Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Little Red Hoax, Firefly, Google
A little red hoax. MyNameIsFred writes "In an earlier Slashdot story, it was reported that a student was investigated for requesting Mao's Little Red Book on inter-library loan. It appears that the story was a hoax."
Firefly franchise death greatly exaggerated. Kazzahdrane writes "Joss Whedon has spoken out against the Entertainment Weekly that claimed he has turned his back on the Firefly/Serenity franchise. From his post at Whedonesque: 'All right, now I have to jump in and set the record straight. EW is a fine rag, but they do take things out of context. Obviously when I said I had "closure", what I meant was "I hate Serenity, I hated Firefly, I think my fans are stupid and Nathan Fillion smells like turnips." But EW's always got to put some weird negative spin on it.'"
Intelligent Design tantamount to teaching religion. rcs1000 writes "After much deliberation Judge John Jones has ruled that teaching Intelligent Design is tantamount to teaching religion. The judge was pretty forthright, arguing that 'it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'"
EU launches first Galileo navigation satellite. Xserv writes "The EU launched the first in the series of Galileo Navigation Satellites signifying the start of a lessening of dependency on US Military GPS Systems in Europe. The new Galileo system is touted to be much more accurate and will also be more accessible on higher latitude zones where the US GPS system is known to be less than ideal."
Why AOL chose Google over Microsoft. gambit3 writes to tell us that the Wall Street Journal has a nice article deconstructing AOL's decision to go with Google instead of Microsoft. From the article: "Two weeks ago, when Time Warner Inc. was on the cusp of signing a sweeping online deal with Microsoft Corp., a team of executives from the media company's AOL unit traveled to Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Wash., to make sure everything was in order. When the executives returned, they reported back to Time Warner's top deal negotiator, Olaf Olafsson, with some less-than-satisfactory findings. They had found some of Microsoft's technology to be clunky, while the contemplated joint venture with the software king contained what they thought were financial pitfalls."
Endgame in Blackberry patent case. waynegoode writes "The New York Times is reporting that a recent decision could spell the end of the NTP vs. RIM Blackberry case. The US Patent Office apparently took the unusual step of telling NTP & RIM it will likely reject all 5 of NTP's patents, meaning the basis for NTP's lawsuit and it's billion dollar claim will most likely disappear. This puts pressure on the judge to not issue an injunction against RIM but to instead delay until the USPTO gets around to actually rejecting the patents."
Katrina aftermath still making waves. An anonymous reader writes "Approximately 50 people have been indicted in relation to a scheme that drained almost $200,000 from a Red Cross fund designed to put money into the hands of Hurricane Katrina victims. From the article: 'Seventeen of the accused worked at the Red Cross claim center in Bakersfield, Calif., which handled calls from storm victims across the country and authorized cash payments to them. The others were the workers' relatives and friends, prosecutors said last week.'"
More cloning doubts emerge. LukePieStalker writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that the South Korean cloning team whose troubles have recently been chronicled here on Slashdot used "borrowed" photos in their Science journal article that "appear in the journal Molecules and Cells, in a research article by another Korean team, submitted before the Science paper". In the earlier article, the cells in the photo are described as having been created without cloning."
I am sure that some Religious fundaments will call this ruling of some crazy liberal judge. I am conservative myself and I personally do believe in inelegant design but I do not believe that it should be tough in schools as science. Intelligent Design is not science it is faith-based assumption. I believed in Inelegant Designed when I was taught Darwinism. I just replaced Random with God. It was not an eureka moment, just about anyone can make the connection without any hoaxing, just an understanding based on my faith that nothing is truly random but work of God, as Einstein said God doesn't roll dice. But that being said teaching science that there is a force that we cannot measure or prove or disprove is not science. Science is not guaranteed to be absolute truth, science is a process of observations and finding a theory that best fits the observation, if a pattern cannot be found it is called random. If God is behind random that is fine but because God cannot be proven or disproved scientifically, it shouldn't be placed in science. Just saying God did it is a shortcut that ends further investigation, but by leaving God out of the equation then it shows that you have more to examine thus growth in understanding.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Predicted comment breakdown for this Slashback I love the ID stories, those are where I can tell rational people from kooks by my "Fans/Foes" changes that day.
