer from a small amount of tooth decay, I suffer significant pain, this in spite of the fact that the tooth decay is not at all dangerous to my life. On the other hand, if I get a cancerous growth in my lungs, I notice nothing until it is too late to save my life. What kind of moron would design a warning system like that?
Several parts of my internal organs, the appendix being a notable one, is designed in such a way that inflammation, and until quite recently - death, follows. This in spite of the fact that the dumb thing serves no purpose whatsoever! Would you praise GM for having a nonsensical device in your car that blows your engine to pieces if it rains for three days in a row?
The eye is a fantastically complex mechanism, but it has a design flaw, very minor, but the design flaw reduces the accuracy of the eye with as much as 50%. Why on earth would you be dumb enough to do that in humans? The design flaw would be trivial to fix if you designed a human from scratch.
A bi-pedaled entity like the human would be able to walk faster, suffer less back pain and in general be far healtier if our knees were jointed the opposite way of the way they are. What kind of moron would give us knees that work great if you walk on all four, but not so well when you walk on two?
The list goes on and on. There is no trace of any intelligence whatsoever in our design, but there is a lot of traces of random changes, adaptation of body-parts to jobs they are not particularly well suited for etc. If there was someone behind the design of humans, he would fail Human Design 101. Bloody Stupid Johnson.
I have no problem with creationism as science, if you do, you probably don't understand the term "science"
The above is pure rubbish, I am sorry that I have to word it that hard. Creationism is a theory, but as a theory it is neither tesable nor is it falsifiable. Since this is obviously not the case, creationism (and it's cousin ID) are not and will never be scientific theories. They therefore do not belong in science class.
Does anyone care that plenty of highschools use the book of Job... for language studies
Why would anyone care? The book of Job is language, and as such it is worthy of study in a class where language is studied. ID, creationism and astrology are all are all related to science in the same way, not at all and as such do not belong in science class.
Is there something inherently harmful about teaching people truth?
This has nothing to do with what we teach our children in general, it has to do with what we teach our children about science. They should teach children about comparative religion, that is good. But keep it in religion class, it has no business in science class. ID and Creationism are not alternative theories to Evolution, the are alternative theories to Islam, paganism and Astrology.
you want to expose the kids to ID, do it in the right setting, either have a section in the bio-chem book about pre-biotic chemistry and ID, or have a class that discusses the different ideas of creation of life on earth
Yep, and we should teach Astrology in physics class, reading tea-leaves in home-making class and we should teach the theory of the Tooth Fairy in Bio class too.
The problem with ID is not wheter it is correct or not, it is wheter it is a scientific theory or not. Evolution is a scientific theory, but macro evolution is, as has been stated, a theory. ID is not a scientific theory related to biology any more than Astrology is related to Astronomy.
Slashdot Mirror
To me the solution appears rather simple, and the AllPeers project is a step in that direction. My father, both my brothers, my newphew, two of my nieces, my wife at work and I (with three in total) all have PCs. AllPeers is a way for us to share our stuff in an easy way. This should be expanded in the following way:
AllPeers allows you to set up a "Virtual Folder" where we all throw in all of our stuff. This virtual folder can be replicated on all our harddrives, or they can use a over-the-net-using-bittorrent RAID-type solution where things are here and there. As long as most of us have AllPeers running, the data will always be accessible. Upgrading for the future will only be a matter of updating the AllPeers software.
If this became popular all future solutions, be they wrist-strapped-super-computers or brain implants, would have to include backwards compatible similar solutions, and voila all is well.
P2P saves the (data of) the World, and we are all happy.
Very true, the Mac Mini is a very interesting device, and I have a feeling we will see another step in the direction of TV/Tivo/MediaCenter for the Mini next week. The Mini is going to be the main competitor to PlayStation3 and similar. Regular PCs on the other hand...
