You're being intentionally ignorant and I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it. If they have a problem with the terms of the contract offered by "the industry" they can choose self-employment or a different profession. Millions of Americans strike it out on their own. It's hard work, and a huge risk. You're basically arguing that it's unfair that artists should have to work in the same situation, and that they should somehow be guaranteed fame and riches merely by signing with the RIAA. This is a ludicrous position, and I won't waste my time listening to it anymore. It's also a direct insult to the many people who HAVE started their own businesses and have been successful.
Well, then, I don't really understand how your point is relevant to what I brought up. Even if that's true, the answer is, simply "go do something else with your life", which many people who could have pressed artistic careers also do.
If it's all or nothing, it's still a choice they have to make, and if they make the wrong choice, the onus is still on them.
I don't have a problem with them expressing their opinions. Open communication is an important part when factoring whether or not you should enter into any kind of business relationship whether it's you buying a candy bar at the local supermarket or two companies considering a merger.
I'm merely pointing out that if an artist DOES sign these contracts, they are usually to blame for any failure of superstardom (exceptions made for mismanagement and pure accidental failures, of course). After the fact, if an artist feels that they were mistreated, they can talk about it so that other artists can consider that testimony when making THEIR decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that they willingly entered into the contract in the first place.
I'm not saying the RIAA isn't a nasty cartel that manipulates its members and artists for profit. I'm arguing against the perception Slashbots press that the RIAA is some sort of heaving monster that's just gobbling up innocent people without any willing participation from the artists.
Your idiotic comment in no way represents any of the opinions I expressed.
Feel free, however, to explain, with adequate documentation, how the RIAA's behavior is on the same level as selling toxic food or providing loans with the threat of bodily harm or death in the event of non-repayment.
It doesn't matter one bit. If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business". Hundreds of thousands of regular people try it every year and lose everything, make a modest living, or in some cases strike it rich. If they want to be in the business of big time entertainment, they can make the decision to take the necessary risks.
It is entirely on them if they choose to take on huge risks in the pursuit of huge payouts, and it is nobody else's fault if those payouts do not materialize. Nobody is guaranteed the right to become rich, only the freedom to try. They under no obligation to take this path in their lives.
Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.
Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.
I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.
And, of course, the argument that there's no other way to make it big is pointless too. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money, only the freedom to attempt it. If they want to make money, and they can't do it through cartel members under teh RIAA, they should make an attempt on their own. If they don't make it, and fail, then they can go sit and cry in a beer with the other 90% of businesses that don't make it either (of course, we all know that because freedom provided by p2p and such is this huge legit business model rather than a place where 99.99% of all traffic is copyright infringement and/or porn or viruses, indy artists are all just going to be rolling in dough without the marketing muscle of the RIAA studios, right?).
Is the RIAA and its members abusive to artists and consumers? Absolutely.
Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.
Are consumers obligated to buy music from them? Absolutely not.
The first thing I thought of when I read that was "Doesn't that logic apply to the entire Food Network?"
They seem to be doing okay though.... that said, I still can't get interested in G4. This guy's blog wasn't really any better though, and watching this rag and G4 battle it out through droll observational "wit" and obtuse, boring insults is pretty much as close to a real life pansy slap fight as you can get on the Internet.
I expected to see an article about a mass-mailing campaign to advertise the firm, but this is just some dope shooting emails randomly at this blogger's company rather than specifically targetting the relevant person.
It's not nearly as bad as the heading and write-up sound. Far from normal connotations of spamming, this falls more under the category of "stupid".
The debate itself is completely irrelevant, and drawing it into the conversation only makes you more wrong anyway. Whether he'd have been speaking about something else or not is immaterial, because clogged pipes is not a valid metaphor and very badly misconstrues the supposed "problem" of bandwidth and transfer hogs.
If you absolutely must make an analogy to explain the problem, try using the analogy of two-way city streets full of four way stops. You can then convey, in an extremely simplified manner, the concept of electrons interacting on the basis of "collision" whereby all but one must stop and then go in order, and if one route to the destination is too backed up, the packets can try a different one.
Save for some failure in the system (e.g. - a road surface collapse blocks a path), data transfer can NEVER "clog up", it can only slow more and more as new data/cars enter the system.