Trolling is a art,
Turns out the researchers really meant to say they had used the Photoshop clone tool to copy the pictures of the cells. The next step would be to clone the actual cells instead of just the pictures. Small misunderstanding.
n an earlier Slashdot story, it was reported that a student was investigated for requesting Mao's Little Red Book on inter-library loan. It appears that the story was a hoax.
But that's exactly what they want you to believe!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
News stories like this make me sad. I am sad for the people of New Orleans who are suffering. They have lost so much, many have lost loved ones. Many have lost homes. But I am also sad that there is a small number of people who could take advantage of others and steal funds which should have helped the people of New Orleans. What kind of deprived life can a person have where they think it is okay to steal from the less fortunate?
And what is worse is these kinds of actions will make people less likely to donate. They will be wondering "Is my gift really going to help people, or will it be sucked up by greedy people taking advantage of a situation". What can a person do? Give and hope for the best??
I learned my ABC's watching television! I learned science watching Voltron.
That particular story ("the Little Red Hoax") may have been fake, but it does illustrate, in a very compelling and inspiring way, the very real civil rights abuses going on every day in this country.
Abuses that are so thoroughly not in evidence that the people who believe in them are forced to manufacture them.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Can someone tell what the heck Joss Whedon's comment is supposed to be? What I read was too weird to be understandable on Slashdot. Either way, sounds like Firefly/Serenity is history and/or J.W. had a massive brain fart without knowing it.
I also believe in inelegant design. How else do you explain the Edsel?
But there's still no reason for the "blink" tag.
This hoax has gotten to NPR and other (More liberal) news agencies as well. Which is really sad, I do want to hear both sides of an argument but when both sides jumps to find a story that proves that other side is bad just makes me sick. Ok you don't care of the of Many of Bushes Anti-Terroism laws but making up stories that show how bad it could be will only smear your side when they find out that it was only a hoax.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You know he was pretty much wrong when he said that, right? Hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics have been pretty thoroughly disproven.
Just because someone expresses an unpopular viewpoint (in this case that they believe in god perhaps?) does not make them automagically troll. the parent is a well thought out statement of position. NOT A TROLL!
Do we really have to rehash the ID thing yet again? The link is to an article dated December 20, there's nothing new here.
...was just entertainment, weakly.
Should read:
... They had found some of Microsoft's morals to be evil, while the contemplated joint venture with the satanic king contained what they thought were hellish pitfalls."
"Two weeks ago, when Time Warner Inc. was on the cusp of signing a sweeping
online deal with Microsoft Corp., a team of executives from the media company's AOL unit traveled to the beast's lair in Redmond, Wash., to make sure everything was in order.
Seems the editor forgot to post any link to any article about the discovery of the Little Red Book hoax. Here's one.
0 5/a01lo719.htm
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-
AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
They had found some of Microsoft's technology to be clunky
Let me guess, they were running Windows, right?
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
I remember after the CBS memo thing a number of people yielded to the temptation to say "Well, maybe the memos were fake, but the information in them must be true."
Occasionally you need to concede that the news gets it wrong instead of trying to bail out a leaky story. It reeks of desperation when instead of simply admitting you've been had on this one you cling to something that is rapidly being proven false. Isn't this the mentality you're trying to fight against?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I just read the decision. Many have expressed concern over judges deciding scientific issues. But the judge in this case has done a truly admirable job of identifying the key scientific issues, and identifying the flaws in ID doctrine.
"An unnamed Dartmouth student was visited by Homeland Security for requesting a copy of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book for a class project." From the article: "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said."
when, it turns out,
"The University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth student who claimed he had been visited by agents of the Department of Homeland Security for requesting a book written by Mao Zedung through interlibrary loan has confessed to making up the story. The unnamed senior tearfully admitted to the hoax after UMD history professor Brian Glyn Williams confronted him with inconsistencies in his story at his parents' home December 23, the New Bedford Standard-Times reported December 24."
I am sure that some Religious fundaments will call this ruling of some crazy liberal judge.
