AFAIK the christian fundamentalists are not challenging scientific understanding as a whole. They challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.
To challenge the conclusion, and offer an alternative based on available evidence, would be a good manner in challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.
To reject the conclusion, evidence, and process, and instead substitute in metaphors and logical fallacies and then attempt to argue (with a straight face) that this, too, constitutes an alternative worth consideration is a challenge to scientific understanding, and the scientific method.
Don't get me wrong - they can believe what they like; but it's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig, and I say call it what it is.
Every time I hear the teacher talking about such intellectually bankrupt concepts as 'irreducible complexity' I want to scream, but I'm not sure how to approach this without alienating the rest of the church. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
"A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion." -From The Simpsons
So, that's a glib answer, but when it comes right down to it, I'm hard pressed to agree they're doing anything wrong.
Personally, I'm an atheist, and a believer in the scientific process. ID, in my view, is a load of claptrap. And while I might join you in rolling my eyes as a Sunday school goes on about such unscientific nonsense as "irreducible complexity", you must understand I have a similar reaction when someone goes on about a virgin birth - and I suspect you would not share my contempt, then.
If people want to argue vociferously that faith-based concepts like ID should not be taught in science class (and I agree they should not), then it's hard to get too worked up when they teach them in church. I won't condemn a church for teaching ID within their walls, any more than I would condemn them for the host of other un-scientific explanations and teachings they offer.
On story like this, we need the facts, period. No hype, rhetoric or personal opinions. Only the facts please, because I know members are going to tout the "other browser" as the safer one.
Now, mod me whatever you want, but the info you provide should be FACTS.
Fact: A critical security flaw has been found in IE, and the SANS ISC is recommending that people use one of the "other browsers".
Does everyone have auto-play on for audio cds? If so, don't they kind of deserve whatever they get?
What? "Well, come on judge. She was playing a CD...she was obviously looking to have a rootkit installed on her system."
What kind of elitist nonsense is this? Lots of people auto-play CDs. I autoplay CDs despite the fact I have ripped them, and know my way around the box. (Obviously I have to be more careful, now.)
Yes, ultimately the victims of these DRM-schemes are going to be the average schmucks, but that doesn't mean that being at the average level of sophistication means that you're so dumb that you brought it on yourself.
If you were a bully at school, you've already done it. If you were bullied at school, that's hardly going to be an enjoyable activity.
I listened to a radio documentary about bullying a few months ago - and there a few "bullying" games out there (one of which focused on girls and relied on social stigma as opposed to violence). The woman they had try it out enjoyed it.
Frankly, I don't buy either of your arguments. If you're the type who likes to dominate - then gaming offers you a means to do so (and is consequence free). If you're someone who has been dominated - then to dominate others (even fictional others) in a game can be cathartic.
That doesn't mean I support a ban - but I don't think you can assume there's no market for it.
You would think that this administration, perhaps above others, would have a sense of humour. I don't understand how they could hope to function day-to-day without one.
Not very insightful, I know, but I couldn't read TFA. I wonder if the Onion has anything about it...
What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio? Please, someone tell me because I am confused.
As others have said, it's only an issue of medium and quality. I've been recording mp3s off my FM radio for quite some time now. Some music, mostly CBC documentaries and late-night OTR variety shows, actually. So, they're 96k - instead of 128/192k - but you can't beat the price!
Not materially different than recording a TV show then keeping a copy, in my opinion.
And yes, the recordings are for my own use. I do not distribute.
You know, I'm a believer in copyright, and the rights of the copyright owners to make a living from their works - and I've been in more than a few debates in the on-line world where my opinion has been decidedly unpopular.
I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).
I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.
...Moreover, the plugin improves IE's privacy and security by integrating a firewall designed to block out Internet exploits, phishing sites, spammers, spyware and worms, with a special HTTP filter that removes private data, and an anti-spyware tool that can identify and remove all pests in less then 10 seconds"
Once the plugin changes IE to Firefox, and prevents you from ever having to worry about internet security again; you can use it to pay your bills on-line, clean your floors, intercept calls from your mother-in-law, throw out the old vegetables in your fridge, test your smoke detectors, rotate your tires, and remove that icky stuff that forms on your shower walls...
