(no subject)

::looks longingly at Serenity on sale for only $17::

::looks disapprovingly at bank account::

::looks distressed at credit card bill:: Wow, that adds up...


Sigh. I guess I'll be good. I guess. Maybe.

(no subject)

Convince me not to worry about this, please?

I don't understand entirely what this thing is in the first place, and second off, why would anyone download anything voluntarily because it promised only to let 'good' adware onto their computer?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD ADWARE.

Adware sucks memory, which just plain sucks. I understand some people downloading this whatever program so they can avoid malicious adware/spyware (I am skeptical as to how this program can do that), but what they're not recognizing is that downloading it is giving permission for adware from the 'approved' lists that will include all of the annoying ad companies (if they're smart enough to get on the lists, which, let's face it, they probably will be). Idiots who think this will protect them are going to still be saddled with adware, and it'll be all above board because, in downloading and using the program, they'll permit the 'good' adware companies to track their interent usage. Disgusting.

Remember how I said "Intelligent Design is not science"?

Since I was out on Tuesday, I've only just now gotten around to looking at the Science section of The New York Times for this week.

I found this article. Woe.

Kansas, that sink hole of my hopes for humanity, has now redefined science in order to make it more amenable to the inclusion of ID in classrooms. The old definition read as follows:

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

The new definition is: "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

While, on the surface, that might not seem to merit outrage (unless you happen to be sane and realize that redefining 'science' is a bad enough thing period), the language hides a multitude of ills. Take, for example, "logical argument." Yes, science definitely employs logical argument in order to hypothesize. However, to prove anything, you need evidence, reproduceable evidence, which is why, despite making a lot of sense and explaining near unto all biological phenomena, evolution is still a theory. It's not a theory in that "well, a couple of guys and I think" the way ID is, but it isn't possible to reproduce, on a planetary scale, the evolutional processes that got us to where we are today.

"Logical argument" is how ID got to be popular in the first place. The most common way ID-ers try to sell it is by analogy, syllogism, and other tricks of logical whimsy. "Have you ever heard of a building without a builder?" is a popular one. No, obviously, most of us have not the ability to recall a dwelling constructed all on its own (unless you count natural dwellings formed by erosion such as caves, and ooooh I bet the ID people hate when evos bring that up). They then use the ol' "ipso facto" clause, and bingo, you're roped into admitting that no construct such as the human body could ever have resulted from an accumulation of spontaneous mutations.

Nonetheless, Kansas has now opened the door, removed "natural explanations" from their definition of science and given denotative authority to intelligent design as science. I can't wait till Kansas is eventually evolutionarily stunted when the ret of humanity refuses to mate with people that stupid. It could be a fascinating case study.

It's been a day of general alarm on my part, hasn't it?

Apple to raise iTunes prices?

I love the part where one of the music industry guys actually comes right out and says people should pay more money for some songs versus others. The article even blows holes in his 'we're the only industry that has a flat standard for all our product' by mentioning that super or suck, movies still cost a bajillion to see anyway. I almost agree with the music guy, though--in, you know, a completely wise-ass sort of way. People should have to pay more money for bad music like Celine Dion or whatever country-pop star is famous this week and pay less for unknowns so people investigate more music.

That is what the RIAA and the music industry don't get--the harder you come down on file-sharing and digital rights protection stuffs, the fewer legitimate shares you'll get. No word of mouth, no listen-to-develop interest and then purchase. This might explain the rise of satellite radio, people being able to sample and then purchase, and also be the fault of DRM like Sony's spyware crap. If people are afraid to buy or uncertain of prices, they're not going to. Du-uh!