That would be delusional. The judge is a rather conservative Bush appointee.
I am conservative myself and I personally do believe in inelegant design but I do not believe that it should be tough in schools as science.
Believe whatever you want according to the dictates of your own conscience. So long as you don't try to put it in public school science curricula, that is fine with me.
Science is not guaranteed to be absolute truth, science is a process of observations and finding a theory that best fits the observation, if a pattern cannot be found it is called random
Science is a bit more than you give it credit for. There is a pretty well defined set of philisophical principals that extend it well beyond pure empiricism.
As far as 'random', this is whare I disagree. Self-organization is easy to show on many scales and doesn't require any faith to accept. This argument is an approach used to try obfuscate the fact that there are real ways of dealing with the question of self organization. Unfortunately they require some pretty careful thinking to undersand and are not as easily presented to the general public as Darwinism is.
Just saying God did it is a shortcut that ends further investigation
And that is the problem. Progress ends when you stop looking for alternative explanations.
And I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the 10% of Blackberry users who work for the federal government. Don't get me wrong--I'm also sure NTP's patents are bogus, but that hasn't stopped the millions of other bogus patents (such as Myriad Genetics' downright immoral patent of breast cancer genes), or any of the many software patents that keep popping up in /. articles. Why the special treatment for RIM? If I were less cynical, I'd think this was the dawn of an age of rejecting bogus patents, but let's be realistic.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
too bad evolution doesn't equal random.
And god can be scientifically disproven. In fact, I have ran tests, and in each and every one of them this god fellow failed to show up, deliver lottery numbers, or cure children inflicted with AIDS.
God doesn't exist, QED.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You know he was pretty much wrong when he said that, right? Hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics have been pretty thoroughly disproven.
How do you prove a negative? Proving that there isn't an underlying pattern to the apparent pseudorandom behavior on a quantum level is like proving there is no God. And in fact, being a firm believer in the "God of the Gaps" theory- that's exactly what you're attempting when you claim there are no possible hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics. At best, you can only say there are no proven hidden variable theories- yet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Myself I am a strong believer in evolution (belief not being the best word) , I consider myself a very observant Jew(and a Tanakh minimalist )
I find it ridicules that some people can not combine faith and science , the two things do not mix normally (unless science can define the view in question) .
Science is there to help us understand the world and how things work , faith is there to help us accept the things we can not understand , till the time comes that we may understand those things .
Science and faith should never be opposed and have no reason to be .
I like to think of it like this , if g-d is all mighty then surely it would have the power to architect a world an existence than can construct itself and follow its own rules , such as the laws of physics . Much as I do as a systems admin to automate my tasks . Science helps me to understand the way things works . Perhaps my views are naive and cowardly and there to help me cope with a short term life , but they do not affect my scientific views as I hope they would not any person who is religious .
sadly they do as they are too blind sighted to accept anything.
To them I say this , if g-d is all mighty then perhaps g-d would do as us sysmins do and automate the creation process . Why would the divine waste time on something which us mere mortals would have found a simple solution for .
These things need not be a dividing line , they are only made so by hatred and fear . Fear to know truth and to understand the workings of the world and if you choose the workings of g-d
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Yes, it was a hoax.
0 5/a01lo719.htm
The kid made it all up.
You can go read it here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-
Or you can stay confused, if you do so wish.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good argument!
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
I really think my Freshman biology book got the creationism vs. evolution thing right. In the first chapter, probably within the first few pages, as it was introducing students to biology at large, it mentioned how most, if not all, of modern biology is built on the theory of evolution.
It went on to say that there are groups which believe that the earth and the creatures as we know them, were created by a higher power. And while this could be possible, it was beyond the scope of a science class as it was not a scientifically testable hypothesis. It finished with suggesting that, should you wish to learn more about the idea of creationism, you should contact the clergy of your church of choice.
Simple, Factual, not more than a parapgrah. Now if only I could remember who published that text book.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
In "Trash", while Kaylee and Jayne are working on the dumpster's control panel right before Jayne gets electrocuted, you can plainly see that the screen on the control panel is a screen shot of a Windows 2000 Desktop, complete with Start bar. The window that is up appears to be the Add New Hardware window.
