Why do I get the feeling that Apple lovers are going bonkers over potential competition? Is the Cisco iPhone such a threat that it might produce a ripple in the force that might endanger their closed Apple-centric universe? Or is it just that being seen as second in the market place of ideas is just too uncool for Applephiles who have been seduced by the Apple PR machine to accept?
Is this an Apple PR meltdown or what?
Could there be a strategic shift in the public perception that "Apple is always cool" paradigm?
I think Cringely has it about right. Although its difficult to determine motive from a distance, perhaps since tasting the forbidden fruit of illegal stock options, Steve Jobs has slipped over to the Dark Side of the Force?
"They didn't count on Cisco actually releasing an iPhone product first, but by then Apple's secret plans were already set in stone."
Yes, their PR applecart was upset by Cisco's move.
Ironically, the avid response of its user base to the perceived superiority of all Apple products actually works to their disadvantage. Their instance to using the iPhone Trademark regardless of the fact that Cisco owns it will only make Cisco's case of proving it has been harmed easier as it is clear that there is a demand for products under the iPhone moniker and hence they are well within their legal rights.
Toys R Us got its protection because others were attempting to use its R-Us Trademake logo with "look alike names". It already had the trademark. That was not in dispute.
Cisco's Linksys iPhone is directed as an element of its networked home initiative, which allows users to do VOIP and Skype-like VOIP service. It too is just being rolled out but already has sales in the 1,000's not hundred primarily to businesses where cost savings can be readily made on large scale purchases. These are likely to be rolled out in the near future to the Office Depot's and Walmarts of the world that are currently marketing LinkSys routers.
Keep in mind that Cisco's corporate policy is not to enter markets that they do not project they can become the #1 or #2 leading vendor within 3 to 4 years.
Your parents should have held on to their Cisco stock. It appreciated nearly 50% this year. With a current market-capitalization of about 174 billion dollars and now growing at nearly 20% per year it would appear that at least a few folks seem to know what they make.
Yours is a perceptive comment. It is particularly interesting that the crux of the dispute is being regarded by Cisco as resulting from issues relating to the potential openness and interoperability of the "iPhone-like" devices.
It seems that the Apple iPhone is ironically being marketed not from a position of strength, but rather of internally perceived weakness. It would seem that being maintain a closed system both from an interoperability perspective, as well as a non-open platform for software developement to even including the non-replaceable batteries) is essential to the Apple strategy. They are afraid to develop an open device as it would bleed their captured installed base. Not owning the trademark, which will likely prove a PR nightmare for Apple. Cisco shrewedly perceives the PR and image struggle that will emerage from the trademark infringement and is couching its language as one of maintaing principle and protecting their "good name" and a failure by Apple to join them in "cooperation" for an open market.
Although./rs seem focused on price as an issue, the question of potential interoperability going forward will play a much larger role in future prices than the marketing and manufacturing costs of a particular device as how the network of such devices develop will largely dictate the direction of the market and hence relative value once more players move toward "consolidated-mobile-networked" devices. Presently, Apple, like its competitors, is trying to use the trade show to exaggerate the hype of their product, particularly among their market captives. However, the trademark dispute will acctenuate Apple's relatively weak position in this market as they own neither the trademark nor the bandwidth access they require to develop their essentially closed platform. Consequently, they will be limited in the short term by the Blackberry's and other similar devices already on the market and over the longer term by their need to adopt a closed strategy to maintain their captive market without seeing it diluted by interoperability issues that will loom larger and larger as the giants of the telecommunications industry move into this arena of convergence. Because they are largely held hostage to Cingular in the development of their market they will ultimately need to acquiesce to the Cingular service/support strategy imposed upon them. Cisco in contrast IS the center of the IP network world and given its size and strategic positioning will likely remain so for quite some time to come, hence their emphasis on "openness", "interoperability", and "emerging standards and functionality", as opposed to Apple's smaller, more narrow, closed approach.