The negatives will surely have deteriorated over time
This is surely going to be an issue for some of the movies, but a lot of studios have re-mastered their stuff, and a lot of it is also stored very well. I don't think this is going to be a huge problem.
What's more, ultra-high-resolution HD processes probably won't be particularly flattering to the film stocks used at that time
This on the other hand seems like an absurd statement. Most of this stuff was shot on 35mm or better. It was shot to be viewed on huge screens with actors 15 feet tall. Sure, people are a little further away, but still. 35mm has far better "resolution" than does HD. Why would this not convert well?
Think about this, take one of your best 35mm slides, get a fantastic scanner for it, do you think you can scan this slide well in a resolution around 1900 by 1080 or do you think the blemishes on your girlfriends face will be far easier to see there than in the version you are showing on the projector? Why would the movie studios not be able to do the what you can?
I can see the difference between HD and SD with good source material, but really, how much of the stuff out there is good source material?
Huh? Most of it? Now, if they up-sample, it is going to be cr@p, but I seriously doubt that anyone will. I assume they have already digitized most of the film stuff with a pretty decent resolution. HD isn't really going to come as a surprise to the studios, they have known about it for some years. Remember, most of what you watch is shot on 35mm or better, which converts to HD very well.
he industry doesn't seem to understand is that a standard DVD is more than good enough for most people
Have you ever watched HD? I'm sorry, but have you? Compared to DVD? Resolution is not the only thing that plagues DVD, color space is horrible. In short, compared to HD DVD is pure junk quality, and you can really see that on higher quality large screens. People are going to adopt bigger screens slowly, and then they are going to buy Sony Playstations, and then they are going to say: Doesn't that Playstation play these new cool movies? And then they are going to buy one. And then they will never buy a DVD again if they can get the same movie in HD.
Now, is DVD to HD going to be slow. Definitely. I don't think anyone in the industry thinks there will be widespread HD adoption fast. If it happens in 5-10 years I think they will all be pleasently surprised.
The personal computer is not going to be a huge part of your entertainment system, a lot of what you currently use your computer for will be taken over by console type applications such as Playstation 3, and lo-and-behold, the PS3 will incorporate HD.
There is a simple reason for this, the PS3 will be significantly cheaper, and a lot easier to fit into your stereo system than your PC.
I agree that Hollywood is losing money because what they create is junk, and that watching the old stuff will keep most of us happy for a long time to come. Besides, your comments are just a little off, Hollywood is not seing a decline in DVD sales, they are seing a decline in Box Office sales. DVD sales are more than twice that of the Box Office.
You seem to imply that they want to push HD so that we will stop copying DVDs and start buying their cr@p, that is just not the case. In fact, Hollywood has seriously mixed feelings about HD. Why? Because they are afraid that it will make you and I stop going to the theatres. It probably will, but I do not think it will have a hugely negative impact on Hollywoods bottom line, they will just have to do business slightly differently.
Which brings us to:
most of what I like to watch already exists and isn't in HD format
Most of what you watch already exists, and in formats that are vastly superior to HD. It has been downconverted to DVD, but DVD is a pretty cr@ppy format for viewing on a big screen, try a DVD on a 50" screen, it actually looks pretty bad. Compare that to HD.
As HD is adopted, all your old stuff will also be released in HD, and believe me, you are not going to want to own a cr@ppy DVD once the HD version is out if it has been down converted well. Why do you think Sony bought the movie studio with the largest video library in the US? So that they can release all that old stuff on HD.
HD is coming, and once your TV size goes to 42", you are going to want to have it.
In our current post-modern world, since there's no such thing as absolute truth, no one has the right to claim their ideas as being of more value than anyone else's.
This is in fact where you are wrong, and this is also one of the main problems with the US at the moment. For a great article on the subject, I recommend the current Esquire, the article is called "Idiot America".