:)
I am serious - the scene appears at around 21:39
Just food for thought. I believe there is a reality, and that there's a truth in this situation. But I'm not sure I have the evidence for what it is. "It's a hoax!" just means that we have to start thinking rationally and not be so ready to accept everything we read. Let's start right here.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Technically, judges don't belong to a party. Therefore, he's neutral. Just because Bush appointed him doesn't make him a conservative "nut".
Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds
As an official and unrepentant Bush (all male family members, including Barbara) hater, I apologize for rushing to the conclusion that a Bush-crony run government department could have a crack squad of Communist anti-infiltration investigators watching over inter-library loans with any sort of competence. Most likely the "crack squad" are really George W's dealers, and the Communist anti-infiltration unit is apparently investigating all the "Red" Cross workers in the "blue" states.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
"And that is the problem. Progress ends when you stop looking for alternative explanations."
Even with evolution we are starting to stop to look for anything alternative. I am not for nor agaisnt the theary of evolution. But it remains just that - a theory. Being a better theory does not make it true. Remember the time when the most acclaimed minds in the world thought that the world was flat? Or how the best minds once thought the molecule was the smallest unit before they discovered atoms and electrons and those became the smallest. Then they they spilt THOSE up too. Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now.
Intelligent Design may not be the answer. But that does not mean evolution is. Scientists are supposed to have an open mind. Accept your believes and accept that they may be wrong.
I love humanity, it is people I hate
I have a feeling that the Serenity dvds will sell like hotcakes. I mean, I got a copy for Christmas, and I didn't even ask for it; my parents knew I liked sci-fi, so they picked it up.
If the dvd does well, then I could see Universal being interested in a direct-to-video sequel, which would be fine by me.
How do you prove a negative?
MEEP! BEEP! The bullshit-o-meter just burst!
Any statement of fact can be written in positive or negative form, so your statement simply says you can't prove anything at all. Positive: "I am going to the park today." Negative: "I am not going to remain outside the boundaries of the park today." Or more simply, "It is not true that it is not true that I am going to the park today."
And in case you really believe the statement, "You can't prove a negative.": I'd like to see you try to prove it. Oh, I'm sorry, did I ask you to prove a negative?
Remember the time when the most acclaimed minds in the world thought that the world was flat?
So you're saying that we should continue looking for alternatives to the current understanding that the world is round?
Any statement of fact can be written in positive or negative form, so your statement simply says you can't prove anything at all. Positive: "I am going to the park today." Negative: "I am not going to remain outside the boundaries of the park today." Or more simply, "It is not true that it is not true that I am going to the park today."
Double negatives are not true negatives. So sorry, you lose on that one. Please try again.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1) The constitution prevents the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, and 2) Congress has no power except that which is explicitly granted to it, therefore it can neither support nor discourage religion.
...on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it.
You don't consider teaching one particular sect's creation story in a science class support?
The theory of ID...
ID is not a theory, at most it is a hypothesis
Except (by your own words) that it must be a being in the first place. That is a pretty specific claim
Acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is not anti-science; rather it is the very foundation of science. To blindly follow any hypothesis or theory without regard to alternatives is the definition of bad science.
All opinions are not equally valid in science. Only those opinions that can be tested in some way count. To blindly posit a hypothesis with no way to verify it and call it a theory is the (literal) definition of bad science in that it does not follow the scientific method.
On the second point, sociology is science, and religion is part of sociology. Sociology is not hard science like chemistry or physics, but it's science nonetheless.
Sociology class is not Biology class. People would not be nearly so upset it they were suggesting it for the sociology curriculum.
On the third point, Congress only has powers which are granted to it by the Constitution.
And converselty cannot wield powers that are specifically denied it. Of course, we are talking about the judiciary branch re: the article. To get to the heart of the matter (FTA): We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion.
Case closed (thank God).
That actually is somewhat accurate. The establishment clause was intended to keep the United States free of an official religion, with the founders specifically looking at the Church of England as an example. The purpose of the clause was to keep the government from interfering with religion. What's interesting about this is that the French have an even more explicit separate of church and state. However, the purpose of the French separation was to keep religious groups, the Catholic Church in particular from interfering in secular, governmental matters. The American model draws from a fear of government, while the French model draws from a fear of organized religion.
Now, anything requiring intelligent design to be taught in schools would most certainly be a "law respecting an establishment of religion." And, although the Constitution only specifically mentions Congress, I think it should be agreed that this should apply to the states and municipalities and such as well (because I'm sure we'd be equally upset if these bodies banned free speech).
I don't think anyone would have a problem with ID being taught in a religious studies class, which most high schools today offer. But that's where it belongs. A science class should teach ideas that have been proven (or at least backed up) through scientific evidence and conceptualized using a scientific method. But hey, religion in a religion class and science in a science class? That's just begging for the wrath of God, isn't it?
Careful - rightnext to the bsometer is the wasnt-paying-attention-in-junior-high-ometer.
The g.p. is refering to the scientific principle that you cannot prove an absolute negative. In general, it is a warning not to infer too much from one's own limited perspective of the universe.
For example, "I can see no stars in the sky at this time" is much more easily supported than the statement "There are no stars in the sky." The statement, "I found no fish in this pond" is sensible, but the statement, "This pond has no fish" is close to nonsense.
Per your example, "I do not intend to go to the park today" is a statement you can support. "I will not go to the park today" is not provable. Of course, that is because it is future-tellings, not because it is negative.
Which brings us back to...
This is misleading. The theories have not been disproven. They have simply not been proven. The fact that they have not, to date, been proven, does not imply that they are disproven. Actually, the theory of some pattern existing behind pseudorandom quantum phenomena may very well be not-provable and yet still true. (In order to emphatically prove such a theory, one have to discover the pattern... rendering the point moot!)
Ask any metaphysicist.
Most of them *do* have an open mind. But they require decent scientific theories do actually consider. Intelligent Design is the weakest theory around, and it's not science. You can't pitch a scientific theory against something that is not a scientific theory.
ID is better explored in philosophy or theology (where is used to be before it was rebadged as ID).
Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now
They may be true but it doesn't matter! Good scientists would have assumed that more elements may be found, given that they kept finding them! Intelligent design says, "I don't understand that - it looks way too tricky and complicated - God must have done it! Hooray for God, I was just *looking* for something to credit Him with".
Ah, my apologies for the semantical mis-step. I should not have implied that we had disproven every single possible 'hidden variable' theory, as it is possible that there is some underlying truth which gives the appearance of breaking all these rules while still, in fact, retaining them at some deeper level (much like how His Noodly Appendage is being obfuscated by this "evolution" business).
Although I would note that, as far as I've seen, since the EPR 'paradox' was shown to in fact represent how the world works, hidden variable theories are not faring well - they involve giving up significant numbers of other aspects of our classical universe to retain the deterministic effects, and often introduce large amounts of additional cruft that doesn't lead to any useful predictions.
> > The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution
> Anyone care to pint out WHERE? [...] It amazes me that a judge is ruling this "unconstitional", despite the fact that the constitution has no bearing on religion outside of the church.
The judge did nothing more (or less) than appeal to long established precedent in interpreting the first amendment.
Apparently the Thomas Moore Law Center put the school board up to adding ID to their curriculum for the sole purpose of triggering a case that would overturn that precedent. Don't blame the judge if he didn't take the bait.
Maybe someday there'll be another case where the school board doesn't get voted out before they can appeal, and the Supreme Court will reverse the traditional interpretation. When that happens, we'll find out whether it was a good thing or not.
As for the letter of the Constitution... Don't kid yourself into thinking that we abide by the letter of it in much of anything. For example, the Constitution (as amended) forbids having the President and Vice President from the same state. In the run-up to the 2000 election somebody noticed that, so Cheney filled out a change of address form as a fig leaf. A couple of guys tried to challenge it in court, but the case was thrown out on the grounds that they didn't have standing to challenge it.
If you want to revert to the letter of the Constitution - or rather, to somebody's opinion about what the letter of the Constitution means - a lot of stuff would change, and you might find that you didn't like all of it.