I think another issue that prompted them to "seize" Cisco's trademark is one of timing. LinkSys a division of Cisco beat them to market with an internet phone and with the arrival of the tradeshow they only had a narrow PR window to make their splash and the introduction of Cisco's iPhone last year caught them off guard. Given that its not "cool" to look like they are not "market leaders", Apple and perhaps Jobs's ego felt compelled to make an impulsive decision, not wanting to let Cisco do to Apple what Microsoft did to it many years ago). Thus, it is probable that the seizing of Cisco's trademark, had to come now, as this also provided a convenient means to turn attention away from the negative publicity associated with the stock options back-dating scandal. This is seen as critical to Apple's image, which has been badly tarnished by evidence released to date that shows Jobs was personally involved in suggesting favorable dates for backdating. It also reflects Apple's savy maniupulation of the media which turns any controversy into a major story as a means to facilitate PR (and advertising revenue).
Although Apple did an internal "investigation" and "cleared itself" of all wrong-doing, it is unlikely that this will stop ongoing official inquiries into the matter, which are likely to proceed in parallel with the t
Use of the product by celebrities will not be likely until Apple prevails in the lawsuit over the Trademark, which itself is extremely unlikely given that the ink has been dried on the trademark name for a phone for nearly 7 years (the mere fact that Apple approached Cisco over use of the trademark name and entererd into previous negotiations could be prima fascie evidence that Apple knew ahead of time that they did not own the trademark and hence embarked on public use of the name with intent to deny Cisco the benefits of their trademark (and hence have subjected themselves to additional damages).
Any celebrity doing so prior to the resolution of the tradmark dispute so would open themselves up to penalties that might come to those who may be perceived as colluding to illegally using a trademark owned by another party. That would be the kiss of death for celebrities. For many if not most "celebrities" these days, about the only thing they have going for them is being able to being seen using other people's products.
So as far as singing another tune, my sense is that Apple and its shareholders will be singing another tune (besides "Wishful Thinking"). This might be especially true if Cisco decides to use its resources and buy or enter into a strategic relationship with Apple's cellular phone provider. Now that would be a statment by the 500 pound gorilla that it really is the 500 pound gorilla and one might expect that Apple could be easily swallowed if the gorilla really gets hungry.
After a little snooping around, I discovered this as part of a MarketWatch article on CSCO systems (9 Jan 2007).
"
According to Cisco, it and Apple have been through some extensive discussions recently, and "it is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document. We expect to receive a signed agreement today [Tuesday]," a Cisco statement said.
I too was wondering about this? So far its the most overlooked and curious aspect of this entire "newstory"
Its amazing how short everyone's memory is on a./ story that ran just about a month ago. My guess is some kind of license and involved since the price of the phone is so high or that Cisco sees some benefit in not jumping on this obvious encroachment on a trademark name (yet?). Given the cache the name seems to invoke among the Applephiles its obvious its worth something so I can't understand Cisco's eagerness to allow this without some kind of benefit in return, since presumably there is at least the potential for competition with the LinkSys product here or in the future.
Perhaps this curious aspect portends new surprises to come.
The articles and the banner behind Steve Jobs seem to indicate that they will in fact use the name iPhone./. just had a discussion with regard to the name as being a trade mark now belonging to Cisco Systems, Inc. Nowhere in the article did it indicate what legal/(business?) arrangement has been made with regard to use of the name "iPhone".
Does anyone have further information about the obvious discrepancy between this story and a similar one that ran on./ about a month ago and made a splash across many media websites/outlets?
I would be interested to know Cisco's stance with regard to this issue and what sort of arrangement the companies have reach with regard with respect to use of this name by Apple.
Not once the hackers get into them and fly them into... dare I say the "wrong" targets.
Besides, why should I cry, I'm invested in Boeing! I suggest building large nets of fine wire to catch them in midair. That way they will have to build more.
Hey, 1984 is here only a few years behind schedule. All in the name of keeping us safe (from ourselves and our weak mental capacity most likely).
I sure am glad I invested in Cisco, that way at least that my TV can watch me getting rich, even though I'm depressed about how. Not that I really had any foresight as an investor, but I am learning one can never be too cynical.
First we have M$ trying to use a monopoly position to extract extortion money from consumers, even when they attempt to purchase a Linux system by locking in vendors. If Intel is able to get away with similar behavior, we will all wind up paying more for other kinds of "lock in deals" as well. While there may be good technological reasons for going with Intel in some circumstances, as one consumer I'm goint to vote with my wallet to make the point that I am displeased with this kind of "herding" of its customers. This is sad as until now I have alway been an Intel customer.
I don't use the service in question, nor do I expect I will, but I want to be sure that Intel understands that I don't approve of marketing efforts that lock customers to a limited range of options. If more buyers send Intel such a message, maybe they will think twice about deals that ultimate restrict customer options. Let them do this successfully and you will see more and more similar deals, video-cards, gaming software, etc.
From the perspective of science, your argument is bunk. Science has no use or need for alternative explanations that in essence provide no further explanation. While one can rationalize any theology to conform to the observations made by scientists, science itself has no need for such rationalization as it provides no explanatory power whatsoever, it adds nothing to what we already know.
Belief is equivalent to making an assumption. If you are ardent in your belief you may require a higher level of disproof of your notions to get you to change your assumptions. If you want, you can insist in keeping your beliefs regardless of whether or not they have any observable basis in reality. However, this is not the same as science, as science requires an additional step. That step is namely finding observations that are logically inconsistent with ones assumptions (hypotheses). This process is iterative, and one can, at least in principle conduct many such tests (searches for evidence of inconsistency). Science advances by discarding "explanations" that do poorly at providing insight into the underlying principles or ideas that can be used to predict the outcomes of such repeated explanation. Scientists no longer spend much time attempting to study whether or not the earth is flat, because so many observations have been made that disprove it. The same is true of creationism. We already know that life in all its forms did not simply spring into being at one time, rather they evolved from one another through changes in their genes. The process is continously observed and documented throughout the animal and plant kingdoms and with increasing advances in molecular genetics for microorganisms. There is little useful information in a science of "creationism" that doesn't provide any useful predictive explanations, in contrast to Darwinian theory which continuously provides us with new and important insights into the origins and organization of life as we know it. Consequently, modern scientists can comfortably ignore it (at least until creationists actually come up with some observable evidence to the contrary) just as we have long discarded useless ideas such as a flat earth (even though the Bible tells us the earth has "corners" and "ends" and "edges").
Argument that attempt to harmonize theology and science are silly, at least from a perspective of scientific inquiry as they simply are unnecessary and useless to the conduct of science. No one says you can't have a theological perspective. Its just of no value to the conduct of science. Science has no way to discuss theological issues(except perhaps via PET scans of theologists in action) because they can never be asked in a way in which one could obtain an answer (refutation). Hence, such an effort would be a meaningless excercise.
"Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition.;) )"
No, because the cells of your body would not be changing the fequencies of their genes (alternative genese) as your wound heals. They would maintain the same genetic makeup (string of base pairs) before and after the trauma that induced the wound. Unless your wound is perhaps to due radiation, which by its nature destroys the nucleic acids and hence alters the genotype.
Evolution is different in that the gene frequencies change and likewise so does the genetic composition (string of base pairs) from one generation to the next (albeit more so in some circumstances than others, ie punctuated versus gradual evolution; note that both occur). Which is the more important contributor to evolutionary change (ie genes that evolve gradually or genes that evolve rapidly) is typically an important point of contention in most debates among scientists. There is abundant evidence for both rapid and slow evolution. More importantly, there is NO EVIDENCE that evolution is not in fact occuring regardless of what interspecific biological phenomenon one is looking at (or at least if one is engaged in reasoned debate as opposed to attempting to impose belief systems).