Be sure, of course, to mention the fact that in this analogy there are literally hundreds of thousands of miles of closed road (dark fiber) that nobody will let all these "clogged up" cars travel on, and that if the people who owned these roads would sell them off for commuters to use, road capacity would be increased by many orders of magnitude and there would be no cause to charge people driving by themself bundles of money to use certain roads while people who car pool can use the regular roads for free.
In fact, ironically, using a more valid analogy, net neutrality is like charging people in the car pool lane extra money while letting everyone else drive on the now less-congested streets for free.
No, they're not. You cannot jam up electrons in a piece of wire like hair in PVC, and when you put too much refuse in your sink disposal, it does not spit all but one of it back out, then start taking them back in one at a time until it's all gone.
If you don't understand networking, don't try to explain it to the public. If it weren't for clueless sods like you who only THINK you know what you're talking about, maybe the general public wouldn't have such moronic conceptions of technology.
Oh, yes, you exposed me. I didn't use the strict networking term, instead using a word that outside of networking jargon is a perfectly acceptable synonym. Gee, I'm just so deeply embarrassed that I'm completely doubting myself at my very core now, because even though I got the concept perfect, I just didn't use the right jargon to identify it.
Oh, wait, no. This is coming from a random, trolling AC who doesn't understand the difference between pipe as a generic term for a connection and pipe as an analogy.
Go stuff a whole bunch of bits down your T1 and STFU. When you can get electrons jammed up in copper wire the way you can get strands of hair jammed up in a piece of PVC pipe, you can come back and argue with me. Until then, you're just an idiot, you're obviously NOT a network engineer, and you're also pretty obviously getting all your "knowledge" out of a Wikipedia abstract.
...where faux intellectualism and superficial points lacking in substance are the norm.
I like how you make that statement as if you're some sort of bastion of intellectual debate, then go on in your second paragraph to make up a whole string of extremist opinions that nobody except you posited, which you then apply to the other poster in an attempt to discredit him using speech he never actually put forward. Oh, yes, that's TERRIBLY intellectual and I can't imagine why just assigning our opponents new opinions wasn't considered a valid tactic in debate theory...
I'll open up the betting on how long it takes you to start misattributing logical fallacies to people based on the definitions of those fallacies that you found on Wikipedia.
Actually, within the context of networking, "pipe" has a very specific meaning, and when used to generically describe connections between networking hardware, it's merely a general way of referring to those connections, not any attempt - as was the case with our friend the blowhard Senator - to make any sort of analogy.
If you don't understand why trying to make an analogy involving network transfer and plumbing-style piping is ludicrous, you don't understand networking and you're obviously no more justified in harangueing slashbots that assault Stevens' braindead speech than Stevens was in making the speech in the first place.
Spoilers: Collision detection, fragmentation, and retransfer is the key.
Oh, hoo-freaking-ray for you. You should be so happy that you are a major contributor to the customer abuse that these stores engage in so they can afford to knock an extra $2 off a printer that only cost $35 to begin with.
Guess what chump change? The next time you call a customer abuse line and have to put in a series of cryptic key presses, then wait for 35 minutes while an irritating voice telling you how important the call is tries to get you to hang up, I want you to ask yourself whether the aggravation of just trying to get the simplest little bit of help is worth the extra buck you saved on the product you're calling about. The next time your rebate gets "lost" or takes outrageous amounts of time to be processed, you just remember how great it is that you're getting a whole $5 discount than if you'd have just bought it next door for a little more money without a rebate.
Companies aren't abusive, they're giving people like you exactly what they want: the illusion that you're saving money. They cut the everloving hell out of even the most basic of services so that you can save a tiny little bit of money on something that didn't cost much to begin with, because you'll never realize that even if you only have to get assistance from them once, the amount of time you waste fighting with them and their inefficient, stress-inducing systems is going to cost you three times what you "saved" over the lifetime of shopping at their store.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just go straight to a place like Newegg.com where the prices aren't always the lowest, but they're fair, and I don't have to worry about a rep kicking me in the balls for shopping with them.
Uh, yea. Shopping at Best Buy to escape crooked CompUSA behavior is like turning around to get shot in the face instead of the back of the head so you don't get hurt. Congratulations, you're buying things at inflated prices that were probably broken, fixed, and repackaged as "new" from a company that refuses to accept its own receipts as proof of purchase.
Besides, there's a CompUSA right up the street from me right now, near the Best Buy and Circuit City, and I'm north of the Mason-Dixon.
