Slashdot Mirror

I don't so much dispute the facts, but the premises that lead to the conclusions in the FoF. If you accept the premises of the Clinton DOJ, then Microsoft is definitely guilty. But it is those premisesI question. I object to the idea of antitrust law, to the prinicple that large market share subjects you to a different set of rules, and the contention that having a popular product strips you of the right to determine who may use that product. [...]

Clinton didn't write the Sherman Anti-Trust act. He didn't even sign it into law. Here's just the answer just for you of how this act came into law.

[...] I agree that under some interpretations of antitrust law, Microsoft is guilty, but it is the law and the interpretations that I question.

You may not like this set of laws, but neither Judge Jackson, Microsoft, the DOJ, or your Granny has much to say on the matter. If you don't like this law vote someone into Congress and the Senate who shares your views -- but don't bitch about a judge who only followed the laws as they were written! DUHHHHHHHHHH

So putting a defense "based on the facts" does no good if you have a judge that has accepted the DOJ's premises as to what constitutes a violation of antitrust law. Frankly, I'm not sure there was anything that Microsoft could have done in this case, since people seem to have accepted the premises of the Clinton DOJ.

A Judge who doesn't "accept the [lawmakers] premises" is just playing sandbox in the legislative branch, outside his sphere of authority. The DOJ didn't write those laws, they just put up a good argument that Microsoft broke them. And if what's written in that FOF is true... then they broke the law. Period. No matter what Clinton, the DOJ, Judge Jackson, your Granny... hell, it don't even matter what Judge Judy says! DEMs the breaks! *cough*

This is exactly how science should *not* be done. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy and people arguing outside their specialty make them hardly better than layman who equally don't know the field.

Evolution may or may not be true. The relevant question for any school board is 'has this idea proved its case?' Should the state be involved in excluding alternate theories by making the teaching of this particular theory mandatory? When the state gets involved in supporting one or another scientific theory, we should react with caution, even alarm. Try looking at Lysenkoism to see how dumb an idea this can end up being.

I'm aware that Stuart Kauffman has interesting things to say about complexity theory and evolution, not that he seems to have garnered a great deal of support in the academic world for his position, but the relevance of computer scientists and physicists to biochemical and even anatomical biology doesn't lend them much credence over the ideas of any other logical minded, sober layman IMHO.

Science, even evolutionary science, doesn't necessarily imply atheism but there are idiots who twist and misuse it to advocate atheism (funny, I don't hear as much moaning and groaning about this as I do about crank creationists). It is this unscientific attempt to debunk God that has conservatives among others up in arms. The pope doesn't have a particular problem with evolution as a mechanism that God used to make his creation. And that's as it should be. Religion's in the truth business too.

Science is the struggle for truth no matter where it leads you. But atheism cloaked in science says that a priori you can't include God in the mix regardless of whether or not he exists and is acting or has acted on a system being researched. That's like the little boy hiding behind one finger. Evidence of intelligent design should be as valid in evolutionary biology and biochemistry as it is in archeology and pathology.

When anti-religious bigotry travels under color of science is it any surprise that people of faith resist it? The crank who defends God doesn't effect the existence of God any more than the crank who defends Darwin say anything about the validity of Darwinism. But there are real scientists who question evolution.

I strongly recommend Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for a biochemical look at evolution and the current problems it has. You can find a link at Behe's page as well as links to criticism of the book and rebuttals to the criticism. Does Behe prove his case? Well enough for me to say that the state should not give evolution a monopoly position in the curriculum.

TML

World Population By Decade, 1950-2050*

• 1950: 2,556,000,053
• 1960: 3,039,451,023
• 1970: 3,706,618,163
• 1980: 4,453,831,714
• 1990: 5,278,639,789
• 2000: 6,082,966,429
• 2010: 6,848,932,929
• 2020: 7,584,821,144
• 2030: 8,246,619,341
• 2040: 8,850,045,889
• 2050: 9,346,399,468

Do you want to live in a world with 9 billion other people? The outlook is not good.

*Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base