"So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. "
Spoken like one who does not do science. Only mathematicians are in a position to prove things. Scientists are forced to settle for falsification, as strictly speaking there is no "proof" in science. There is always the logical possibility of a small probability of an unexpected outcome regardless of the hypothesis in question. If there is a hypothesis, such as Darwin's, namely that species evolve by means of natural selection, that has been repeatedly tested and retested in an effort to find "evidence" that might contradict the theory (ie an observation that could not be explained by the theory"), we say that the hypothesis is robust and the hypothesis is referred to as a theory. This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory". It is more than a mere hypothesis, since it has been repeatedly tested, and no contradictory evidence has ever been found. Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory, but only focus on aspects that are still open to debate (ie at what rate does it occur in particular taxa). It would be similar to a modern physist declaring that the earth does not rotate about the sun, simply because there is an infinistismally small probablity that it might not being doing so this instant, even though it has been repeatedly checked and rechecked until most modern physicists have little new understanding to gain by thinking otherwise.
Yes, there are observations that could disprove (falsify) Darwin's theory. Darwin noted that it would only take a single observation of a true genetic altruist (an organism that forgoes its genetic future to benefit that of another) to destroy his theory. Such organisms do not occur in nature, although there are many examples of kin selection (ie placing ones own genetic future in jeopardy to genetically benefit a relative that is genetically like, although not identical to it or its sibling). True altruists die out because they have no mechanism to pass on their genetic complement. There are a great many more, such as if natural selection were not true then closely related organims would not need be similar genetically.
You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse, but this fact is consistent with Darwin's central thesis. To make the point clearer not only can certain genes be shown to be more alike, the theory predicts that the vast majority perhaps nearly all are because we and consequently all our genes) evolved from a common ancestor. Indeed it is hard to imagine that the machinations of some random God could have produced an alternative outcome. Of course, even if there were such a random God, it wouldn't provide any useful explanation beyond what Darwin has provided us, as any random God would do equally well. Because one can always use a random God to explain anything, the notion explains nothing from a scientific perspective.
Anyway, those who choose to believe in the 10 commandments have a more fundamental theological problem posed by the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations). Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man. Ironically, such people damn themselves, assuming that they actually believe in the 10 commandments being given to man by God.
I urge Norton to rewrite their program to detect the M$ malware and deload it before it gets deloaded.
Then, we have come to the point of Silicon Nirvanah, where two culture-clashed greed-crazed programs compete for the attention of schizophrenic processors.
Thank God Intel and AMD are comming out with multiple processors. That way we can let one or two or three fight with each other so that we can use the other one for the purposes one might want to put a computer for.
Better yet, let the race for n-order processors begin as everyone writes software that removes all others from memory space. After all if religous zealotry and greed are to complete their perversion of our government and our lives, why let any problem go uncreated?
Hey buddy, if you object to sensationalism when some cries out that their libertties and fourth ammendment rights are being violated, then you should be prepared to ban advertising, radio, and TV. Talk about media hype.
This story about Osama's cell phone being tapped and somehow the NYT compromised national security is rediculuous (and the last time I checked the first ammendment still said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". So until Bush and folks like you succeed in repealing the first ammendment it cann't be illegal to publish such a story and hence commit a crime in doing so.
Only until recently have there even been any cell towers in Afganistan and these are found only in a few cities. Even if he had a cell phone it wouldn't have worked. Stop puking out the party line and try thinking on your own. Yes, it will be incoherent at first, but its time you took some baby steps in that direction.
We may disagree on operating system and economic philosophy, but at least we can agree that freedom must be defended everywhere. People must be given the opportunity to make their own choices. We may disagree and even strenuously opposed them as wrong, but we must defend their right to speak their mind and make their own choices. Otherwise, what is freedom worth?
We may disagree with respect to operating system and economic philosophy, but at least we can agree that liberty is important and must be defended everywhere.
People have to be able to make free choices, even if we personally may vehemently regard them as wrong. Without that what is "freedom" worth?
At least now I know that George Bush will have an excuse giving him plausible deinability. He really believes his lies are the truth.
Of course, they will still have to restrict use of such a machine during a presidential press conference lest the important national security secret be uncovered that if it were used in such a presidential press conference it would reveal the shocking truth of virtually no brain activity at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I get the feeling that Apple lovers are going bonkers over potential competition? Is the Cisco iPhone such a threat that it might produce a ripple in the force that might endanger their closed Apple-centric universe? Or is it just that being seen as second in the market place of ideas is just too uncool for Applephiles who have been seduced by the Apple PR machine to accept?
Is this an Apple PR meltdown or what?
Could there be a strategic shift in the public perception that "Apple is always cool" paradigm?
I think Cringely has it about right. Although its difficult to determine motive from a distance, perhaps since tasting the forbidden fruit of illegal stock options, Steve Jobs has slipped over to the Dark Side of the Force?
Burp!
"They didn't count on Cisco actually releasing an iPhone product first, but by then Apple's secret plans were already set in stone." Yes, their PR applecart was upset by Cisco's move. Ironically, the avid response of its user base to the perceived superiority of all Apple products actually works to their disadvantage. Their instance to using the iPhone Trademark regardless of the fact that Cisco owns it will only make Cisco's case of proving it has been harmed easier as it is clear that there is a demand for products under the iPhone moniker and hence they are well within their legal rights.
Toys R Us got its protection because others were attempting to use its R-Us Trademake logo with "look alike names". It already had the trademark. That was not in dispute.
Cisco's Linksys iPhone is directed as an element of its networked home initiative, which allows users to do VOIP and Skype-like VOIP service. It too is just being rolled out but already has sales in the 1,000's not hundred primarily to businesses where cost savings can be readily made on large scale purchases. These are likely to be rolled out in the near future to the Office Depot's and Walmarts of the world that are currently marketing LinkSys routers.
Keep in mind that Cisco's corporate policy is not to enter markets that they do not project they can become the #1 or #2 leading vendor within 3 to 4 years.
Your parents should have held on to their Cisco stock. It appreciated nearly 50% this year. With a current market-capitalization of about 174 billion dollars and now growing at nearly 20% per year it would appear that at least a few folks seem to know what they make.
Apple better hope so.
Yours is a perceptive comment. It is particularly interesting that the crux of the dispute is being regarded by Cisco as resulting from issues relating to the potential openness and interoperability of the "iPhone-like" devices.
./rs seem focused on price as an issue, the question of potential interoperability going forward will play a much larger role in future prices than the marketing and manufacturing costs of a particular device as how the network of such devices develop will largely dictate the direction of the market and hence relative value once more players move toward "consolidated-mobile-networked" devices. Presently, Apple, like its competitors, is trying to use the trade show to exaggerate the hype of their product, particularly among their market captives. However, the trademark dispute will acctenuate Apple's relatively weak position in this market as they own neither the trademark nor the bandwidth access they require to develop their essentially closed platform. Consequently, they will be limited in the short term by the Blackberry's and other similar devices already on the market and over the longer term by their need to adopt a closed strategy to maintain their captive market without seeing it diluted by interoperability issues that will loom larger and larger as the giants of the telecommunications industry move into this arena of convergence. Because they are largely held hostage to Cingular in the development of their market they will ultimately need to acquiesce to the Cingular service/support strategy imposed upon them. Cisco in contrast IS the center of the IP network world and given its size and strategic positioning will likely remain so for quite some time to come, hence their emphasis on "openness", "interoperability", and "emerging standards and functionality", as opposed to Apple's smaller, more narrow, closed approach.
It seems that the Apple iPhone is ironically being marketed not from a position of strength, but rather of internally perceived weakness. It would seem that being maintain a closed system both from an interoperability perspective, as well as a non-open platform for software developement to even including the non-replaceable batteries) is essential to the Apple strategy. They are afraid to develop an open device as it would bleed their captured installed base. Not owning the trademark, which will likely prove a PR nightmare for Apple. Cisco shrewedly perceives the PR and image struggle that will emerage from the trademark infringement and is couching its language as one of maintaing principle and protecting their "good name" and a failure by Apple to join them in "cooperation" for an open market.
Although
I think another issue that prompted them to "seize" Cisco's trademark is one of timing. LinkSys a division of Cisco beat them to market with an internet phone and with the arrival of the tradeshow they only had a narrow PR window to make their splash and the introduction of Cisco's iPhone last year caught them off guard. Given that its not "cool" to look like they are not "market leaders", Apple and perhaps Jobs's ego felt compelled to make an impulsive decision, not wanting to let Cisco do to Apple what Microsoft did to it many years ago). Thus, it is probable that the seizing of Cisco's trademark, had to come now, as this also provided a convenient means to turn attention away from the negative publicity associated with the stock options back-dating scandal. This is seen as critical to Apple's image, which has been badly tarnished by evidence released to date that shows Jobs was personally involved in suggesting favorable dates for backdating. It also reflects Apple's savy maniupulation of the media which turns any controversy into a major story as a means to facilitate PR (and advertising revenue).
Although Apple did an internal "investigation" and "cleared itself" of all wrong-doing, it is unlikely that this will stop ongoing official inquiries into the matter, which are likely to proceed in parallel with the t
Use of the product by celebrities will not be likely until Apple prevails in the lawsuit over the Trademark, which itself is extremely unlikely given that the ink has been dried on the trademark name for a phone for nearly 7 years (the mere fact that Apple approached Cisco over use of the trademark name and entererd into previous negotiations could be prima fascie evidence that Apple knew ahead of time that they did not own the trademark and hence embarked on public use of the name with intent to deny Cisco the benefits of their trademark (and hence have subjected themselves to additional damages).
Any celebrity doing so prior to the resolution of the tradmark dispute so would open themselves up to penalties that might come to those who may be perceived as colluding to illegally using a trademark owned by another party. That would be the kiss of death for celebrities. For many if not most "celebrities" these days, about the only thing they have going for them is being able to being seen using other people's products.
So as far as singing another tune, my sense is that Apple and its shareholders will be singing another tune (besides "Wishful Thinking"). This might be especially true if Cisco decides to use its resources and buy or enter into a strategic relationship with Apple's cellular phone provider. Now that would be a statment by the 500 pound gorilla that it really is the 500 pound gorilla and one might expect that Apple could be easily swallowed if the gorilla really gets hungry.
After a little snooping around, I discovered this as part of a MarketWatch article on CSCO systems (9 Jan 2007).
"
According to Cisco, it and Apple have been through some extensive discussions recently, and "it is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document. We expect to receive a signed agreement today [Tuesday]," a Cisco statement said.
"
I too was wondering about this? So far its the most overlooked and curious aspect of this entire "newstory"
./ story that ran just about a month ago. My guess is some kind of license and involved since the price of the phone is so high or that Cisco sees some benefit in not jumping on this obvious encroachment on a trademark name (yet?). Given the cache the name seems to invoke among the Applephiles its obvious its worth something so I can't understand Cisco's eagerness to allow this without some kind of benefit in return, since presumably there is at least the potential for competition with the LinkSys product here or in the future.
Its amazing how short everyone's memory is on a
Perhaps this curious aspect portends new surprises to come.
The articles and the banner behind Steve Jobs seem to indicate that they will in fact use the name iPhone. /. just had a discussion with regard to the name as being a trade mark now belonging to Cisco Systems, Inc. Nowhere in the article did it indicate what legal/(business?) arrangement has been made with regard to use of the name "iPhone".
./ about a month ago and made a splash across many media websites/outlets?
Does anyone have further information about the obvious discrepancy between this story and a similar one that ran on
I would be interested to know Cisco's stance with regard to this issue and what sort of arrangement the companies have reach with regard with respect to use of this name by Apple.
Not once the hackers get into them and fly them into ... dare I say the "wrong" targets.
Besides, why should I cry, I'm invested in Boeing! I suggest building large nets of fine wire to catch them in midair. That way they will have to build more.
No point praying. It isn't doing anyone any good.
Hey, 1984 is here only a few years behind schedule. All in the name of keeping us safe (from ourselves and our weak mental capacity most likely).
I sure am glad I invested in Cisco, that way at least that my TV can watch me getting rich, even though I'm depressed about how. Not that I really had any foresight as an investor, but I am learning one can never be too cynical.
First we have M$ trying to use a monopoly position to extract extortion money from consumers, even when they attempt to purchase a Linux system by locking in vendors. If Intel is able to get away with similar behavior, we will all wind up paying more for other kinds of "lock in deals" as well. While there may be good technological reasons for going with Intel in some circumstances, as one consumer I'm goint to vote with my wallet to make the point that I am displeased with this kind of "herding" of its customers. This is sad as until now I have alway been an Intel customer.
I don't use the service in question, nor do I expect I will, but I want to be sure that Intel understands that I don't approve of marketing efforts that lock customers to a limited range of options. If more buyers send Intel such a message, maybe they will think twice about deals that ultimate restrict customer options. Let them do this successfully and you will see more and more similar deals, video-cards, gaming software, etc.
Vote with your wallet!
From the perspective of science, your argument is bunk. Science has no use or need for alternative explanations that in essence provide no further explanation. While one can rationalize any theology to conform to the observations made by scientists, science itself has no need for such rationalization as it provides no explanatory power whatsoever, it adds nothing to what we already know. Belief is equivalent to making an assumption. If you are ardent in your belief you may require a higher level of disproof of your notions to get you to change your assumptions. If you want, you can insist in keeping your beliefs regardless of whether or not they have any observable basis in reality. However, this is not the same as science, as science requires an additional step. That step is namely finding observations that are logically inconsistent with ones assumptions (hypotheses). This process is iterative, and one can, at least in principle conduct many such tests (searches for evidence of inconsistency). Science advances by discarding "explanations" that do poorly at providing insight into the underlying principles or ideas that can be used to predict the outcomes of such repeated explanation. Scientists no longer spend much time attempting to study whether or not the earth is flat, because so many observations have been made that disprove it. The same is true of creationism. We already know that life in all its forms did not simply spring into being at one time, rather they evolved from one another through changes in their genes. The process is continously observed and documented throughout the animal and plant kingdoms and with increasing advances in molecular genetics for microorganisms. There is little useful information in a science of "creationism" that doesn't provide any useful predictive explanations, in contrast to Darwinian theory which continuously provides us with new and important insights into the origins and organization of life as we know it. Consequently, modern scientists can comfortably ignore it (at least until creationists actually come up with some observable evidence to the contrary) just as we have long discarded useless ideas such as a flat earth (even though the Bible tells us the earth has "corners" and "ends" and "edges"). Argument that attempt to harmonize theology and science are silly, at least from a perspective of scientific inquiry as they simply are unnecessary and useless to the conduct of science. No one says you can't have a theological perspective. Its just of no value to the conduct of science. Science has no way to discuss theological issues(except perhaps via PET scans of theologists in action) because they can never be asked in a way in which one could obtain an answer (refutation). Hence, such an effort would be a meaningless excercise.
"Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition. ;) )"
No, because the cells of your body would not be changing the fequencies of their genes (alternative genese) as your wound heals. They would maintain the same genetic makeup (string of base pairs) before and after the trauma that induced the wound. Unless your wound is perhaps to due radiation, which by its nature destroys the nucleic acids and hence alters the genotype.
Evolution is different in that the gene frequencies change and likewise so does the genetic composition (string of base pairs) from one generation to the next (albeit more so in some circumstances than others, ie punctuated versus gradual evolution; note that both occur). Which is the more important contributor to evolutionary change (ie genes that evolve gradually or genes that evolve rapidly) is typically an important point of contention in most debates among scientists. There is abundant evidence for both rapid and slow evolution. More importantly, there is NO EVIDENCE that evolution is not in fact occuring regardless of what interspecific biological phenomenon one is looking at (or at least if one is engaged in reasoned debate as opposed to attempting to impose belief systems).
"So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. "
Spoken like one who does not do science. Only mathematicians are in a position to prove things. Scientists are forced to settle for
falsification, as strictly speaking there is no "proof" in science. There is always the logical possibility of a small probability of an unexpected outcome regardless of the hypothesis in question. If there is a hypothesis, such as Darwin's, namely that species evolve by means of natural selection, that has been repeatedly tested and retested in an effort to find "evidence" that might contradict the theory (ie an observation that could not be explained by the theory"), we say that the hypothesis is robust and the hypothesis is referred to as a theory. This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory". It is more than a mere hypothesis, since it has been repeatedly tested, and no contradictory evidence has ever been found. Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory, but only focus on aspects that are still open to debate (ie at what rate does it occur in particular taxa). It would be similar to a modern physist declaring that the earth does not rotate about the sun, simply because there is an infinistismally small probablity that it might not being doing so this instant, even though it has been repeatedly checked and rechecked until most modern physicists have little new understanding to gain by thinking otherwise.