The only portion of your post that I'm interested in is the part where you charge me with "speculating" on the accuracy of the other poster's comment. It is HIS duty to prove HIS claims. As they remain unproven, I'm entirely in the right to call them false. If, however, he comes back and somehow proves that science is going to be finding things that match up with biblical fables, I will cease to call them false. Since that will likely either require psychic powers or a significantly long time, however, I highly doubt I'll be making such a comment.
The rest of your post is, in some spots, well outside the realm of scientific inquiry on evolution, and in other spots flat out misinformation. I have no interest in arguing the matter with you as you very clearly have a strong opinion on it, but also very clearly have little to no understanding of the subject.
The evidence is readily available for review and extremely proliferate. If you choose not to review that evidence, or choose to reject such solid proofs, that's your perogative. If the facts themselves can't convince you, no matter of wailing and gnashing of teeth from me can, and I don't see why I should be interested in wasting my time trying.
I have no idea what IUDs have to do with evolutionary biology, but whatever.
If you don't have proof of sweeping generalizations, don't make them. Your post directly implied imprudence on the part of the scientific community and condemned them as a whole for sneaking bias into their work. If you have evidence of specific cases, fine, but don't conflate that with the entire body of science.
Real scientists are quite likely to intentionally avoid saying things that would "give aid and comfort to the enemy", and given the way "official christians" have been behaving recently, they are very likely to be seen as "the enemy".
I suppose you just have reams and reams of proof for this sweeping generalization in which you basically assault the integrity of just about every member of every field of science?
While I wait for your enormous list of evidence justifying this unwarranted character assassination of hundreds of thousands of people you've never even met, yet apparently know well enough on a personal level to call them all out as vindictive liars, here's a list of deception pressed by "the enemy", as you put it, in the name of pressing an anti-science agenda:
Not really, no. Two dimensional vision is a function of the physical properties of light and the fact that your photoreceptive cells are larger than single photons. To have one dimensional vision, you'd have to have single-photon perception so that you were only picking up light coming in from a single photon-wide plane. You could, I suppose, argue that 2D vision is a function of your brain processing all available input, but it's really more aptly described as a function of your eye allowing more than a single plane of light in.
Not so with 3 dimensions. 3 dimensional perception is exactly that: your brain accepts different bits of light and recognizes differences in angle and shade and such in them, processing them into depth. Note, after all, that it is entirely possible to screw your brain up and confuse it into thinking that something in the foreground is actually in the background because of its angles, colors, etc. It's possible to "see" a distant object in front of a close one and walk into it by mistake. That's just a bug in the old brain chips, not something wrong with your eyes.
You're right, it is just your idea, because that's not what a theory is in anything but a strictly popularized sense. Since we're talking about scientific views of what is a theory, that sense is irrelevant, and so calling it a theory is inaccurate.
This is merely an IDEA that has been posited. This person is saying "I have looked into this with a cursory review of evidence, and I believe that it is worthwhile for us to attempt to either prove or disprove it".
If other people agree, then they will evaluate it further and attempt to find relevant evidence that either supports or discredits the idea. Other people will then review those people's findings, and so on and so forth. If a consensus is reached that experimentation and evidence supports the idea - which by that time will have changed into something far more specific than what has been posited thus far - it will become, by consensus review, a theory. If the experimentation and evidence discredits the idea, it will be left behind.
This is far from a theory. It is only just a presentation of a new idea that somebody believes is worth considering that it MIGHT become a piece of the larger evolutionary theory somewhere down the road.
Ignoring the fact that your entire post is false, and apparently nothing more than a nasty, disrespectful attempt to mislead people about the topic, it wouldn't matter if scientific findings DID prove the bible correct word for word. That would simply be the way the universe is. So be it.
Unlike religionists, real scientists just want to know the truth, and they're not scared that it might shatter their own preconcieved notions, so they don't "shift" the truth based on that (and when they do, they get found out, discredited, and made a laughing stock).
Within the context of the original post (the evolving to see in 4 dimensions thing), it suggests to me that he meant seeing all 3 spacial dimensions. Stereoscopic vision is not the same as that. It just means your brain is capable of recognizing angles on objects and interpreting them for you as some level of depth. People with poor depth perception don't necessarily have anything wrong with their eyes. They see the same thing everyone else does, their brains just don't interpret the angles properly.
