Slashdot Mirror
Happy 7th Birthday Google!
AviN456 writes "On this day, in 1998, Google was born. Seven years later, and it has not only become the most popular search engine on the internet, but it has also become an integral part of many people's online life. From Google search to Google mail, Google Earth to Google Moon. It has even made its way into language as a common word.It is quite undeniable. Google is an amazing achievement. Happy birthday Google, and here's to many many more!"
Here's to hoping google will be here for its next 7 years... and that it will still abide by its motto.... :)
I can understand announcing 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, or 50th but 7th???
"from the don't-sing-or-your-have-to-pay-royalties dept."
Surely some mistake. Shouldn't that be "you'll"?
That sure was incredible. My move to Google was so fast after they started, that it feels like they are around for 2 years longer. People telling other people: Use google, better than XYZengine. Altavista had that buzz once too, but were not able to stay on top. Google runs the risk of being annihilated the same way too if they do not keep improving their game.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
On a news post that does not yield too much discussion...
do we still hate GIF's even if the patent has expired?
It is not about hating GIF, I think most of us do not hate technology at all, I think we never hated GIF, we hated the patent and the company behind it.
In the same way, (i think) we hate Microsoft, but we (at least I) do not hate Windows, or Office, those are just (from the technology POV) demonstrations of what we can achieve with technology, with good and bad things, or good and bad applications. Or like the Atomic bomb, we do not hate the technology, we hate the people that used to kill a hell lot of humans.
In that way, and going ontopic, nowadays, we love google, because they are making excellent technology, their search page, their email client, their maps etc. Of course they where not the first in ANY of these technologies, and they are not the only ones, but they are making it in a right way (notice it is not the only "teh righ t way"). Although on these more recent days, I have seen that some "do a bit of evil" karma has been sliding into Google, and even if Google starts to be Evil with E as in "MS" we may start to hate it but gmail or google local will continue to be a great technology.
Althoug you may not believe it, there is people that hate google (to some degree) as for example some of the Adsense buyers (the REAL google customers) because the not so fair google behaviour on that side (yep... has some kind of monopoly over there, but again it does not means we HATE the adsense technology).
This is the so called "information age" and, Google is playing a big part on it. Google will stay alive for a lot of more year, and IMHO will become as influential as IBM once was to technology (in the days of the Big Blue). We only need to hope that it stays doing "just a bit of evil".
Happy birthay!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Anything that challenges Microsoft makes software better for everyone. IE was stagnant from the time of crushing Netscape until Firefox, even hotmail, and msn search are better as a result of google. I would never use a Microsoft product outside of work or so my wife can run Photoshop CS2, but I do appreciate the rising tide raising all boats.
The problem is, ID is not a competing theory. It's not even a scientific theory at all. Read some of their literature and it is ever so clear that all they're interested in is teaching a thinly veiled version of Creationism...I've seen some of these jokers on TV disputing the age of the earth, and claiming dinosaurs were hanging around the garden of eden.
Now, we may not be able to sit down and evolve something in a lab, but radio-carbon dating is infinitely reproducable, and gives consistent results. And evolution may not be entirely correct, but as it stands it explains a hell of a lot, and it does it objectively and without any glaring inconsistencies. It's a damn fine theory.
The problem, which you seem to miss, is that if we start teaching ID in schools, what we're really undermining is the whole idea of scientific knowledge. You may dismiss GCC as a fairy tale, but it is based on methodical data collection and analytical reasoning. There is plenty of room for mistakes but, lacking a second test earth to use as a control group, they're going about it in the right way. ID, the other hand, is pretty much just a "what if?" with no data, no analytic thought, and no science behind it.
Teaching GCC in a classroom, with the collected data displayed, and the lines of reasoning followed, would be a good exercise. Even if it's not right, the methodology is what's important in science, because if you stick to the method and don't blind yourself with your own prejudgements, eventually you'll get the right answer.
Teaching ID is just a way to tell students that what you believe is just as valid as any meticulously gathered experimental data, and since it's a hell of a lot easier to believe nonsense than it is to seek truth, I think that is an extrememly bad precident.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Oh, ok... if you really want a serious answer:
"Why not just present both theories, and allow the students to make their own minds up?"
Fine. We already have a mechanism to do this. We teach the currently-accepted[1] scientific theory in Science, and the religious theory in Religious Education. Damn straight Scientists don't want other viewpoints taught in Science, in the same way Sports teachers don't want Maths taught in their classes.
"It would take two teachers, preferably - an evolutionist and a creationist - but it should make everyone happy, unless they want their theory to be the only one presented..."
Fine. But don't erroneously label the resulting subject Science. Call it Philosophy, and there won't be any problem. The "religious side" picked this right by seeking to pass their (forgive me: baseless) beliefs off as science.