...that is, you could if the site wasn't slashdotted.
I agree that this whole patent nonsense is quickly moving toward insanity...
...that's exactly where I want it.
Software patents are terrible ideas for reasons that can sometimes be hard to explain to those not in the know. The more cases we have, though, where the ridiculousness becomes undeniable, the better chances we'll have for either a reforming of the system, or for the whole mess to collapse under it's own weight.
Impressive to see the BBC attempt to embrace new technology instead of engaging in a losing battle against it. It demonstrates reasoned, informed judgement...
If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.
No form of R&D is a licence to print money - especially at such an early stage. There is much work to do, many lines of investigation to be explored, and a lot of paths will lead to dead-ends.
The return, if it comes at all, will be long in wait - and a lot of commercial enterprises would simply not survive long enough to reap their dividends.
The potential in this, and many new scientific fields is enormous; but to try and fit that into some economic model is the kind of thing that the "square peg in a round hole" simile was invented for.
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.
Very true, and while I am a supporter of stem cell research, believe an embryo is a life, and would prefer that embryos destined to be discarded be used rather than wasted; I understand the other side.
This research is controversial, and runs counter to the core beliefs of more people than just religious zealots. The government has elected not to fund it with public money, but has allowed the research to continue on its own merits. I think that's the most balanced approach one could hope to take.
I think this is one of those subtle cases that baffles.
In handing the computer over to the technician, the owner left himself open to the fact that the technician was likely to examine the contents, and he might be expected to inform the police on finding illegal material. There's no confidentiality expectation.
The police then had a right to investigate, but should have obtained a warrant to examine the computer. It does not cease being private property because it's in the care of a 3rd party.
By the same token, if I drop off my car for maintenance, and the mechanic thinks he found drugs - the police need a warrant to search my car. If I leave my house while an exterminator fumigigates, and the exterminator finds a cache of illegal weapons - the police need a warrant to search my house.
The general notion of privacy, and the legal notion are actually different. The guy was boneheaded to leave the stuff where someone else could find it; but the police can't just go in and start peeking.
As for technicians being informers - there's nothing to prevent that either way.
Using small words to communicate small ideas. You'll notice how often this category is used in action films.
Conversely, explicit language warns you of long, philosophical diatribes that you'll have to work to keep up with. The moviegoing public tends to be intolerant of these - which is why such movies tend to be restricted.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, that's what the entire ID v. evolution debate is!
To challenge the conclusion, and offer an alternative based on available evidence, would be a good manner in challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.
To reject the conclusion, evidence, and process, and instead substitute in metaphors and logical fallacies and then attempt to argue (with a straight face) that this, too, constitutes an alternative worth consideration is a challenge to scientific understanding, and the scientific method.
Don't get me wrong - they can believe what they like; but it's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig, and I say call it what it is.
"A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion." -From The Simpsons
So, that's a glib answer, but when it comes right down to it, I'm hard pressed to agree they're doing anything wrong.
Personally, I'm an atheist, and a believer in the scientific process. ID, in my view, is a load of claptrap. And while I might join you in rolling my eyes as a Sunday school goes on about such unscientific nonsense as "irreducible complexity", you must understand I have a similar reaction when someone goes on about a virgin birth - and I suspect you would not share my contempt, then.
If people want to argue vociferously that faith-based concepts like ID should not be taught in science class (and I agree they should not), then it's hard to get too worked up when they teach them in church. I won't condemn a church for teaching ID within their walls, any more than I would condemn them for the host of other un-scientific explanations and teachings they offer.
Now, mod me whatever you want, but the info you provide should be FACTS.
Fact: A critical security flaw has been found in IE, and the SANS ISC is recommending that people use one of the "other browsers".
Howzat?
Yeah! See how easy it is when you're given the step-by-step procedure? I don't know what's wrong with these people.
What? "Well, come on judge. She was playing a CD...she was obviously looking to have a rootkit installed on her system."
What kind of elitist nonsense is this? Lots of people auto-play CDs. I autoplay CDs despite the fact I have ripped them, and know my way around the box. (Obviously I have to be more careful, now.)
Yes, ultimately the victims of these DRM-schemes are going to be the average schmucks, but that doesn't mean that being at the average level of sophistication means that you're so dumb that you brought it on yourself.