You can prove quite easily that you can only see two dimensions of space. Simply place a cube on a table, lower and center your vision so it's pinpointed right in the center of one side, and note that you see a square, not a cube. Without the angles to suggest depth, you're not capable of perceiving three dimensions at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You're being intentionally ignorant and I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it. If they have a problem with the terms of the contract offered by "the industry" they can choose self-employment or a different profession. Millions of Americans strike it out on their own. It's hard work, and a huge risk. You're basically arguing that it's unfair that artists should have to work in the same situation, and that they should somehow be guaranteed fame and riches merely by signing with the RIAA. This is a ludicrous position, and I won't waste my time listening to it anymore. It's also a direct insult to the many people who HAVE started their own businesses and have been successful.
Well, then, I don't really understand how your point is relevant to what I brought up. Even if that's true, the answer is, simply "go do something else with your life", which many people who could have pressed artistic careers also do.
If it's all or nothing, it's still a choice they have to make, and if they make the wrong choice, the onus is still on them.
I don't have a problem with them expressing their opinions. Open communication is an important part when factoring whether or not you should enter into any kind of business relationship whether it's you buying a candy bar at the local supermarket or two companies considering a merger.
I'm merely pointing out that if an artist DOES sign these contracts, they are usually to blame for any failure of superstardom (exceptions made for mismanagement and pure accidental failures, of course). After the fact, if an artist feels that they were mistreated, they can talk about it so that other artists can consider that testimony when making THEIR decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that they willingly entered into the contract in the first place.
I'm not saying the RIAA isn't a nasty cartel that manipulates its members and artists for profit. I'm arguing against the perception Slashbots press that the RIAA is some sort of heaving monster that's just gobbling up innocent people without any willing participation from the artists.
Your idiotic comment in no way represents any of the opinions I expressed.
Feel free, however, to explain, with adequate documentation, how the RIAA's behavior is on the same level as selling toxic food or providing loans with the threat of bodily harm or death in the event of non-repayment.
It doesn't matter one bit. If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business". Hundreds of thousands of regular people try it every year and lose everything, make a modest living, or in some cases strike it rich. If they want to be in the business of big time entertainment, they can make the decision to take the necessary risks.
It is entirely on them if they choose to take on huge risks in the pursuit of huge payouts, and it is nobody else's fault if those payouts do not materialize. Nobody is guaranteed the right to become rich, only the freedom to try. They under no obligation to take this path in their lives.
Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.
Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.
I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.
And, of course, the argument that there's no other way to make it big is pointless too. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money, only the freedom to attempt it. If they want to make money, and they can't do it through cartel members under teh RIAA, they should make an attempt on their own. If they don't make it, and fail, then they can go sit and cry in a beer with the other 90% of businesses that don't make it either (of course, we all know that because freedom provided by p2p and such is this huge legit business model rather than a place where 99.99% of all traffic is copyright infringement and/or porn or viruses, indy artists are all just going to be rolling in dough without the marketing muscle of the RIAA studios, right?).
Is the RIAA and its members abusive to artists and consumers? Absolutely.
Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.
Are consumers obligated to buy music from them? Absolutely not.
The first thing I thought of when I read that was "Doesn't that logic apply to the entire Food Network?"
They seem to be doing okay though.... that said, I still can't get interested in G4. This guy's blog wasn't really any better though, and watching this rag and G4 battle it out through droll observational "wit" and obtuse, boring insults is pretty much as close to a real life pansy slap fight as you can get on the Internet.
I expected to see an article about a mass-mailing campaign to advertise the firm, but this is just some dope shooting emails randomly at this blogger's company rather than specifically targetting the relevant person.
It's not nearly as bad as the heading and write-up sound. Far from normal connotations of spamming, this falls more under the category of "stupid".
That of course should read "opposition to net neutrality is like...".
The debate itself is completely irrelevant, and drawing it into the conversation only makes you more wrong anyway. Whether he'd have been speaking about something else or not is immaterial, because clogged pipes is not a valid metaphor and very badly misconstrues the supposed "problem" of bandwidth and transfer hogs.
If you absolutely must make an analogy to explain the problem, try using the analogy of two-way city streets full of four way stops. You can then convey, in an extremely simplified manner, the concept of electrons interacting on the basis of "collision" whereby all but one must stop and then go in order, and if one route to the destination is too backed up, the packets can try a different one.
Save for some failure in the system (e.g. - a road surface collapse blocks a path), data transfer can NEVER "clog up", it can only slow more and more as new data/cars enter the system.