Most scientists (with a few notable exceptions) are happy to let Science handle the "when/how" and Religion handle the "who/why". Only really in the US do you have this problem with religion overstepping its mandate.
Footnotes:
[1] Emphasis on the "currently-accepted". The second a theory comes along which matches the observed evidence better, without requiring the violation of known laws of physics (also, without providing any evidence whatsoever that those laws were violated), evolution would be dropped by the majority of scientists. At the very least, it'd be weakened and the new theory would eventually replace it.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
GCC and Evolution are ATTEMPTS to explain what appears to be going on, they aren't SCIENCE!
They are if they make predictions you can test, and are falsifiable. Its pretty easy to test evolution with say bacteria and anti-biotic.
You don't need a whole nother planet to test these things you know, (although it helps, and thats what those simulations are for) when someone can make predictions you can test those.
The biggest champions of these movements have turned it into a religion...
Its certainly true that some people with certain agendas have jumped on board, that doesn't nullify the work done by the people actually doing science.
it's an anti-Christian religion, but religion none-the-less.
How is climate change anti-Christian? Even with evolution, apart from a few fundies in the US most Christians are happy with evolution.
Evolution is the scientific community's best attempt to explain species, and has some big gaps that they are working on.
I keep hearing this, but nobody seems able to actually point out what these supposed gaps are.
Some people believe that evolution fails to explain certain complexity and indicates an intelligent design. Who cares... apparently you, because ALL science will now stop, because students are exposed to people that disagree...
Well some people care that groups who state they have a wider agenda are trying to push religion into classrooms by getting something that isn't science taught in science classes.
I'm NOT a proponent of ID, although I personally belief in the Jewish Creation story, I also understand how the lack of specifics in biblical Hebrew make the "modern" translations (especially the common Hebrew Bible -> Greek translation of Hebrew Bible -> Latin New Testament -> English translation) AWFUL. I think that one can learn an awful lot about mankind and our role in the world from Genesis, and see no conflict with Genesis's story and its moral lessons and evolution as a scientific explanation.
I do, however, take MAJOR issue with the politicization of science. I responded to a post suggesting that the next steps was witches and evil spirits whose tag-line was "pissing of the religious right." I take SERIOUS issue with the anti-religious left that has deified "science," and not particularly useful science at that.
I don't, however, have an issue with including ID in a school curriculum, albeit on a limited scale. I think that any high school lecture on evolution SHOULD explain the limitations and explain how others believe that there is an intelligent design involved. Traditional Jewish thought maintains that Hashem uses natural process for miracles... things like low tides splitting seas, things like that.
The reason for the leeches/maggots post was just to point out the danger of the worship of science. For about a century those were treated as mankind's barbaric past... yet after 100 years of insulting our historical healing, we test it scientifically and find out that it is valid for certain treatments.
I find what is lacking in these issues is any willingness to question why or question scientists. Why we've decided that people that spent 7 years in one particular institution to be granted a Ph.D are somehow immune from agendas or ideologies. Science is a tool, people use tools to accomplish goals.
The reason I laugh... think about the impact of evolution and look at some events... notice that the proponents of "science only" don't learn the lessons of natural selection.
Assumption: leeches and maggots were not valid forms of healing.
Historical Experiment: some societies used them, some didn't
Result: the societies that used them (the West) seemed to take over the planet
Popular Conclusion: that was are barbarous past, it's remarkable that we survived
Scientific/Evolution Conclusion: perhaps that was a factor that caused the Christian world to dominate the planet, prolonging lives and increasing child bearing
Assumption: high child births will destroy society
Historical Experiment: Rome collapsed within a few generations of rampant pedophilia that required the passage of marriage laws to increase population
Recent Historical Experiment: Western birthrates have been plummeting for generations as we've "advanced," and Europe can't survive without Arab immigration, India with a higher birthrate is growing rapidly, China's enlightened "one child policy" is creating tremors in its society as marriage isn't an option for large chunks of a generation, Israel ceded Gaza to its enemies and parts of Samaria because of demographic problems, and America's social security network is showing serious stresses)
Popular Conclusion: high birthrates are a function of stupid barbarians, enlightened societies will create gender equality and dismiss child bearing to an option
Scientific/Evolution Conclusion: societies that aren't fruitful and multiplying enter a period of decline and collapse, political/economic growth requires political growth
That is my issue, those that worship at the alter of science have created a idol to worship, the scientific community. They worship it as the bastion of truth the way previous generations of idolators worshipped the sun or the moon. Neither community UNDERSTOOD what they were looking at. Science is an INCREDIBLY powerful tool that can explain historical phenomenon and help us make better decisions. It Science-anity is an attempt to replace G-d with science, and worships the scientific expe