I hope not.
If you were a bully at school, you've already done it. If you were bullied at school, that's hardly going to be an enjoyable activity.
I listened to a radio documentary about bullying a few months ago - and there a few "bullying" games out there (one of which focused on girls and relied on social stigma as opposed to violence). The woman they had try it out enjoyed it.
Frankly, I don't buy either of your arguments. If you're the type who likes to dominate - then gaming offers you a means to do so (and is consequence free). If you're someone who has been dominated - then to dominate others (even fictional others) in a game can be cathartic.
That doesn't mean I support a ban - but I don't think you can assume there's no market for it.
Not very insightful, I know, but I couldn't read TFA. I wonder if the Onion has anything about it...
As others have said, it's only an issue of medium and quality. I've been recording mp3s off my FM radio for quite some time now. Some music, mostly CBC documentaries and late-night OTR variety shows, actually. So, they're 96k - instead of 128/192k - but you can't beat the price!
Not materially different than recording a TV show then keeping a copy, in my opinion.
And yes, the recordings are for my own use. I do not distribute.
I can understand the idea behind the exile, but the execution needed a lot of work.
But then, the same can pretty much be said of most of the recent trilogy.
You know, I'm a believer in copyright, and the rights of the copyright owners to make a living from their works - and I've been in more than a few debates in the on-line world where my opinion has been decidedly unpopular.
I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).
I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.
You mean like ASCII text? Or HTML, perhaps?
Once the plugin changes IE to Firefox, and prevents you from ever having to worry about internet security again; you can use it to pay your bills on-line, clean your floors, intercept calls from your mother-in-law, throw out the old vegetables in your fridge, test your smoke detectors, rotate your tires, and remove that icky stuff that forms on your shower walls...
Pity.
Actually, I understood that all the proceeds would be going into Lunis' operating system; Lunix.
Software patents are terrible ideas for reasons that can sometimes be hard to explain to those not in the know. The more cases we have, though, where the ridiculousness becomes undeniable, the better chances we'll have for either a reforming of the system, or for the whole mess to collapse under it's own weight.
If you're interested in more on the Who/Skiffy thing, check out http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/592/592429p1.htm l
No greediness from the BBC, AFAIK - I'm lucky to be watching it up in Canada on our own CBC.
It's a plane!
What the heck is that thing?
Since slashdotters decided they were good guys.
No form of R&D is a licence to print money - especially at such an early stage. There is much work to do, many lines of investigation to be explored, and a lot of paths will lead to dead-ends.
The return, if it comes at all, will be long in wait - and a lot of commercial enterprises would simply not survive long enough to reap their dividends.
The potential in this, and many new scientific fields is enormous; but to try and fit that into some economic model is the kind of thing that the "square peg in a round hole" simile was invented for.
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.
Very true, and while I am a supporter of stem cell research, believe an embryo is a life, and would prefer that embryos destined to be discarded be used rather than wasted; I understand the other side.
This research is controversial, and runs counter to the core beliefs of more people than just religious zealots. The government has elected not to fund it with public money, but has allowed the research to continue on its own merits. I think that's the most balanced approach one could hope to take.
In handing the computer over to the technician, the owner left himself open to the fact that the technician was likely to examine the contents, and he might be expected to inform the police on finding illegal material. There's no confidentiality expectation.
The police then had a right to investigate, but should have obtained a warrant to examine the computer. It does not cease being private property because it's in the care of a 3rd party.
By the same token, if I drop off my car for maintenance, and the mechanic thinks he found drugs - the police need a warrant to search my car. If I leave my house while an exterminator fumigigates, and the exterminator finds a cache of illegal weapons - the police need a warrant to search my house.
The general notion of privacy, and the legal notion are actually different. The guy was boneheaded to leave the stuff where someone else could find it; but the police can't just go in and start peeking.
As for technicians being informers - there's nothing to prevent that either way.
Shame on me for controlling the content I receive, I guess.
Using small words to communicate small ideas. You'll notice how often this category is used in action films.
Conversely, explicit language warns you of long, philosophical diatribes that you'll have to work to keep up with. The moviegoing public tends to be intolerant of these - which is why such movies tend to be restricted.