Be sure, of course, to mention the fact that in this analogy there are literally hundreds of thousands of miles of closed road (dark fiber) that nobody will let all these "clogged up" cars travel on, and that if the people who owned these roads would sell them off for commuters to use, road capacity would be increased by many orders of magnitude and there would be no cause to charge people driving by themself bundles of money to use certain roads while people who car pool can use the regular roads for free.
In fact, ironically, using a more valid analogy, net neutrality is like charging people in the car pool lane extra money while letting everyone else drive on the now less-congested streets for free.
No, they're not. You cannot jam up electrons in a piece of wire like hair in PVC, and when you put too much refuse in your sink disposal, it does not spit all but one of it back out, then start taking them back in one at a time until it's all gone.
If you don't understand networking, don't try to explain it to the public. If it weren't for clueless sods like you who only THINK you know what you're talking about, maybe the general public wouldn't have such moronic conceptions of technology.
Oh, yes, you exposed me. I didn't use the strict networking term, instead using a word that outside of networking jargon is a perfectly acceptable synonym. Gee, I'm just so deeply embarrassed that I'm completely doubting myself at my very core now, because even though I got the concept perfect, I just didn't use the right jargon to identify it.
Oh, wait, no. This is coming from a random, trolling AC who doesn't understand the difference between pipe as a generic term for a connection and pipe as an analogy.
Go stuff a whole bunch of bits down your T1 and STFU. When you can get electrons jammed up in copper wire the way you can get strands of hair jammed up in a piece of PVC pipe, you can come back and argue with me. Until then, you're just an idiot, you're obviously NOT a network engineer, and you're also pretty obviously getting all your "knowledge" out of a Wikipedia abstract.
I like how you make that statement as if you're some sort of bastion of intellectual debate, then go on in your second paragraph to make up a whole string of extremist opinions that nobody except you posited, which you then apply to the other poster in an attempt to discredit him using speech he never actually put forward. Oh, yes, that's TERRIBLY intellectual and I can't imagine why just assigning our opponents new opinions wasn't considered a valid tactic in debate theory...
I'll open up the betting on how long it takes you to start misattributing logical fallacies to people based on the definitions of those fallacies that you found on Wikipedia.
Actually, within the context of networking, "pipe" has a very specific meaning, and when used to generically describe connections between networking hardware, it's merely a general way of referring to those connections, not any attempt - as was the case with our friend the blowhard Senator - to make any sort of analogy.
If you don't understand why trying to make an analogy involving network transfer and plumbing-style piping is ludicrous, you don't understand networking and you're obviously no more justified in harangueing slashbots that assault Stevens' braindead speech than Stevens was in making the speech in the first place.
Spoilers: Collision detection, fragmentation, and retransfer is the key.
Hmmm... Charlton Heston you ain't.
Oh, hoo-freaking-ray for you. You should be so happy that you are a major contributor to the customer abuse that these stores engage in so they can afford to knock an extra $2 off a printer that only cost $35 to begin with.
Guess what chump change? The next time you call a customer abuse line and have to put in a series of cryptic key presses, then wait for 35 minutes while an irritating voice telling you how important the call is tries to get you to hang up, I want you to ask yourself whether the aggravation of just trying to get the simplest little bit of help is worth the extra buck you saved on the product you're calling about. The next time your rebate gets "lost" or takes outrageous amounts of time to be processed, you just remember how great it is that you're getting a whole $5 discount than if you'd have just bought it next door for a little more money without a rebate.
Companies aren't abusive, they're giving people like you exactly what they want: the illusion that you're saving money. They cut the everloving hell out of even the most basic of services so that you can save a tiny little bit of money on something that didn't cost much to begin with, because you'll never realize that even if you only have to get assistance from them once, the amount of time you waste fighting with them and their inefficient, stress-inducing systems is going to cost you three times what you "saved" over the lifetime of shopping at their store.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just go straight to a place like Newegg.com where the prices aren't always the lowest, but they're fair, and I don't have to worry about a rep kicking me in the balls for shopping with them.
Uh, yea. Shopping at Best Buy to escape crooked CompUSA behavior is like turning around to get shot in the face instead of the back of the head so you don't get hurt. Congratulations, you're buying things at inflated prices that were probably broken, fixed, and repackaged as "new" from a company that refuses to accept its own receipts as proof of purchase.
Besides, there's a CompUSA right up the street from me right now, near the Best Buy and Circuit City, and I'm north of the Mason-Dixon.