You are correct that there is no absolute truth, not unless you set up a framework in which this absolute truth is absolute truth by definition. For example, in the framework of mathematics, 2+2 is 4, and that is absolute truth. Within the framework of the world, the fact of Evolution as a process is absolute truth since it has been observed. We could argue that observation doesn't validate and that our world is only a figment of our imagination, but then all discussions become absurd.
The second part of your statement is that no ideas have more value than others is just plain absurd. I can claim that gravity doesn't exist, but I can't claim that my idea about gravity has the same value as the ideas of Newton.
The absurd notion that any idea, as long as enough people believe in it or if the few who do believe in it do so with enough fervor validates that idea or lifts its value to a higher level is simply utter nonsense.
Sadly the christian right have embarked upon yet another crusade against science. This is not the first time, the last time you guys imprisoned and murdered scientists that dared challenge your world view. Today you don't have enough power to do so, but that doesn't faze you, you still try to ban all teachings of science from our schools. Should you succeed you will set social and echonomical development in this country back at least 100 years.
The core issue (as I mentioned in a post above) is that those with a distinctly non-christian world view have hijacked the courts and the educational system in the US and are using it to indoctrinate the next generation with muck.
The horrifying truth is that the exact opposite is in fact true, and this is well documented. Over the past 20 years or so the extreme right, let's call you guys by your right name, the American Taliban, have filled courts across the country with right-wing religious judges, and education boards with right-wing christian nutcases (look at what happened tonight in Kansas). The idea is that, in complete defiance of the ideas of the founding fathers, the American Taliban wishes to create a Christian Fundament to build a new USA on. This fundament is diametrically opposite to the fundament the founding fathers used, and the poor guys must be spinning in their graves each time a religious nut uses the phrase "founding fathers".
One component of that muck is the concept that all life spontaneously appeared from essentially nothing. This is NOT a scientific view.
You are absolutely correct, this is not a scientific idea, it is a complete absurd notion about what science says that exists only in your head. This is called a straw-man attack. You live in a world of astonishing ignorance, you conjure up ideas about what science is, completely independent of what it actually is, and then you attack those ideas. Sadly there is probably nothing that can be done to fix this flaw in you.
Also, when you rail against the abuses of the religious right, I'd ask you to consider whether any other world view would allow as much freedom as is available to people of all stripes here in the US.
The works of the "founding fathers" when they created this great nation is unparallelled in history, both before and essentially after what they did. When creating a nation there were a few things that were extremely important to them, and those views had a significant impact on the country in which you and I live today. These are some of the important notions they had, and what impact it had on our country
Why do these same people never object to the non-existence of God being claimed (or assumed) in science class
I have never met a science teacher that spent time in class claiming the non-existence of God. Why would he? It is not part of the curriculum. On the other hand, the non-existence of God is the only scientific attidute towards God. Science has to assume the non-existence of God for the same reasons it assumes the non-existence of Santa Claus. There is no data indicating eithers existence.
A true scientist will be open to new ideas, test them and evaluate whether they fit the facts or not. If ID is completely baseless, then science can investigate, falsify and then ignore the whole thing.
If ID was a new scientific theory, you are absolutely correct, that is what a scientist should (and would) do. ID isn't a new scientific theory however, it is a political move to ban the teaching of science from our schools. Barring such a ban, the goal of the ID proponent is to garble the teachings of science to such a degree that our children will leave school with a little knowledge as possible about anything that isn't written in the bible. In short, ID is the latest in a number of attempts to imprison and preferrably execute Copernicus.
Sadly, the currents in our society today is that each idea, as long as it is held by people with enough "faith" has equal value. In such times, ID and other nut-case ideas like UFO landings at Roswell and the like will gain a lot of momentum, and our children will suffer for it.
The current popularity of the religious right and all of it nutty ideas is, in the long run, a far greater threat to the US than is a bunch of religious lunatics running around the mountains of Afghanistan plotting to blow up our buildings. Bin Laden can tear down our houses and kill some of our children, the religious right is trying to destroy the very foundations that has made the US the country in the world where just about "everybody" wants to live.
It is simply not true that evolution has been proved beyond doubt
Evolution as a method has been more than "proved beyond doubt", it has been observed, and as such is not a matter of debate. Even the ID proponents have recognized this fact. Evolution as a theory to explain the appearance of man on this planet has not been "proved beyond doubt", but it is currently the only theory that explains the observed phenomena. Is that so hard for the religious people to understand? There are no other theories. There is superstition and conjecture, but no other theories.
he fact that evolution is taught in classrooms as mere fact is an affront to many Americans
Why should this matter? Should the fact that the majority of a group of people shows a tremendous amount of ignorance stop us from teaching children science? Why is it that you right-wing christians hate science so? Is it such a threat to the feeble foundations on which your world-views rest?
Answer this. Considering the fact that Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains what we see. It may or may not be right, it doesn't matter. Why are you so scared of it that you need to ban it?
The side effects of contraception in general:
50% divorce rate
A high rate of marital infidelity
Significant decay of families
If this was related to religion etc, as the poster seems to imply, why is it that the more religion you have in a society, the higher the teen pregnancy rate is? The more relgion you have the higher the divorce rate and the higher the abortion rate. Why is it that the states in the US who have the most churches also have the most strip clubs?
The sheer number seem to indicate that if you remove God from a society it will become less criminal, less prone to infidelity and abortion and in general, nicer.
to say that einstein "threw out" newton is rediculous
No, it isn't. f=ma is true, but not for all values of f, m and a. Newton assumes that f=ma doesn't change for values of these variables, but once it was observed that it does, we had to disregard Newton for Einstein. Since the values of f, m and a for which Newton is wrong however are not very relevant for our daily life, we still use Newton as a good approximation, and somewhat easier to work with than Einstein.
When those who believe in Evolution present it and mandate it as a fact in schools, it is an affront to those who believe in Creation
No, it is in fact not. Evolution isn't a belief, but a matter of observed fact, and as such we should teach it in school. Evolution as the method at which humans appeared on the planet is a scientific theory based on the observed realities. As a scientific theory it should also be taught in school, in science class. ID and Creationism are, along side with Astrology, belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, belief systems with no basis in any observed reality. As such they should be taught in school too, but not in science class.
There are many scientific examples of data that contradict the theory of evolution that are not explained.
Eh, no, there isn't. There is in fact not a single piece of scientific data that contradict the theory of evolution. There are parts of evolution process that we do not fully understand, but none of them contradict the theory of evolution.
It would be best to present multiple theories and state that is what they are.
I agree completely, and to my knowledge that is currently what happens. In science class all available theories that describe the creation of humans are taught. Alle one of them. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories, they never have been and they never will be, and as such don't belong in science class. If you do not know what a scientific theory is I would recommend you read up on it.
I get the feeling I'm using a different deffiniton of "belief" then you are.
No, you do not, but you are demonstrating, again and again, that you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of what science is, and you are mixing theory (which is a scientific concept) and belief over and over. You really need to learn a little bit more about what science is before you can critisize it.
You've brought up probability again. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional 'simple' cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse then 1 in 10^57800.
This is almost hysterically funny. I thought that Christians weren't supposed to lie, why do you feel that lying is OK in print? OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, you are not lying, you are just utterly ignorant. Not entirely surprising of course, religion and ignorance tend to go hand in hand. The absolutely absurd idea above, that the formation of a simple cell is "acknowledged to be worse" than a specific number is an old, dumb, christian critique of evolution that has been refuted a long time ago.
Before continuing these rather ignorant attacks on something you have no knowledge about whatsoever, I recommend you gather a little knowledge about the subject matter. You are making a fool out of your self in public.
What I meant is that I believe ID is true. You obviously believe that evolution is true. It's faith-based either way.
Sigh, why is this so bloody hard to understand for the religious nuts? I do not believe in evolution. Never have. Never will. I know that evolution as a process is fact simply because we have observed it. I think the theory that this process has lead to speciation is an interesting theory, and as long as it is the only theory, I have no choice but to assume that the probability for it being close to the truth is high. None of the ideas described in this paragraph require any amount of belief.
If ID is not falsifiable, why do so many people here say it's wrong?
Noone has said that it is wrong, as I said in another theory, even on the off-chance that ID is an accurate description of what happened it still isn't a scientific theory. Now, do I have scientific reason to assume that ID is wrong? Yes, I do. Simple really. The following three ideas have the exact same probability of being true:
Since all of the ideas above have the exact same probability of being true, why would I want to believe in either of them?
I see a lot of attacks on ID because of who is presenting it.
There have been none in this discussion, at least not by me. My point has always been that ID is a religious belief, and as such it should be taught along side of other religious beliefs. It doesn't belong in science class.
This being said, I believe in ID. My opinions may or may not be true, but they are not automatically false because I am a Christian.
Noone is saying they are false, we are just saying that your belief is not science. Consider what the first sentence is that I quoted above, the word "belief" is important. You don't "b elieve" in science, belief has no place at all in science.
Why is [the badly designed human spine] not fixed yet? Survival of the fittest and all that.
Here you are just innundating us with your immesurable ignorance. You really should take a look at evolution before you ask such, rather silly, questions. Short though: Evolugion is not design, it doesn't have a goal or a purpose. It can not fix the spine, but humans have altered slightly over time to adapt to the problem with the bad spine. The problem is that the spine evolved over a far longer time period than humans have been walking up-right, so it is still mainly good for quad-ped movement.
You did completely miss the point though. The badly designed spine is something that evolution can explain very well, but ID can not explain it at all. In fact, the very badly design spind and rib-cage shows us that there was definitely not any intelligent design behind humans.
Ah, but [what's inside the whale abdomen] are not legs - we don't know what they are.
Oh, but we do. They are legs.
Because, to the body, cancer seems like a normal cell. There is absolutely no reason for pain to kick in.
This is not true on several accounts. A cancerous growth can easily be distinguished from regular tissue. Even through cursory examination. The fact that we are designed with a damage warning system that completely omits checking for some of the most dangerous problems we can have, but at the same time issues dire, and dibilitating, warnings for rather mundane problem is another proof that the idiot who designed it didn't know shit about what he was doing. ID should consequently change it's name to MD, Moronic Design.
In closing, I'd like to make the point that ID is a scientific theory. It would be foolish of anyone to make the logical error of claiming it is not.
This is a bold-faced lie, or a statement made by someone who has noe clue whatsoever. Science is a methodology, and that methodology requires that theories has two properties. The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable
. This is not something I am making up just to put ID in the box of non-science, it is the very definition of science.ID can not be tested since it is far too vague to test, and it can not be falsified for some of the same reasons. It is therefore not a scientific theory. It is a belief, but not a theory. As you showed well when you said "I believe in ID". I don't believe in evolution, I relate to it as fact on the micro level, and accept the fact that it is the only available theory that explains speciation.
Ask ten people to design the same thing, and you will get ten different designs
If you asked ten engineers to design the spine and the ribcage are of a quadruped, one, or even several, of them might come up with an idea similar to the one you see in the quadrupeds around us. Cows. Horses. Dogs. If you asked them to design the same area for an up-right biped, none of them would come up with the same design. Not a single one. The spine and rib-cage design that is common to all humans and most mammals is very good for a quadruped, it is just plain dumb for a biped. We aren't talking about dumb as in, "I don't like that design", we are talking dumb as in "That will never work idiot, you fail engineering 101".
On the other hand, if humans evolved from earlier quadrupeds, the design makes perfect sense.
Just because you can't see why the code was designed and written the way it was doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason for it.