Maybe we should do it anyway, on principle, though we'd probably end up fighting another civil war to see whose "literal interpretation" wins. Meanwhile, for better or worse, the courts operate on the system of precedent, and judge Jones did his job.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just go ask the congress and the senate, they have been doing it for years, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Insurance companies do this too, so you can ask them... Oh yeah, the 30% loan companies... they do it too... (oh well it's actually 30% + prime) so ask them...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
God IS in the gaps. He always has been. The gaps are just perpetually shrinking as science fills the gaps with explanations that prove things behave deterministically. :)
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Okay, I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV...
/. nerds on the defense team would have heavily swung this in the opposite direction (also a little more corporate courtesy on RIM's part). Seriously though, I've heard nothing but nonsense about this case, and I'm happy for a chance to set the record as straight as I have found it.
0 5opn.pdf
(seriously though, I often do legal research)
and quite frankly people need to RTF case. The judge has explicitly said "I don't tell [the patent office] their job, they don't tell me mine." What that means, and it's listed EXPLICITLY that the judge in the case doesn't give a hoot about the Patent Office ruling, and that he (not will not, implying no decision has been rendered) DID not grant RIM's motion to stay pending patent ruling.
He also clearly states that part of the main reason for his rejection of this judgement is that he buys COMPLETELY NTP's argument that if the patents are rejected, they will appeal, a process that could drag on for years (RIM contends it would only be a few short months).
Furthermore RIM is guilty throughout the trial of what is considered 'bad behavior.' There was considerable question that RIM followed all necessary protocols (particularly with an internal investigation of whether the patents were reasonably valid). This is backed up by conflicting evidence from the varies executive party at RIM.
Okay, so no one seems to get this, but I'll spell it out for you, and link the document: RIM lost. Not will lose, not might lose, HAS lost. Their 45 page appeal proceeding (one needs Lexis Nexis to access it, thus I won't be posting that one here) reads VERY poorly for RIM. In fact the only part that was remanded to a lower court does little to allow them to win. NTP won. RIM is in violation (imho because they a.) engaged in 'bad behavior,' which is to say trial etiquette and b.) during the Markman hearing [a hearing where the judge determines things like definitions and scope of patents, est. 1996, Markman v. Westview Instruments] they did horrible job allowing NTP to fully dominate definitions of email and patent scope, giving them enough broad leeway to technically sue any computer manufacturer that makes a wifi laptop that can check e-mail, but I digress... and c.) their initial arguments (which cannot be dropped in favor of new arguments unless the appeal strikes those specifically, and it didn't) were ridiculously weak, and essentially claimed that the Intel chipset inside was the RF device (the NTP patents specifically call for an RF device), not the Blackberry pager itself, and therefore was not liable for infringement (no judge in the WORLD would buy this argument on common sense alone, but there is numerous precedent in US patent law that clearly says that by possessing this part, RIM infringes)...
Here's how it's going to end:
RIM is going to pay NTP a ton of money.
Everyone's going to keep their Blackberries.
In 2012 (when the original patents expire, and thus the payments mandated by the court) or whenever RIM migrates every BB customer to a non-infringing system (whichever comes first) NTP stops getting paid.
Please note, I'm a huge fan of RIM. I think RIM should have won this case hands down, and I passionately pursue research in the area strictly as a hobby, as a fan of both law and technology. I believe that RIM was doomed from the beginning, and a few
Here is the rejection by the honorable James Spencer of RIM's motion for a 'stay of proceedings' pending review of the patents by the USPTO.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/rim/ntprim1130
It's a PDF, and an enlightening read.
Enjoy.
;-) Don't worry, we won't go *poof* right away 'cause the Universe has a certain amount of momentum to it's existence (with respects to Zelazny's Siddhartha). But in terms of "the emperor has no clothes", it is more like, "there is no spoon" at levels that Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes into play.
No, actually. Throughout recorded history man (the educated ones, at least) has known the world is roughly spherical.
Columbus didn't have to convince Ferdinand and Isabelle that the world was round; they knew that as well as we do. They just also knew as well as we do how big it was (Thales's measurement of the circumference of the earth was not surpassed in accuracy until the 18th century). And they didn't know if there was a continent between the Iberian peninsula and China (and neither did Columbus unless he heard it from an Icelander when he was there).