The only portion of your post that I'm interested in is the part where you charge me with "speculating" on the accuracy of the other poster's comment. It is HIS duty to prove HIS claims. As they remain unproven, I'm entirely in the right to call them false. If, however, he comes back and somehow proves that science is going to be finding things that match up with biblical fables, I will cease to call them false. Since that will likely either require psychic powers or a significantly long time, however, I highly doubt I'll be making such a comment.
The rest of your post is, in some spots, well outside the realm of scientific inquiry on evolution, and in other spots flat out misinformation. I have no interest in arguing the matter with you as you very clearly have a strong opinion on it, but also very clearly have little to no understanding of the subject.
The evidence is readily available for review and extremely proliferate. If you choose not to review that evidence, or choose to reject such solid proofs, that's your perogative. If the facts themselves can't convince you, no matter of wailing and gnashing of teeth from me can, and I don't see why I should be interested in wasting my time trying.
I have no idea what IUDs have to do with evolutionary biology, but whatever.
If you don't have proof of sweeping generalizations, don't make them. Your post directly implied imprudence on the part of the scientific community and condemned them as a whole for sneaking bias into their work. If you have evidence of specific cases, fine, but don't conflate that with the entire body of science.
I suppose you just have reams and reams of proof for this sweeping generalization in which you basically assault the integrity of just about every member of every field of science?
While I wait for your enormous list of evidence justifying this unwarranted character assassination of hundreds of thousands of people you've never even met, yet apparently know well enough on a personal level to call them all out as vindictive liars, here's a list of deception pressed by "the enemy", as you put it, in the name of pressing an anti-science agenda:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Not really, no. Two dimensional vision is a function of the physical properties of light and the fact that your photoreceptive cells are larger than single photons. To have one dimensional vision, you'd have to have single-photon perception so that you were only picking up light coming in from a single photon-wide plane. You could, I suppose, argue that 2D vision is a function of your brain processing all available input, but it's really more aptly described as a function of your eye allowing more than a single plane of light in.
Not so with 3 dimensions. 3 dimensional perception is exactly that: your brain accepts different bits of light and recognizes differences in angle and shade and such in them, processing them into depth. Note, after all, that it is entirely possible to screw your brain up and confuse it into thinking that something in the foreground is actually in the background because of its angles, colors, etc. It's possible to "see" a distant object in front of a close one and walk into it by mistake. That's just a bug in the old brain chips, not something wrong with your eyes.
You're right, it is just your idea, because that's not what a theory is in anything but a strictly popularized sense. Since we're talking about scientific views of what is a theory, that sense is irrelevant, and so calling it a theory is inaccurate.
This is merely an IDEA that has been posited. This person is saying "I have looked into this with a cursory review of evidence, and I believe that it is worthwhile for us to attempt to either prove or disprove it".
If other people agree, then they will evaluate it further and attempt to find relevant evidence that either supports or discredits the idea. Other people will then review those people's findings, and so on and so forth. If a consensus is reached that experimentation and evidence supports the idea - which by that time will have changed into something far more specific than what has been posited thus far - it will become, by consensus review, a theory. If the experimentation and evidence discredits the idea, it will be left behind.
This is far from a theory. It is only just a presentation of a new idea that somebody believes is worth considering that it MIGHT become a piece of the larger evolutionary theory somewhere down the road.
Ignoring the fact that your entire post is false, and apparently nothing more than a nasty, disrespectful attempt to mislead people about the topic, it wouldn't matter if scientific findings DID prove the bible correct word for word. That would simply be the way the universe is. So be it.
Unlike religionists, real scientists just want to know the truth, and they're not scared that it might shatter their own preconcieved notions, so they don't "shift" the truth based on that (and when they do, they get found out, discredited, and made a laughing stock).
Within the context of the original post (the evolving to see in 4 dimensions thing), it suggests to me that he meant seeing all 3 spacial dimensions. Stereoscopic vision is not the same as that. It just means your brain is capable of recognizing angles on objects and interpreting them for you as some level of depth. People with poor depth perception don't necessarily have anything wrong with their eyes. They see the same thing everyone else does, their brains just don't interpret the angles properly.
You can prove quite easily that you can only see two dimensions of space. Simply place a cube on a table, lower and center your vision so it's pinpointed right in the center of one side, and note that you see a square, not a cube. Without the angles to suggest depth, you're not capable of perceiving three dimensions at all.