The problem with the code that was written is not that I do not understand it, the problem is that it doesn't solve the problem and that it crashes and causes horrible damage all the time. For some reason it is perfect for a completely different application, but using it in the one where we are currently doing code review is not only bad coding, it is active sabotage.
most of that list seems to be merely design flaws, not evolution evidence itself.
Not at all. If there is any intelligence behind the design, using the same spine design for a bi-pedal creature that you use for quad pedal use is not design flaws, it is gross negligence. Our spince is perfectly designed for an animal where the spine is parallell, not perpendicular to the ground. If you assume ID, the only reason for such a design error is gross incompetence, while evolution describes the problem perfectly, the spine is the way it is because an animal that used to walk on four, now walks on two.
Saying ID is appropriate for a Social Science or Philosophy class, shows great contempt for those subjects. ID is junk, it doesn't belong in any class.
That's an absurd statement. A good bit of what we learn in school is what things some people believe in. Saying that ID doesn't belong at all in any form in our education system is the same as saying teaching people about Buddhism doesn't belong in our schools, or learning about religion an philosophy doesn't belong in schools. That would severly limit what is taught in school.
Testability of macro evolution will probably have to happen on the genetical level. Map genes, "damages" to genes (which are inherited) etc. I do not think the evidence of macro evolution will be found in fossils.
A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design. It studies the science of intelligence or intelligent life.
This his simply a lie, and I thought Christians were not allowed to lie. Intelligent Design doesn't study anything, ID has postulated a set of theories that are beyond study and therefore not scientific, even if, by an astonishing miracle ID was a correct description of the world, it would be wrong to teach it in science class.
Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically.
This is another lie, the Christian is really going at it today. ID has never been tested simply because it is not testable. Also, the sentence above shows with utter clarity why you are so amazingly wrong, you are just ignorant. Science, outside of a rather narrow field, doesn't deal with proving things much, it deals with falsifying things, and the difference is enormous.
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
This could probably said to be true, close to the first true sentence in your posting. There is a huge problem with it though, there is no characteristic signature in life that would imply intelligent design.
I propose the followers if the ID ideology change the name of it to BSD. The Theory of Bloody Stupid Design. You see, in all the life we see around us there is evidence after evidence of a Bloody Stupid Designer, if you look. A few examples:
The list goes on and on. There is no trace of any intelligence whatsoever in our design, but there is a lot of traces of random changes, adaptation of body-parts to jobs they are not particularly well suited for etc. If there was someone behind the design of humans, he would fail Human Design 101. Bloody Stupid Johnson.
I have no problem with creationism as science, if you do, you probably don't understand the term "science"
The above is pure rubbish, I am sorry that I have to word it that hard. Creationism is a theory, but as a theory it is neither tesable nor is it falsifiable. Since this is obviously not the case, creationism (and it's cousin ID) are not and will never be scientific theories. They therefore do not belong in science class.
Does anyone care that plenty of highschools use the book of Job ... for language studies
Why would anyone care? The book of Job is language, and as such it is worthy of study in a class where language is studied. ID, creationism and astrology are all are all related to science in the same way, not at all and as such do not belong in science class.
Is there something inherently harmful about teaching people truth?
This has nothing to do with what we teach our children in general, it has to do with what we teach our children about science. They should teach children about comparative religion, that is good. But keep it in religion class, it has no business in science class. ID and Creationism are not alternative theories to Evolution, the are alternative theories to Islam, paganism and Astrology.
you want to expose the kids to ID, do it in the right setting, either have a section in the bio-chem book about pre-biotic chemistry and ID, or have a class that discusses the different ideas of creation of life on earth
Yep, and we should teach Astrology in physics class, reading tea-leaves in home-making class and we should teach the theory of the Tooth Fairy in Bio class too.
The problem with ID is not wheter it is correct or not, it is wheter it is a scientific theory or not. Evolution is a scientific theory, but macro evolution is, as has been stated, a theory. ID is not a scientific theory related to biology any more than Astrology is related to Astronomy.