Yes, there are observations that could disprove (falsify) Darwin's theory. Darwin noted that it would only take a single observation of a true genetic altruist (an organism that forgoes its genetic future to benefit that of another) to destroy his theory. Such organisms do not occur in nature, although there are many examples of kin selection (ie placing ones own genetic future in jeopardy to genetically benefit a relative that is genetically like, although not identical to it or its sibling). True altruists die out because they have no mechanism to pass on their genetic complement. There are a great many more, such as if natural selection were not true then closely related organims would not need be similar genetically.
You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse, but this fact is consistent with Darwin's central thesis. To make the point clearer not only can certain genes be shown to be more alike, the theory predicts that the vast majority perhaps nearly all are because we and consequently all our genes) evolved from a common ancestor. Indeed it is hard to imagine that the machinations of some random God could have produced an alternative outcome. Of course, even if there were such a random God, it wouldn't provide any useful explanation beyond what Darwin has provided us, as any random God would do equally well. Because one can always use a random God to explain anything, the notion explains nothing from a scientific perspective.
Anyway, those who choose to believe in the 10 commandments have a more fundamental theological problem posed by the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations). Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man. Ironically, such people damn themselves, assuming that they actually believe in the 10 commandments being given to man by God.
I urge Norton to rewrite their program to detect the M$ malware and deload it before it gets deloaded.
Then, we have come to the point of Silicon Nirvanah, where two culture-clashed greed-crazed programs compete for the attention of schizophrenic processors.
Thank God Intel and AMD are comming out with multiple processors. That way we can let one or two or three fight with each other so that we can use the other one for the purposes one might want to put a computer for.
Better yet, let the race for n-order processors begin as everyone writes software that removes all others from memory space. After all if religous zealotry and greed are to complete their perversion of our government and our lives, why let any problem go uncreated?
This could be just what we need to get rid of all the religous wackos who are so eager to meet God.
With the ability of the device to accellerate large masses they could even take a few hundred pounds of inflatable virgins with them, just in case.
Bon voyage!
your sense of decency.
Lets all hail the new antichristican virtue moralists!
Stop violating the commandment that thou shall not bear false witness, lest your suffer eternal damnation.
Hey buddy, if you object to sensationalism when some cries out that their libertties and fourth ammendment rights are being violated, then you should be prepared to ban advertising, radio, and TV. Talk about media hype.
This story about Osama's cell phone being tapped and somehow the NYT compromised national security is rediculuous (and the last time I checked the first ammendment still said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". So until Bush and folks like you succeed in repealing the first ammendment it cann't be illegal to publish such a story and hence commit a crime in doing so.
Only until recently have there even been any cell towers in Afganistan and these are found only in a few cities. Even if he had a cell phone it wouldn't have worked. Stop puking out the party line and try thinking on your own. Yes, it will be incoherent at first, but its time you took some baby steps in that direction.
We may disagree on operating system and economic philosophy, but at least we can agree that freedom must be defended everywhere. People must be given the opportunity to make their own choices. We may disagree and even strenuously opposed them as wrong, but we must defend their right to speak their mind and make their own choices. Otherwise, what is freedom worth?
We may disagree with respect to operating system and economic philosophy, but at least we can agree that liberty is important and must be defended everywhere. People have to be able to make free choices, even if we personally may vehemently regard them as wrong. Without that what is "freedom" worth?
At least now I know that George Bush will have an excuse giving him plausible deinability. He really believes his lies are the truth.
Of course, they will still have to restrict use of such a machine during a presidential press conference lest the important national security secret be uncovered that if it were used in such a presidential press conference it would reveal the shocking truth of virtually no brain activity at all.