Slashback: Vaidhyanathan, Oregon, Opteron

Slashback this evening with a few more notes on AMD's upcoming Opteron processor, Siva Vaidhyanathan (three times quickly), Oregon's open source bill, and more. Read on below for this round of updates and amplifications. That Charlie's no dummy. softwareJoe writes "Tim Bray has come right out saying that if IP chancer Charlie Northrup manages to enforce his most recent claim, the consequences would be 'disastrous.'

'It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure. This would be harmful, perhaps fatal, to the grand plans of those who want to deploy Web services everywhere,' Bray is reported as saying, in XML Industry Newsletter ."

Waiting for the low-power version. Jethro writes "Ace's hardware Opteron review was a very interesting read which shows some real Java webserver benchmarks on SUSE and Debian Linux, and real world database performance in MySQL and MS SQL server 2000. A lot better than those synthetic mysql benchmarks that Tom's hardware served up."

And Distinguished Hero writes "[H]ardocp.com ([H]ardNews 1oth Edition) is reporting that the Opteron processor does not actually have an integrated dual channel controller. This explains why all the Opteron reviews only used a single channel configuration. While the integrated memory controlled is not dual channel, it can be bypassed by an external (Northbridge) memory controller connected to the processor via the HyperTransport bus."

One more: EconolineCrush writes "Yesterday's Opteron launch gave us all glimpse at AMD's new 64-bit platform, but the Opteron is a server and workstation chip that will be out of reach for the majority of consumers. AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. Drawing heavily from what we've seen of the Opteron's performance thus far, Tech-Report has posted its thoughts on what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed. It's an interesting read for anyone salivating at the thought of an affordable 64-bit desktop platform."

Ma'am, can you please ask those anarchists in the carrels to pipe down a bit? BrianWCarver writes "Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture."

Technically, Oregon is not Washington. Daniel Phillips is among the many folks who have been following the progress of a bill in Oregon (HB 2892) to encourage open source software, and he points out this Register story (picked up from NewsForge, actually), writing "Apparently, moving Oregon's open source bill forward comes down to convincing the house speaker."

Reader PotatoHead fleshes that out just a bit: " Despite reports detailing the demise of HB 2982, this bill continues to be a topic at the Oregon Legislature. We have broad support for HB 2892, but need everyone to continue showing support in the form of your phone calls, e-mails, faxes and snail-mail to your Oregon Representatives. We have the attention of the Oregon Legislature in a pretty big way and need to keep up the good work if HB 2892 is to move forward against the constant efforts of the usual industry lobbyists. If you don't already know, here is how you contact your representative. Please take a moment --right now-- and show your support for HB 2982. Every contact matters as we continue to move forward with HB 2892!"

Sir, can you direct me to the nearest buggy whip store so I can beat this dead horse? If $98 billion seems to you a bit much for the music cartel to charge students for even the most indiscriminant file swapping, you may be interested in following the chilling effects that it generates, too: PL_2003 writes "A follow up on a previous slashdot article. It really seems like the recording industry is determined to continue its fight.Check this NYTimes article (free reg. required). My Take: Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"

OK, here are the rules ... Grub (mentioned previously) is apparently causing consternation among many webmasters. Though they claim the client honors robots.txt , it seems that only the central servers check it (and don't honor it properly) and that grub clients don't don't check it at all. Ooops.

Time to round up and segregate the arrogant. jtheory writes "There's an AP story today here on Yahoo news) that the Justice department has dropped its probe into the recommendation policy of a Texas Tech bio professor. It's encouraging that all he had to do to stop the investigation was make some very minor changes in his policy, but it's still horrifying to me that he got into trouble in the first place. Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

Comments

Opteron memory controller details

[Eric Smith]

The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940! But I imagine the source for the confusion in the early reports is that the single channel does support the optional use of 128-bit wide memory (144 bits including ECC). This would most commonly be implemented using pairs of 64-bit (or 72-bit with ECC) DDR DIMMs. It can support up to four pairs of DIMMs at up to DDR266 speed (PC-2100) or two pairs of DIMMs at DDR333 (PC-2700).

The various motherboard photos seem to indicate that their are DIMM sockets to accomodate 128-bit memory. I would hope that the various benchmarks have been done with this configuration, since it obviously increases the memory bandwidth considerably.

Reference: page 15 of the AMD Opteron Processor data sheet, AMD document 23932 rev 3.00 dated April 2003.

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Xzisted]

The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940!

Thats not really true. For one...not all pins on the die are in use. Some of the dead ones could be relocated over to pick up the slack. And if I remember reading correctly Opteron is initially being released this way but in late 2003 or early 2004 they are completely switching memory to DDR2, but since DDR2 is as hard to come by as Jesus in a Bottle, it kinda doesn't make sense to release the chip supporting that standard.

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[cheezedawg]

The integrated memory controller has some obvious advantages, but I think its going to cause a lot of problems for AMD. Judging by AMD's recent performace with deadlines, the constant product refreshes that will be needed to keep up with new memory technologies will be difficult for them. And think of the confusion after a few product refreshes- are they going to assign a new model number to each new chip with different memory capabilities?

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Eric Smith]

By my count, there are 44 unused pins on the 940-pin package. Some of those may in fact be undocumented test pins, or be intended for other uses on future parts. But even assuming that all 44 pins could be used for another memory controller, that wouldn't be sufficient for another DDR controller, which requires 201 pins (129 if you'd settle for only 72 bit data with ECC, or 121 if you'd settle for only 64 bit data). Reference pages 45-46 of the data sheet.

So a useful additional memory controller will NOT fit the same package.

