Unfortunately, high school is the highest education the majority receive.
Sorry, but that doesn't mean that high school is the appropriate venue for that sort of discussion. In a high school science course, the aim of the curriculum is to provide a foundational education. Unfortunately, this does not include advanced evolutionary theory.
Right, but I don't hear anyone complaining when teachers say that we don't have a complete understanding of it either. Unfortunately, if a teacher were to say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, everyone gets in a tizzy and accuses the teacher of proselytizing impressionable young minds.
If this was all that teachers were required to say, then I'm perfectly comfortable with this. I am not comfortable, however, with the undue focus on evolution theory as flawed. It inaccurately characterizes evolution as a theory that is fundamentally contested, when in reality it is supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of fields.
Ideas should NEVER be off the discussion table when it comes to science. Nor should any theory or even law be above challenge.
No one is say that evolution shouldn't be held up to the full rigor of scientific scrutiny. But there's a huge difference between criticizing hypothesized evolutionary mechanisms and criticizing the underlying theory.
In the scientific community, the fundamental principles of evolution have held up for a LONG time. This is what should be taught to school children. The extreme emphasis by certain groups on the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory are meant to sow doubt in an otherwise uneducated audience (which kids are).
Should kids know that the specific details of evolution haven't been 100% sorted out yet? Yes. Should we go out of our way to spend time discussing these open questions? Sure. In an advanced setting. Not grade school. Not high school.
Frankly, we don't have a perfect understanding of how gravity works either. Yet somehow, I can't hear anyone screaming that our children must be educated on the "weaknesses" of that particular subject. I wonder why?
they can only work with data you give them.
Not true, actually. They can also work with the information your "friends" give them.
Here is the first distinction that we have to make:
a) Services that publish private information
b) Services that do not publish private information
The problem is that there is little to stop companies from transitioning from group b) to group a).
I'm reasonably confident that Google won't actively screw me over right now. But ten years down the road? Who knows?
Frankly, the only reason I trust Google NOW is that they have an incentive to keep me happy. If at any point I get pissed off, I can pack up and move to Bing or some other competitor with a minimum of fuss.
However with Facebook, they have a locked-in market. Sure, you can quit and move to a new site. But Facebook's value is in its membership, which no other company is offering at the moment.
As it stands now, the relationship between the user and Google is much more balanced, which makes Google at least marginally interested in their customers. Facebook, barring a massive decline in membership, simply doesn't care.
So long as Google is being kept honest by the legitimate possibility of losing revenue, they'll stay in group b).
And it sucks to be Cambridge. There is no such thing as Englandium.
England could use noble gases, perhaps?
You must be referring to an Apple I'm not familiar with.
Nearly every OS release for the iPhone has gone out of its way to un-jailbreak (re-jail?) its phones. Didn't look too hard, but wikipedia sums it up best with its "cat and mouse" description.
And then of course there's the legal case where Apple argues that jailbreaking phones should be flat-out illegal under the DMCA.
Seems to me that Apple has both eyes open on this one.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan