Well you didn't actually discuss the Beta, now did you?
I just clicked over. Yes, it's different. Not sure I like it, but I'd like to have that discussion on what specifically is bad, in your opinion.
We've been through this before, see... this isn't the first restyling of the
Learning is a journey - and if a Christian child is exposed to this debate, they may be guided to thinking one way, but over time the topic of "there's debate" will continue. Let them research over their lives to find the truth. Curiosity can only help. If the truth doesn't win, that itself is a good way to see that it needs a clearer presentation, or may not be so true.
Posted AC, of course.
The same thing happens to a creationist here as in any intellectual discussion - they are asked to provide a non-scriptural model that fits the evidence. I am curious why Christians even care how species differentiate over time. By all means, if your thesis can stand any critique, it should be proposed.
Nye isn't stupid, he's thought about the implications of this debate. He's already talked about the promotion of the debate as a leveling effect of the two approaches, when really they are nowhere similar. (Creation Mythology and Scientific Inquiry).
However, I think if Nye plays his cards right, he'll not fall into the trap of a tit-for-tat banter of each little Creationist pseudo-doubt. Instead, he'll address the general sociology of the subject: The Christian religion is just one of dozens of creation myths, popular in certain places of the world at this time in history. It simply cannot admit it is wrong, although it has been proven wrong many times and simply abandoned those historical issues (Copernicus onward, for just a few examples). Additionally, there are still the hangups in Christianity with gender (both women and gays) as lesser actors on the stage. Combined with the peculiar Politically-rightward stance in the US, defining their positions on the environment, poverty and interventionism - Christianity cannot explain many parts of the modern world well, let alone creation.
Nye could also simply state that there are too many religions to include them all in an Origins class, and all of them arrive with only scriptural evidence that it's best left to a comparative-studies class on mythologies. Which is exactly where they are today.
Also, if everyone started empirical scientific exploration over again (really, we do this all the time in teaching) - the same models would be arrived at - simply because the models fit the observations. They aren't dictated from any secret cabal, exactly opposite the Christian method. Nye can do this, as well as any of us. The evolutionary discrepancies Ham will blubber on about are not worth the time, but this entire use of one religion to define all things in the universe can easily be made to look silly.
Fr
RMS's philosophy assumes a zero-sum combative environment for software: "free and uncapitalizable" vs "open-source and capitlistic". He's consistent and clear, but this zero-sum assumption is false. Closed-source innovations have cross-bred with open many times, either via concept or actual code contributions. The ecosystem mingles every time any coder merges their closed-source ideas with open or vice-versa. Freedom in this case lives at the meta level that allows individuals AND a market to thrive. We're not going back to an age where all the drawers of tapes are unlocked for everyone at all times, but where the concepts embedded in the tapes' content crossbreed and multiply. Freedom has thus encompassed RMS's idea (after all, GPLv3 is not prohibited) and that of a market-based economy. His stance that assumes zero-sum reveals a clear dislike for the existance of the market, which perhaps arose from a time when digital commerce could not be envisioned. However, digital-goods are indeed a very large market and that work to create such goods will come from anywhere, free, paid, donated and even (regrettably) stolen. It mirrors the real world, as it should.
Ostensibly, the NSA's recording and then subsequent unpacking of all communications is to help prevent terrorist attacks. If they never reveal how these helped, truthfully not helping any investigation, or just to avoid showing their hand to suspected terrorists in a courtroom - the same paradox arises: The "terrorists" are part of the population that demands freedom from tracking. In other word, they are hiding among the populace.
The question we may all want to face is if a terrorist bomb takes out a bus with our family on it, would any amount of NSA tracking be acceptable? If the attack was instead thwarted via a program that was never, ever revealed (officers just magically knew about a plot), we'd be exactly in the current situation. So I find it difficult to accept that I know the truth about this situation still.
I don't trust the NSA - not so much about the snooping on general citizens, but that their program won't be used to find critical journalists, political opponents, budgetary critics, and perform a scientology-style smearing of their character. If they detect a bunch of would-be terrorists via web usage, TOR hacks, phone snooping, I would have to just go along with it: so far, no representative or candidate of my district is ready to stop any of these programs, although I've writen them about how we can put checks and balances into the programs.
If theoretically the NSA could know about *everything, everywhere* - would this be beyond some personal limit? What is the limit of what a police program should track about the citizenry?
While I don't completely disagree with you, "good code" seems to imply a judgement based on some values. In enterprise systems, the transferability, maintainability and self-documenting concepts in code can play as much a role as footprint, security and speed. Not all systems are dancing on the edge of "too big" or "too slow" - they are closer to failure because of "poorly defined", "too fragile" and/or "too esoteric".
A company may want to keep modules in plainspeak, well-documented and slower
It's entertaining, typically weird article from Bell. They're a bit snarky but somewhat long-winded - his penchant to build classifications of things overrides any real deep-dive into what he's talking about. And his daughter appears in every article, I'm surprised there isn't a "17 types of annoying child" article yet.
His other complaints: UML, XML, Agile misuse/overuse - each with an article, blog post that has invented classifications.
Where's the one on "taxonomy joke" overuse?
That's called thumb's-complement - still in IEEE committee, but quite handy.
While I don't (yet) believe the NSA is blackmailing the rest of the government to obey its wishes, I don't think they are "going to be stopped" in any meaningful way. Instead, I think we're going to pick ever-more-hair-splitting rules for technology's use in policing. The reason effect is that they'll just go underground for a bit.
Because not knowing that everything you do is traced is safer than knowing? He broke the law because the US government is lying to its citizens. Is the government completely immune to breaking the law? Should Watergate have only been about two rogue reporters?
If not this phase of technology used for National Security, there will be some other. In any case, what level of technology use by the government is safe or allowed? I suspect this issue/case is just one of a myriad of ongoing decisions to balance the use of technology for crime/safety while letting everyone (at least) feel like their privacy is respected.
[it doesn't take much to envision a stability to just-appearing technology so that they become applicable in many potentially intrusive ways...drones hovering above public places using instant facial recognition to identify any person-of-interest, without need to publish why interest arose...infra-red cameras on streetlights to track who is in each home and when...ubiquitous vehicle-tracking, engine-disabling technology to capture any suspect in a vehicle...100% person-presence tracking]
The technology is going to be everywhere, and it's understanding by the general populace is shrinking. The technocrats will provide the tools for the aristocrats and both will try to balance between appeasement and revolution by the rest of society. Choosing to avoid technology now will only handicap you. Some as-yet-unknown sci-fi authors will be heralded as prophets.
"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben