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[turm]

The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels

I don't know where this crap is coming from. Certainly not from the document referenced in the parent post.

A DIMM is 64-bits wide. The Opteron has a 128-bit wide memory bus, which means you need to use pairs of DIMMS much like the older P4's with Rambus memory.

There are plenty of pins for this in the 940 package. The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.

The memory controller is configurable to support a 64-bit memory bus (probably for desktop or mobile versions of the part), but in all the systems I've used you can't even boot with an odd number of DIMMS.

Now you can decide for yourself if a 128-bit wide DDR bus is "dual channel" or not. I'm not going to argue semantics. I am, however, going to do the math and tell you that the Opteron paired with DDR333 provides 128*333/8 = 5328 MB/s of some seriously low-latency bandwidth. Oh yea and it scales with the number of processors too.

DISCLAIMER: I work at AMD but I am not speaking on behalf of the company.

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Eric Smith]

The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.

And it just as clearly shows only one set of address lines. Which is fairly definitive evidence that there's only one memory channel. It just happens to support 128-bit wide memory.

Yes, that does give you a lot of memory bandwidth. No, that doesn't make it "dual channel".

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Boone^]

Dual-width can be nicer than dual channel due to the latter's ability to return data seriously out of order. A good processor design can account for it, but not fix it. Dual width gives you nice bandwidth at a decent latency (don't kid yourself, SDRAM has never been synonymous with "seriously low-latency") and shouldn't break the logic cell bank since there's still only 1 logic controller. The only down side I see to this is that you're locked into one type of memory technology, basically guaranteeing the fixed lifespan of the product. What happens if Yellowstone takes off? What about DDR2 at speeds of 533 667 Mbit?

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[ashpool7]

Since the AMD guy went out of his way to *NOT* claim the Opteron's method was, in fact, "Dual DDR", what is your problem?

Considering that you can only grab one hunk of memory to use at one time in an operation, Dual DDR and Opteron 128 whatever do the exact same thing: grab twice as much data as needed.

Difference is thus:

Dual DDR grabs the *next requested memory address* AFTER the current operation completes. (the way the nForce chipset works)

Opteron grabs the next contiguous memory address *at the same time.* I would guess the rest gets shoved into the L1. (based on the fact that AMD guy is asserting that the extra bits on the bus actually transfer data from memory)

So, in instances where the memory you want comes in monster contiguous hunks (paging, multimedia, whatever) Opteron guarantees a 100% hit rate on the L1 cache. Even if there are only a couple bunched together, this helps.

In instances where single pieces of data are accessed in a scattered fashon in memory, Dual DDR eliminates a couple wait states. This doesn't seem as fast as the former.

Does anybody have any statistics about memory accesses that indicate a majority of them request the next contiguous piece of memory?

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't have the specifics in front of me to quote from, and if I did, I'd probably be NDA'd but - a certain recent PA-RISC cpu underwent a respin that enhanced its pre-fetch logic to automagically prefetch the first cache-line of the following page on access of the last cache-line of the current page. I was told that this simple algorithm was mostly responsible for a ~10% increase in SpecFP (don't remember which revision) from one version to the next.

Not a direct answer, but perhaps a lantern on the path.

So, does an Operton have 64-bit or 128-bit cacheline size?

Re:Opteron memory controller details

[Eric Smith]

I don't have any problem with any AMD guys. I have a problem with magazines and web sites that claim that there are two DDR channels, a claim which AMD does not (AFAIK) make themselves. There's only one channel, which happens to have twice the data width. Yes, it has higher bandwidth (duh!).

But claiming that it has two channels is like claiming that a Ferarri is two cars, because it's twice as fast as a Honda. If it were two cars, it could go to two different places at once.

The RIAA better win...

[ZenShadow]

...against those college students. They'll make nothing from it, but the results of them losing could be pretty ugly.

Could you imagine the counter-suit? I'd call a $98 BILLION lawsuit against "poor" college students "malicious prosecution."

--ZS

Re:The RIAA better win...

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Exactly. If the students fight, then they would win a battle for EVERYONE and they would be able to counter-sue the RIAA for quite a sum of money.

Let's see if we can list all of the cries that the RIAA has committed against them.

Libel, for one. Calling them criminals and pirates when they've done nothing wrong is most certainly defamation.

Malicious prosecution would most certainly apply. The RIAA has instigated just about the most unjustifiable and unreasonable civil litigation in this case that I've ever heard about.

Unprecedented levels of confusion...

[xcomputer_man]

HB 2892 ... HB 2982 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2982

Perhaps we might actually get this bill through if we managed to figure out what the correct number is for once.

Opteron

[exhilaration]

Hey, anybody know of a source for Opteron systems? What about pricing? Specifically, I'd like to get my hands on a top of the line dual-CPU box. I think a lot of people would be willing to splurge $2k on a decent Opteron-based workstation.

Re:Opteron

[Xzisted]

http://www.newisys.com http://www.racksavers.com http://www.pssclabs.com

Re:Opteron

[mgblst]

To keep the price down, just get 128Mb of memory.

Re:Opteron

[Glock27]

ASUS nForce Pro 3 motherboards will be available in June. This chipset doesn't support dual processors, however. All other motherboards for the Opteron in the near future are likely to be for servers only, and therefore pricy (and not ATX).

Via is also doing an Opteron workstation chipset (including AGP), and it will support dual CPUs. Sorry, I don't have a link handy.

Opteron will be a very popular workstation CPU, IMO.

Three Times Quickly...

[philovivero]

Hell, saying Siva Vaidhyanathan three times quickly is trivial.