All's true that is mistrusted
Two ways:
1)if a theory says A is true, find an example where A is not true. I.e., a counter-example = proof of a negative.
2)Logical deduction, i.e. mathematical proof. Hidden variables are proved not to exist by a mathematical theorem (Bell's Theorem, specifically).
You can't prove there's no god, because God isn't formulated as a scientific theory. You can prove there are no hidden variables, since quantum mechanics is a scientific theory.
If you are going to comment, you probably should actually take the trouble to RTFD (note: PDF). I think it deals with this argument rather well:
So why don't we just pray to Bob?
This is misleading. The theories have not been disproven. They have simply not been proven. The fact that they have not, to date, been proven, does not imply that they are disproven.
This is incorrect. It HAS been proven that hidden variables are mathematically incompatible with quantum mechanics. Try looking into the EPR paradox and bell's inequality. That's not to say there are no hidden variables, but quantum theory works damn well, and it's incompatible with hidden variables - so it's a whole lot more convincing an argument than simply "it hasn't been found yet"
Ask any metaphysicist.
Yeah, while you're at it, ask an astrologist, a tarot card reader, a televangelist, and a reporter for a tabloid mag.
Intelligent Design is not provable as a theory, because they are yet to admit that Midiclorians prove the truth of Intelligent Design.
The Force is the manifestation of Intelligent Design. Midiclorians are its agents, shaping and forming all life.
Light Saber training should be included within the High School Science Curriculumn. This will also be very popular with High School students and renew their interest in Science, and additionally is a mechanism to make sporting oriented students have as much to offer science in the classroom as academically oriented students. In this way Science will also be more supportive of diversity.
From your link: One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."--end quote
Theories are supposed to be treated with skepticism, and the "religious nutcase" you responded to displayed more of it than you have.
Sometimes I think you slashbots have a religion unto yourselves.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
"Macroevolution" does not address the origin of the universe. That said, "macroevolution" and ID do not address the same issue.
How is ID religious? ID states that life is too ordered to have come about naturally and therefore must have been designed. e.g. ID says that God Did It. This is obviously religion. (Doesn't have to be god could be Space aliens, blah, blah blah, who created the aliens?, blah, blah, God, blah. God always was so no need to create him blah, blah, blah. Tired old obvious arguments.)
We cannot test ID. ID is not falsifiable. ID is NOT science.
Evolution, on the otherhand, is a theory that was created to explain certain observations. That is to say, evolution is a theory that explains the data. The new data that we've found fits the theory well. Predictions made using the theory have further reinforced the theory rather than detract from it. We've been able to observe evolution and even identify some of the mechanisms of evolution. Also, when evolution no longer explains the data (a possibility) evolution will be thrown out in favor of a theory that explains the data. Evolution is observable, testable, and falsifiable. That is, evolution is science.
On a related note, I've yet to see any pro-ID material that does anything other than try to show evolution to be wrong (which none of it actually has). Why do proponents of ID attack evolution and not simply try to show that ID can stand on its own merits?
In addition, proponents of ID have been making the argument that evolution is religious (although it's not) and that if evolution is religious and taught in schools, then ID should also be taught in schools. The flaw here is that if evolution is religious then it shouldn't be taught in schools -- lest it open a door for other religious materials-- And no, evolution is not religious. The statement you make above (replacing ID in the grandparent posters comments with evolution) may look pretty, but it's obviously invalid.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Because I hadn't heard of the "Little Red Hoax" story, but if I had, I wouldn't have believed it. The department of Homeland Security showing up to harass a colege student for requesting a book through ILL that anyone can go to the local Barnes and Noble and buy right off the shelf? That doesn't make any sense. Misguided and draconian as some of the DHS's policies may seem, I have to believe that really they do have the best of intentions, and besides, if the government did ever think to institute a thought police, any right thinking individual would know that the first place they would go would be those darker corners of the net, not books published by trade paperback publishing companies.