It's saying it one time correctly that's the challenge.

Re:Three Times Quickly...

[Wakkow]

Siva Vaidhyanathan? Yeah, well, at least you're name isn't Michael Bolton.

Re:Three Times Quickly...

[Magnus Pym]

Come on Slashdot, you can do better than this.

How is Siva Vaidyanathan any more difficult than Norman Schwarzkopf, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Condaleeza Rice?

I expect disparaging condescension from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Not here.

Magnus.

Alienating their customers

[MrCaseyB]

When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. But will they be interested anymore?

Why would the record industry want to constantly go after their own best customers and future customers? Im no longer in college myself, don't buy much music anymore cause I prefer 80s music. I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.

If the record industry could offer such great content at a reasonable price, sales would skyrocket.

Instead they charge far too much for far too little, and on top of it, they constantly attack their own customers with threats and lawsuits and bullshit like CDs that wont play on their computer. Then they lobby for laws that punish not just music pirates but all people who wish to use the internet without restrictions. It's really quite amazing how a group of billionaires can be so ass backwards.

Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.

Re:Alienating their customers

[abhisarda]

There's a protest planned against the RIAA at MTU

Lode

and Tompkins(MTU President) and Texas Congressman spar over copyrights

Lode

The RIAA is just kicking itself in the butt. So sad..

I see...

[Sheetrock]

So segregating people intolerant of Creationistic views is a bad thing, which I understand, but segregating people with Creationistic views would be a good thing?

I don't think it's right to exclude someone from medical practice just because they don't ascribe to the theory of evolution. They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong. Science isn't about religious prejudice.

Re:I see...

[aardvarkjoe]

What you are saying is patently false. Creationism may not be a scientific point of view, but the idea that science is the only way to validate knowledge is a very narrowminded view -- and you're hearing this from someone who believes in evolution. Just because someone disagrees with you about some point (which doesn't make any practical difference to most people's lives anyway) doesn't make them ignorant. It makes you intolerant.

Re:I see...

[rco3]

Can you give me an example of another way to 'validate knowledge' besides the scientific method?

Well, reading it on Slashdot comes to mind...

Oops, forgot the sarcasm tags.

Re:I see...

[Total_Wimp]

I don't think he was being especially intolerant. The first two conditions for writing a letter of recommendation were:

1- a demonstration of excellence (you had to get an "A" in one of his classes) and
2- he had to know you personally.

Obviously he believes that a recommendation is something more than a simple statement that the person knows the subject matter. He obviously feels it's a personal endorsement that reflects on him.

I don't think it's too much of stretch for him to say you also have conform to beliefs that he personally holds as extremely important to the subject he teaches to get that personal endorsement. I don't think it shows intolerance of any belief, but rather says that he can't personally endorse you if you haven't really absorbed his teaching in the manner in which he intended it.

Put another way, would you require a Black Studies professor to write a letter of recommendation to a KKK member just because he was capable of explaining what racism is? Would that be "intolerant" of the professor? I think you could require him to give the "A" in the class, but the letter.... I don't think so.

TW

Re:I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... actually, the bulk of scientific evidence says absolutely nothing about the truth of the theory of evolution one way or the other. In fact, viewed with a proper "scientist's" discerning eye, much of the documented evidence would seem to suggest that the theory of evolution is not valid.
Take, for instance, the actual fossil record. According to the theory, there should be a definite, traceable record of evolutionary change continuing more or less unbroken all the way back to the beginning, recorded in stone, especially in areas that were formerly lake/ocean beds, where sedimentation is a rapid process, and much more likely to result in the entombment and fossilization of a wide variety of organisms. However, study of such geological formations reveals a definite lack of such a definitive record. To quote Niles Eldredge, a leading expert on invertebrate fossils--

" No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff facces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change-- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."

In light of such a dearth of hard physical evidence, and also in light of such "anomalies" as the Precambrian Explosion, what are we to believe about the theory of evolution in general, and the claims of arrogant professors who ignorantly claim that the evidence is sufficient to claim human evolution as "fact"?
Not only is evidence lacking in the fossil record, but the theory breaks down on the level of microbiology as well. Pick up any scientific text attempting to detail the possible evolutionary sequence of, say, basic vision and eyesight, and you will be subjected to a great number of "supposes" and "possiblies" and blatant glossing over of a lot of very tricky problems. Even the most basic of vision systems-- the simple ability to differentiate light from dark-- involves a large number of highly specialized proteins acting in extremely complex ways. None of those texts can give any valid precursors for most of the chemicals and proteins involved, or any explanation as to how dozens of highly specialized proteins could suddenly appear between one evolutionary "step" and the next. Remove one chemical or protein from the chain, and the entire system breaks down. And since no valid precursors can be found, or even hypothesized, for many of the involved substances, they all must have "evolved" or come about in one single step, or they must necessarily have been culled from the genetic record as useless wastes of substance and energy that do not contribute to the survival of the organism.
And eyesight is simply one of hundreds of such "irreducibly complex" systems for which microbiologists struggle, vainly, to find an evolutionary explanation.
Of course, this doesn't in and of itself completely invalidate the theory of evolution. It is mathematically possible (if astronomically improbable) that such a complex system could evolve in one step as a result of a wildly coincidental set of wide-ranging genetic mutations. (The tired old infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters analogy). Further complicate the math by adding hundreds of other complex systems that must evolve against the odds, and you are talking about an occurrence of such extreme mathematical improbability as to verge upon the impossible, especially given the relatively short time period it must have occurred within (only a few billion years, not much time next to the sheer number of mathematical permutations), and the vast number of separate evolutiona

Re:I see...

[foobar104]

Evolution in action.

No, it's not. That's natural selection, which is a subtly but distinctly different thing.

If you'd said that you came back the next summer and suddenly the rabbits in your field had been unable to successfully breed with other rabbits, that would have been something like evolution. (Speciation, anyway.) And if you'd said that all the rabbits had become leopards or something, that would have been evolution in action.

The point is that it's silly to deny that natural selection happens. Look at human beings and CCR5-(delta)32. That mutation makes a person resistant or immune to bubonic plague, and also incidentally to AIDS. Because the plague wiped out so many Europeans in the 14th century, the occurrance of CCR5-(delta)32 in people of European extraction is much, much higher than it is in people of other ethnicities. This explains why AIDS is much more devastating in Africa and Asia than it is in Europe and America. Natural selection happened in the European population 600 years ago. The people without resistance to plague and AIDS died in the late 1300's, so now their descendants are less susceptable to the disease.

But it's not the evolution that everybody gets up in arms about. We have seen organisms change over generations, through natural selection. We have even observed speciation, indirectly. But we have never seen an entire class or order of organisms evolve into a different class or order. We've never seen a rabbit evolve into a leopard. Not even through the fossil record have we seen this happen.

For obvious reasons: that sort of change happens, if it happens at all, over a timeline that's far too long for humans to observe.

Personally I think evolution is as good a theory as any. But it's not a fact. Not yet, anyway. And there's still plenty of room for belief in divine creation as opposed to evolution for explaining how we got here.

Re:Where do they come up with these names?

[The Bungi]

It's pronounced 'Smith'.

grrrr

[Elwood P Dowd]

"A biology student may need to understand the theory of evolution and be able to explain it. But a state-run university has no business telling students what they should or should not believe in," Ralph Boyd Jr., assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement.

Right. For example, it would be completely beyond the pail were a state-run university to require that medical students believe in... medicine.

creationists

[exhilaration]

Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?

That's a slippery slope you're suggesting.

Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?

Re:creationists

[tstoneman]

I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!

Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

Re:creationists

[Anonymous Freak]

Very slippery.

I would have to say that I don't care what my doctor's beliefs are... As long as his/her beliefs do not affect the job. Someone can freely believe that the world was created 5000 years ago, that dinosaurs never existed, and that there is no such thing as evolution; yet still believe enough of modern biological thinking to believe in germs, virii, and assorted other medical beliefs.

But, the moment that a persons beliefs interfere with scientific thinking (such as denying the existence of germs,) then I have a problem.

Re:creationists

[dmaxwell]

Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

Or maybe because those who believe the world is sitting on an elephant on a turtle aren't making nuisances of themselves. I haven't heard turtle believers arguing loudly and often in front of legislatures that we need to throw out all of the astronomy and geology books. Incidentally, biology isn't the only science on the creationists' shit list; even physics would have to be...ah....modified to not state inconvienient facts.

This isn't Western bigotry. If large numbers of turtle believers in our midsts were doing their damndest to drag us back to the 14th century, they'd be looked down on too. Every culture on this planet has problems with religious luddites. The creationists just happen to be ours.

Re:To pronounce it

[bheer]

Well, from the correct Indian pronunciation:

Shiv-uh (Siv-uh is fine too)
VYE-Duh-NAT-hun

Vaidya means 'physician' in Sanskrit, FWIW.

Faulty reasoning?

[NeoSkandranon]

Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

How exactly do you make that connection between Creationism and ignoring animal research? I hate to break it to you, but the people who typically believe that animals should not be researched upon are the ones who believe they evolved (and thus, are no differnt from humans and deserve the same treatment). Creationism by its very nature puts humans above and beyond other animals, and thus animals are to be utilized by humans.

Re:Faulty reasoning?

[NeoSkandranon]

That is perhaps the most misunderstood commandment. The implication of the original (ie, non simplified) translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between murder and killing. A man was run over nearby my house and killed. Also near my house, an elderly woman was murdered by a burglar. See the difference?

Besides, vegetarians kill plants.

No kidding

[M.C. Hampster]

Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?

Re:No kidding

[RestiffBard]

The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.

Here's an idea. you want to be a programmer but, you don't believe in Arabic numerals. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Re:No kidding

[M.C. Hampster]

It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate.

That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".

Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.

Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.

Re:No kidding

[KnightStalker]

There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution

Can you name one?

Re:No kidding

[t]

Uh, creationists and intelligent design are one and the same piece of quackery. As for you attempt at using irreducible complexity, all such claims are bunk. There are quite valid steps for blood clotting, the bombadier beetle, the eye, etc.

And btw, there are many many instances where evolution results in something that is not only not useful but quite deadly, think dwarfism, progeria, etc... and other genetic mutations. It is not relevant whether or not any particular biological construct is immediately useful or detrimental, only whether the organism as a whole manages to survive. Evolution is not a neat, quick, or orderly process.

Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?

Re:No kidding

[maxpublic]

I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health.

The placebo effect. Psych 101, boy. And it doesn't work if someone else prays for you, only if *you* pray for you. God has nothing to do with it.

Of course, if you can produce a empirical, scientific study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal supporting the idea that prayer affects the health of others, please do so.

Max

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

No actually they arise through selective breeding and gene migration not evolution.

But that is the very definition of evoluion. Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution. "Species" is a useful concept for taxonomy but has little meaning at the genetic level. In addition, your claim "evolution on the otherhand would have generated a new species" gets it backward, evolution needn't necessarily do any such thing: evolution does not imply speciation. Rather, speciation implies evolution.

An additional quibble, as you seem to be reading straight from the Creationist playbook: the moth example is not an argument for evolution, but an example often cited (because it's much easier for laymen to visualize than the active-site kinetics of CPSase III in X. laevis, say). Selecting this or that oft-cited example and pounding on it makes for good rhetoric but as scientific discussion goes it's like using "Macgruder the Friendly Computer" to debate cryptographic algorithms.

Re:No kidding

[afidel]

No, because anyone who puts dogma before logic is not going to be very good at using deductive reasoning in a critical situation if their dogma gets in the way (say a mother is dying due to rejection problems with a fetus and the only way to save her is removal of the fetus and it is too young to survive outside the mother, what does the person do? logic dictates that you remove the fetus because it will die anyways if the mother dies but I have been told stories by a doctor friend of mine of colleagues refusing based on personal beliefs that reject abortion in any case and saying things like "if the lord want her to survive she will and it will save the unborn life"). I don't think that religious people in general would make bad doctors, quite the opposite, but those who are so embroiled in their faith as to reject logic are.

Re:No kidding

[aminorex]

James Valentine, Stanley Awramil, Philip Signor,
Peter Sadler, Simon Conway Morris, Derek Biggs, Harry
Whittington, Jeffrey Schwarz, Douglas Erwin, David
Jablonski, James Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria Rivera,
Carl Woese, W. Ford Doolittle, Malcom Gordon...

When a Chinese paleontologist lecturing on problems
with macroevolution in the U.S. was advised that
criticizing Darwinism was politically incorrect
in the U.S., he laughed, saying "In China, we can
critize Darwin, but not the government; in
America, you can criticize the government, but
not Darwin."

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that one species can evolve into another. It has not yet been demonstrated, nor will it ever.

Actually, it has.

It has not been demonstrated, nor will it ever be, that this is how a given species in the world today came about. (unless time machines are invented) This may or may not be relevant.

Creationism is hard to argue for around here, and it's great that you've chosen to do so, but arguing with false statements does not help.

Re:No kidding

[Ian Lance Taylor]

All else being equal, I would rather have the doctor that understood that the argument from design is an logical fallacy, and that the human body includes inefficiencies and complications due to its historical evolution. Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"

If you think the argument from design is some sort of proof, you need to read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett. I don't expect them to convince you that you are wrong, but they should convince you that the argument from design doesn't stand by itself.

Re:No kidding

[t]

First the word "species" is artificial, somewhere some scientist decided that these two groups of animals were different enough to be categorized differntly. If humans were animals I'm sure that Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species. Every animal is different from every other animal, the only question is by how much.

Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.

I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.

Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.

I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.

When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.

Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.

Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?

I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.

See, it used to be that biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and all scientists, were all exploring the beauty, simplicity, and intelligence of this beautiful world built by God himself. It used to be that mathematicians would delve deep into the mind of God, seeking to pierce the veil of His great understanding. It used to be that physicists would study each intricacy of nature, trying to discover the rules that God uses to govern the entire universe. It used to be that biologists were reverse-engineering the most marvelous feats of engineering in existence.

This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies.

We used to be miniature gods, no, Gods in training, seeking to become like the great God himself by mastering our minds and understanding our univserse. We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain. We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.

Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhile

Re:No kidding

[aminorex]

You asked the poster to supply just one scientist
who was not a creationist, but did not believe in
classical macroevolution. I provided numerous
examples, but now you criticise my reply because
they were not creationists?

I don't think I'll bother to reply to you in future.
It seems you are so blinded by ideology that you can't
think coherently! Sorry to be so frank, but I'm
not one to beat around the bush.

Re:No kidding

[LarsWestergren]

in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin

Right, so that is why the Dixie Chicks have recieved death threats?

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55

[subzerohen]

You must be new here...

I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist

[szyzyg]

This guy has written many high quality scientific papers, he does a lot of work on Cosmology, and yet he was a devout 7th Day Adventist - and therefore believed in creation.

Didn't seem to interfere with his work.

Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist

[Phroggy]

You might be interested in the book In Six Days, edited by John Ashton - it's a collection of 50 essays by scientists in many different fields, each with (at least) a PhD, explaining why they believe in Creation from a scientific perspective.

Oregon Legislation Listens

[aSiTiC]

My experience in contacting my local representative. I'm impressed doesn't appear to be a form letter!

---

I am fully supportive of the bill, and as a member of the committee
(General Government) assigned the bill, I am working with the proponents
and a few other legislators to move this bill.

We had a very successful hearing on it that attracted a great deal of
opposition from some of the big high-tech lobbyists. They turned out in
force and are now trying to prevent those of us on the committee who
support it from bringing it up for a work session. Unfortunately on
their side, the lobbyists have the committee chair, most committee
members of the majority party (Republicans), and a few influential
members of the House leadership. The fact that the bill has so much
muscle against it means we are giving them a fight they did not expect
to face!

Thanks for contacting me about this. If you have not already, please
feel free to send your email to other legislators as well.

Sincerely,

Kelley Wirth
State Representative
District 16

Melissa P. White
Legislative Assistant
Representative Kelley Wirth
District 16
900 Court Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
503-986-1416

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam XXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXX@attbi.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:47 PM
To: REP Wirth
Subject: Internet email for Legislative Member, TO: Kelley Wirth

Dear Representative Kelley Wirth:

I'm very disappointed to hear that House Bill 2892 is being stalled
because large corporations fear it's implications. Open Source software
should be consider equally along with other costly software! If the
Open Source software is more cost effective and achieves the same
purpose it should be used in Oregon government applications. This would
be a perfect oppurtunity for Oregon lawmakers to show their commitment
to maximize taxpayers money! Thanks and please consider my thoughts.