It's got to mean something that prominent people and news organizations picked this up. At face value, it could very well mean that they're just gullible, but I think there is something more legitimate going on. In the wake of the revelation of the Bush administration using the NSA to spy on citizens without getting wiretap warrants (when they are fairly easy to obtain) we have had a range of official responses from "so what?" to "yes we did it, don't you like freedom?" Sadly, this kind of wavering and uncertainty where the truth is concerned is the hallmark of this administr~~~~~ persons with power. This leaves those without power in a position where they don't know what to believe, but always feel safe in assuming the worse. DHS stormtroopers showed up to implant your new baby with a RFID chip? Page one above the fold!
Unfortunately the natural paranoia that beaten down feel is only exacerbated by a media all too eager to jump on stories like this. Edward R. Murrough turns in his grave at the concept of this talking head journalism, but it sure does sell papers. Rightwing Extremist Nutcase vs. Leftwing Extremist Nutcase generates the sort of polarizing, us or them, emotional reaction quotes that make headlines. For those of you not paying attention, they make headlines because they sell papers.
So now we have some college student trying to feel good about himself and justify his own existence. With narry a street protest to find to have his head bashed in by the cops (a clear sign that the system has failed when peaceful protests go uninterrupted), and probably not enough initiative to walk downtown to where the proletariat live to participate in one anyway, this anonymous fellow makes up a story that maybe will score him some points with whatever hippy chick in philosophy 101 that he's had his eye on. Really, this kind of story isn't the sort of thing you tell your professor when you're looking for an extension to a paper, nor is it really the sort of thing one admits during an advising session; this is really the sort of thing you say when you're three sheets to the wind drunk and looking to score (score what, exactly, I'll leave to your imagination). So everyone in this thing winds up with egg on their face. The kid who started it, those who believed him, and the journalists who spread the story because it sells papers. Us sane folk who realize we're not living in a police state yet just kind of shake our heads and wonder which is worse, thought police or freedom of stupidity.
Sure there is. Consider the following HTML, carefully:
<p>
Schroedinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> in the box.
</p>
So what you're saying is that God is being squeezed out of His habitat as humans encroach? That would mean Intelligent Design proponents could be seen as an environmental group desperately trying to preserve a threatened species. How progressive of them!
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Your comment has sparked me to point out one of the reasons that many athiests are so against people who believe in heaven. Now, please do not take this as an insult...its just a personal view that I've known many people to share.
Many of us see religion as the "opiate of the masses". Faith truly does offer some solace from the void that ultimately lies before us. But those of us who do not believe in heaven often see those that do as weak mentally, since we feel they cannot standup to the ultimate end of their existence. We see it as a cop-out and it has honestly made me look at a person who I once admired for being incredibly strong willed and fearless, and made me realize how timid they really are when it comes down to the wire.
Again, this post was not meant as a troll or flamebait...I just wanted to express a perhaps not so popular viewpoint on the athiest vs heaven side of things.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
> if a theory says A is true, find an example where A is not true. I.e., a
> counter-example = proof of a negative.
A counter-example disproves a positive, which is quite different from proving a negative in general.
e.g. someone claims that all apples are red.
I produce a green apple.
I have proven that not(all apples are red), that is there exists(apple which is not(red)). I have not proven all apples(are not(red)), which is proving a negative, because I only showed you one example.
However, you are correct that deductive techniques can prove a negative.
X-Has-Sig: yes
Theories are supposed to be treated with skepticism,
Yes, but for scientific reasons, not religious ones. I wonder if he has the same level of skepticism for the atomic theory of matter, special relativity, and the round-earth theory.
1 - random mutation
2 - suvirval of the fittest
3 - inheritance of characteristics from parent(s) - including the random mutation
Darwinism is the theory that all variation in life on Earth has arisen solely as result of this process. Proponents of ID are not the only people that object to Darwinism - there is credible evidence for some mechanisms of non-random mutation.
Creationists using these subtleties is comparable to a flat-earther (or Velikovsky) using the 46-seconds of arc in the obit of Mercury to deny "Newtonism".
No Fair - you used math.
Schroedinger's cat was always in the box.
Whether it was alive or not is another question.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Um, not to be too pedantic, but yes. It's called Geodesy. And the world isn't "round" at all.