Sincerely,
Adam XXXXXX
XXX NW 5th #XXX
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
XXXXXXXX@attbi.com

HB2892 Alive? Dead?

[SatanicLoveMonkey]

My Oregon House Representative, Mitch Greenlick (Democrat-033), wrote back to me:

John, I wasn't at that hearing so I don't know what happened. But I read the same news reports you did and I also heard that Microsoft and Intel, et al really brought full fire on the proposal. And it is definitely dead.

Mitch

Now, I don't mean to be a naysayer, and I'd hate to quit too early, but when the man says it's dead...

Doomed feelings aside, I'm off to write the speaker of the house, Ms. Minnis... As I said to Rep. Greenlick, I'd rather not have my taxes raised when the alternative could be to use open-source software providing Oregonians with jobs (installation, design, maintenance) and saving money by eliminating the need to pay economic rent to Washingtonians (Microsoft Licensing Fees).

SLM

Grub Fools and Slashdot Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to take a moment to comment on Grub. In the original story we heard,

"People who choose to download and run the client will assist in building the Web's largest, most accurate database of URLs."

Already I find myself rolling my eyes.

Then I click through to the site. Aha. I will volunteer my machine on a non-profit basis for a for-profit company. This is just like distributed.net and SETI? Give me a break, these guys were bought out by Looksmart, a paid for placement ad company.

Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it.

I just hope grub keeps the fools who want to regulate google away. Google succeeded because they didn't have to listen to self-important analysts.

Re: Newegg.com has them for $300

[benzapp]

Check it out.

Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing!

[Eric Smith]

Most if not all prior x86 chipsets that supported ECC did a fairly half-assed job of it. They didn't report the location of a detected error (whether correctable or not), but instead only the base address of a block of memory which contained the error.

It appears that the Opteron can report the actual address of any detected errors. Plus, it can report details of ECC errors in its caches.

But the coolest feature is that it supports memory scrubbing, a feature I'd previously not seen in a microprocessor or chipset since the iAPX 432 memory controller back in 1983.

When a SEU causes a single-bit error in a word of memory, the ECC is capable of correcting it when the word is read. But if that word doesn't get read again for a long time, it's possible that a second SEU might happen in the same word, which would then be an uncorrectable error. With memory scrubbing, the memory controller uses a small portion of the memory bandwidth to scan the entire memory, correcting any single-bit errors that are found, so that the probability of a two-bit (or more) uncorrectable error is greatly reduced.

My last several computers (including a dual Athlon using the 760MPX chip set, and a DEC Alpha) had ECC, but not scrubbing. I considered writing a Linux program to scrub the memory by direct access to /dev/mem, but this has the disadvantage of thrashing the processor's caches. By implementing scrubbing in hardware, the Opteron avoids that problem.

The Opteron has a Scrub Control Register that is used to enable or disable scrubbing and control the rate. There are independent scrubbing controls for the L1 data cache, L2 cache, and main memory.

Those of us that want high reliability really welcome this feature. Well done, AMD!

By the way, it should be noted that it is typical for a PC with 128 megabytes of memory to get a single bit error several times a week. On my Alpha, I routinely saw corrected error log messages in the syslog, which gave me much more confidence in the system than the way that most PCs simply fail to even detect memory errors, let alone correct them. The log messages are also useful in that you can determine whether you have some memory that is getting marginal. For instance, at one point I started getting a much higher rate of corrected errors on one particular SIMM. There may have been a slight amount of oxidation or corrosion on the contacts, or they may have just worked themselves loose a bit. Cleaning the contacts and reseating the SIMM solved the problem with only a few minutes of down time, instead of what probably would have been hours of down time had the errors gone unnoticed.

The results of an undetected error vary considerably; it may be in memory that is not in use at the time, or it could be in the midst of the operating system, an application, or user data.

Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing!

[NerveGas]

The AMD MPX (dual Athlon) chipset also supports memory scrubbing.

Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing!

[illumin8]

The Sparc architecture has supported memory scrubbing for quite some time. Single bit errors are logged properly to /var/adm/messages and the exact DIMM location is presented.

It's good to see the AMD Opteron finally adding this level of reliability to IA-32/64 hardware.

On another note... I think you're mistaken when you say it's normal for a PC to get single bit errors several times a week. On all the Sun boxes I work on if I'm getting single bit errors on any DIMM I replace it right away. A DIMM that begins to report single bit errors is most likely just hours away from a double bit error and that will definitely panic your box. I think you might have some bad memory.

Re:Where do they come up with these names?

[etcpasswd]

Most of the Indian languages are phonetic, unlike English. It is difficult to explain the correct pronounciation of an Indian word in English alphabet. This name is pronounced as: si-va vai-dya-naa-than.

si = shift (approximate)
va = vulnerable
vai = why
dya = the + yummy
naa = banana
than = thumb + noun

racial slurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance of racist epithets; there is a fellow from Norway whom I'd like to insult. I'm wondering if what you say here means that I should be calling my friend a fjord-nigger?

They're everywhere

[BSDevil]

I noticed it too - and if you look at several other stories posted today, many of them have it. The one about the PPC970 has an AMD logo on top of an IBM logo. The PC/104 one has hardware on top of links. "Video Game Movies in Development" has the 'Games' joystick on top of the 'Movies' clapboard.

The winner, hovever, seems to be this one about the GPL vs. the XP licence: it has Tux on top of Bill of Borg, both above the Justice lady. Hrm...

Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64?

[Thagg]

The prices for the Opteron chips seem reasonable, and the nforce3 and new VIA chipsets should make it possible to build reasonably priced motherboards -- so why would the Opteron be out of reach for power-hungry computer users?

Just because it says 'server' on the box the chip comes in?

thad

"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed"

[drinkypoo]

The return of chipset-free SMP. This was my primary motivation to go with Athlon 64, and I was planning to buy two of them. Then AMD announced that they were dropping a HT link from clawhammer. Now SMP must be done at the chipset level once more, which is a serious liability compared to the ease and low cost of hypertransport. Sure, the socket costs more, but I think it's worth it to not need any special chipset.

This would also solve the memory controller bandwidth problem. People who need the additional bandwidth can use two clawhammers; they'll want SMP anyway. This was my plan all along, my understanding was that sledgehammner had a superior (dual channel) memory controller and an additional HT link (three total) and that clawhammer had only a single channel memory controller but still had two HT links, so you could get dual processor SMP out of it for "free" (only the cost of supporting the pins and bus connections on the motherboard.) I don't see why you wouldn't be able to build linear-connected SMP machines with it either, up to 32 nodes or whatever HT supports, though I'm not sure how useful a machine set up with those kind of interconnects would be, or what kind of OS it would take to do anything meaningful with it.

Anyway, AMD really did promise those things in their marketing literature -- 1-2 way clawhammer and 2-8 way sledgehammer (that always looked funny to me, like they were implying you had to run at least two chips) and the processors in the sledgehammer would be cross-connected, with two of them each employing a dual channel memory controller at once. Then they changed their minds. Doubtless they felt that they had to remove it to bring the chips down to some magical price point, and maybe they're right, but I was expecting a really classy CPU and what we're getting is cool and all, but they missed the geek factor pretty much entirely.

Now it's not like itanic is there mind you, the new PowerPC is pretty geeky but that can't make it a leading processor just because of the weight behind x86 (which if you think about it, AMD is helping to preserve. we laud them for their backwards compatibility, and we hope their new extensions are better-implemented than, say, the i386's. :) They certainly look better, it looks like a great chip in every way, but it really does appear to need another hypertransport link. Come on, AMD.

Re:"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed

[Eric Smith]

Even though the Athlon 64 (nee Clawhammer) only has a single Hypertransport link, in principle it may be possible to use it in a dual processor SMP configuration without a "special" chipset. For instance, a motherboard could use two Athlon 64s with a single AMD-8131 Hypertransport PCI-X tunnel (or any other Hypertransport tunnel), and attach the two processors to the opposite ends of the HT tunnel.

Of course, such a configuration using the Athlon 64 will not be supported by AMD, since the Athlon 64 will not be rated for SMP use, but in practice it is likely to work, unless AMD actually disables the ccHT capability of the processor.

robots.txt

[Thing 1]

Honoring robots.txt seems to me to be like honoring "all spam should have 'ADV:' at the beginning of the subject."

What punishment is there for not honoring it?

Instead there should be a technological solution, rather than a legal or social solution (the current solution, I believe, is social).

The answer? Look to Slashdot. Create artificial "delays" in access times. Slashdot has 2 minutes between posts and 20 seconds between clicking "Reply" and "Submit".

The web sites could have an artificial 2- or 3-second delay between accesses, so for instance if a "robot" was scanning the site it would experience slow-downs. And it could increase the delay upon multiple accesses, by (say) 1 second each access within the limit, so that the spider would end up taking a very long time to get each page.

This would require no change in laws, or in "social" behavior to punish the spiders. People generally don't click on a new link that quickly anyway (they tend to read some of the page before clicking on a link on that page), so this would be very non-intrusive for regular users but would slow down a spider.

Of course, then the spiders would be written such that they scan multiple sites, so a slowdown on one (or every) site wouldn't slow the spider down much. But that's the price we pay for putting information on the internet.

I seriously think the practice of using "robots.txt" is silly.

Re:robots.txt

[amorsen]

Web sites can try to detect spiders. Spiders can try to hide that they are spiders. This leads to an arms race. Robots.txt was an attempt at a social contract: Spiders would not be stopped by the web site, as long as the spiders upheld their end of the contract.

If it becomes commonplace that spiders break the social contract, then web sites will have to get better weapons. This means development time spent on something that ultimately benefits noone. Some of the measures that could be used would in fact harm innocent bystanders. Take the 2-second delay as an example. Now implement it on a big web site, and imagine what happens when a big proxy tries to access several times a second. Perhaps you just cut yourself off from AOL. So more wasted development time to fix that problem...

At the same time the legitimate spiders that upheld the social contract before may have to try to masquerade as normal users. Where do we end up? "In order to access this site, type the letters that appear in the picture below."

Re:Where do they come up with these names?

[ddimas]

I have no problems with that name.

Sincerely,
Constantinos Dimopoulos

Simple Solution

[rsm00th]

<?PHP
if(strpos($HTTP_USER_AGENT, "grub-client"))
{
echo "Grub is teh lame!";
exit;
}
?>

Absurdity of the Creationist's Case

[NialScorva]

1) Dr Dini did not change his requirement in any appreciable way:

Original:

"How do you think the human species originated?

If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences"

New:
"How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

Read the statement: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

He explains his requirement and *still* says that he will not recommend people who reject evolution.

2) Professors have the right to choose who they will and will not write a recommendation for. Should they be required to put their recommendation behind anyone who asks them?

3) The student in question never asked Dr Dini for a recommendation at all.

4) Dini also requires the student to have earned and "A" in one of his classes. Spradling had not done this.

5) Dini requires that "I should know you fairly well." Dini says he had no idea who Spradling was.

Basically the whole situation is a publicity stunt dreamed up by a creationists. The Spradling didn't meet *any* of Dini's criteria for recommendation.

I disagree (Religion, Science, and Philosophy)

[einhverfr]

By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.

What you have described is what I call the "religion of science" and is as much a departure from strict empiricism as any religion. Which is perhaps why many anthropologists call Science a sort of religion. My own feeling is that by denying that scientific theories are rooted in philosophical assumptions is at best naive, and at worst self-delusional.

Many may fault me from quoting such an old book, but I think "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg!) is well worth referring to, Heisenberg (and for that matter Einstein wrote on this as well) held that a set of data does not imply a single correct scientific explenation. Instead, valid scientific theory arises from the combination of data and pre-existing philosophical assumptions which inform the interpretation of this data.

Scientists put a great deal of faith in the idea that eventually the discussion will settle on the Truth about a certain theory, but this hasn't happened. Instead every scientist brings to the table a unique set of assumptions which inform their interpretation of the data and so the discussion continues. For example we have seen a fierce debate rage over nearly a century regarding the nature of wave-like behavior of electrons. That debate has changed many times, but has never gone away. At heart-- how can an electron interfere with itself and still strike a target as a single particle? Many people have different ideas (including many which place an almost supernatural power on such things as observation or consciousness).

In fact, the neoplatonist, while admitting to the supernatural in a sort of empiricist manner, probably has more in common with the scientist than with the creationist because the former two place a great deal of importance on dialogue and intellectual search, while I think that most people are content with ignorant faith.

Oregon is not washington

[baomike]

However washington (there is no R is washington)
was part of Oregon, Oregon territorry that is.
When Oregon became a state in 1859 (Valentines day)
there was some stuff left over ie Washington, Idaho,... Not sure why the Oregonians of the day didn't want it.

Alive!

[PotatoHead]

This guy either does not support the bill, or has not really investigated the issue. His office needs a few more phone calls. Lets make sure he gets them.

You all must remember, the process is fluid. There are many ways this bill can continue to move through the legislature.

If this is something we *really* want, and they understand that, then the bill stands a chance. They can move any issue they want to in any number of ways. If this were a sweetheart bill, you can bet it would find a way to move through the house. This bill can too.

The Oregon Legislature is getting a lot of calls and mail on this, and we need to keep it up.

Basically, we have money on one side and political creedence on the other. If enough people continue to remain involved, it remains harder to quietly kill the bill.

The issue of Open Source is alive in the Legislature right now. Getting a work session is important because the objections can be ironed out.

By making Open Source and Open Standards an issue, we at least bring awareness of the problems to a level that is hard any other way.

Just keep your perspective. The other bills died as quickly as the headlines went up. This one is still around with support in the Legislature. That is a WIN, not a loss by any measure!

If you have called, you might wait a day and ask for an update. Its another reason to call and the type of thing that demands a response which clearly shows interest.

Preparing responses takes time. Ask good questions, who when why how? That way a simple form letter does not cover the issue well enough to be considered a response.

If you get a form letter, make a quick phone call. You will get an answer and a chance to take someones time. That matters.

Representitives who simply say it's over do not support the bill. This does not mean it's over, it means you can stop calling now.

Don't do that.

This is what the lobbyists want. They want it because that keeps the status quo.

Take a good look at who opposes the bill. All those companies consider this a direct threat to one of their largest customers; namely, the state of Oregon.

Here is what I got from my Rep. (Encouraging.)

Dear Mr. Potatohead,

Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
to voting on the bill on the house floor.

Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.

Sincerly,
(!?!)
Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
House District 45
(Phone)

What did your Rep say about Open Source in Oregon?

[PotatoHead]

I have already posted this under another thread, but just got the idea after reading a couple other posts.

So, what does your Rep say? Here is mine:

(Positive)

Dear Mr. Potatohead,

Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
to voting on the bill on the house floor.

Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
(name)
Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
House District 45
(Phone)

Blacklisting? Hardly

[Gerry Gleason]

No one has suggested that he would take any action against students he does not recomend, so explain how not giving a recomendation is blacklisting. Seems to me he is helping them by telling them not to waste their time trying to get a recomendation from him on the basis of unscientific ramblings.

Modern inquisition? Give me a break.

Re:Indian Names - Long and Short.

[catman]

Ib, Orissa, which has the shortest name for any train station in India. .. and the shortest place name in the world is Å - that's an upper case A with a ring above. It's in Norway, one of the three countries (well, four) that uses that letter in their alphabets.
More at their tourist info site.

US Christian Fundies and NeoCrusades

[SubtleNuance]

The rise in tolerance of unbelievable points of view, moreover their impact on policy in the US, is incredibly disturbing.

From the Republican Senators (the racist/homophobe), Ashcroft's prayer meetings, Ashcroft's draping a nude statue w/ a drape (!), bush's "faith based" BS... etc etc etc.

The seperation between church and state, and the ability for people to understand that ALL these things are instances of Fundemental (Reconstructionist even) Christian goals/acts/efforts is very scary.

Even Bush believes God is on his side in Iraq - you'd think someone in his position, a leader of a secular USA, wouldnt be a delluded cultist.

From that article above:

One in three American Christians call themselves evangelicals and many evangelicals believe the second coming of Christ will occur in the Middle East after a titanic battle with the anti-Christ.

Does the president believe he is playing a part in the final events of Armageddon?

If true, it is an alarming thought.

But he would not be alone, as 59% of all Americans believe that what is written in the Bible's Book of Revelation will come to pass.