Once you've got a subject under observation, sometimes the best way to learn its true nature is to poke it and see what it does.
Once I heard about the possible Russian roots of Conficker, I've been wondering if it's the computer security industry that is actually what is under observation here. Put on your tinfoil hat for this: Putin: Ve need to assess ze defensive capabilities of ze UK and ze US computer infrastructure. How do you propose ve do zis? KGB IT Security Chief: I can put ze team zat vuz verking on ze Georgia "projekt" on it. Ve'll see vhat ze can come up vith. ...months later... Putin: Vut iz ze progress vith ze "security test"? KGB IT: Zey have bin predictable. Ve vill fully activate it on ze 'Fools Day'. Putin: Eeexccccelllent...by ze vay, vhy are ve speaking bad English?!
Are you the one that modded all my posts Troll in the course of 3 minutes? With a UID so low I would suspect you have at least a couple other accounts...
Well played, sir. Well played. Indeed, your extremely rational arguments have utterly destroyed me, and simultaneously enlightened me about the non-existence of my ideas. I lay myself at the mercy of your "real world" experience.
In much the same way that Newton's gravity was a law, not a theory? Methinks we have very different ideas of what is meant by 'law' and 'theory'. For me, like many scientists, laws are prohibitions defined by theories. I'm not exactly sure what they are for you. Maybe some kind of 'absolute' and 'certain' knowledge? I don't know...
Not to mention that the Quantum mechanical Model isn't completely right either.
Hmmm...a scientific theory as I understand/define it can never be known to be 'completely right', because it will always have to be falsifiable (even if no one ever falsifies it).
Understanding domain is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
Meh. 'Domain' is just a way of letting many epistemological methodologies all be called 'science'. I'll take my critical-rationalism and damn the rest!
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
So let me get this straight, you think we should entertain the idea of replacing the theory of evolution with the theory that the earth is only 10,000 years old and life came about in it's current form by way of a "magic man"?
I highlighted the answer to your question (it's in my original post). If English is not your native tongue: the word "certifiable", is often used as shorthand for "certifiably insane".
If you think is was trying to say otherwise in my post I apologize for not being clear with my satire. I did mention however that I believed this proposal and those behind it to be "certifiable". My main point was to caution against dogmatic adherence, instead of critical acceptance, of the scientific theory.
Academia held to Newton's theory because it's STILL RIGHT*.
* only applicable for sufficiently small values truth
On a more serious note, you do appear to have a rather utilitarian view of "right". I, on the other hand, choose to reject utilitarian-instrumentalism due to it's inability to encourage daring and adventurous progress in the sciences. For me, "good enough" is not good enough for the empirical sciences, even if it is good enough for basic engineering, mechanics, etc.
1. "Texans are all ass-backwards hicks and should be murdered" -Tolerant Liberal
2. "This is why America sucks" -EuroTard
3. "Religion is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves, of all evil" -Sgt. Atheist
4. "Intelligent design is not Creationism. It's philosophical." -Closet Creationist
5. "Science is..." insert simplistic, high-school-esque view of 'The Scientific Method' -Every/.er that claims to have read an issue of Scientific American
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
Oh, for mod points...
Nice insights. Especially the "any publicity is good publicity" one. From the comments I've read so far for this article everyone seems to have missed that point, which seems to be the root of their motivation in this case.
I, for one, welcome our new underground overlords.
Sorry, the thought of super-Gophers scares me more than cloned dogs, or Africanized bees, or cloned dogs with Africanized bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you.
Hint: 0.1% difference for a value never used (for practical purposes) vs. 0% difference (at least in my country) vs. a 10% difference for units we use (for practical purposes) regularly. Of course, I never learned your last (and worst) example in grade school (or ever). Is that part of the vaunted UK education curriculum?
What concerns me more than lack of knowledge of basic facts is that many adults don't really understand something as simple and basic as "the scientific method"...might explain why so many can't distinguish between what they think the bible says and testable, provable fact.
What concerns me is your (and most of the tech communities') lack of understanding of "the fact" that there are a multitude of fundamentally different yet broadly accepted scientific methods used by different scientists/fields, defined by the underlying epistemological assumptions (i.e. principle of induction, or principle of falsifiability, or instrumentalism, or logical positivism et al) while railing against the public for not knowing whatever it is you think The Scientific Method is.
The scientific method used by a researcher who believes that Science is purely instrumental (a very common belief) will have a very different process (and consequently, result) than one who holds falsifiability as the criteria for legitimacy of a scientific theory.
But too many scientists want to pretend that philosophy, even philosophy of science and/or epistemology, doesn't affect their work...so the skewed perceptions of the interested lay people continue (believing that there is some kind of perfect/near-perfect consensus/unity amongst scientists).
Slashdot Mirror
Once you've got a subject under observation, sometimes the best way to learn its true nature is to poke it and see what it does.
Once I heard about the possible Russian roots of Conficker, I've been wondering if it's the computer security industry that is actually what is under observation here. Put on your tinfoil hat for this:
...months later...
Putin: Ve need to assess ze defensive capabilities of ze UK and ze US computer infrastructure. How do you propose ve do zis?
KGB IT Security Chief: I can put ze team zat vuz verking on ze Georgia "projekt" on it. Ve'll see vhat ze can come up vith.
Putin: Vut iz ze progress vith ze "security test"?
KGB IT: Zey have bin predictable. Ve vill fully activate it on ze 'Fools Day'.
Putin: Eeexccccelllent...by ze vay, vhy are ve speaking bad English?!
In regards to spun modding you down, had he done so then posting to this thread would have discounted all those points
Perhaps you missed this part of my previous post:
With a UID so low I would suspect you have at least a couple other accounts...
Are you the one that modded all my posts Troll in the course of 3 minutes? With a UID so low I would suspect you have at least a couple other accounts...
Well played, sir. Well played. Indeed, your extremely rational arguments have utterly destroyed me, and simultaneously enlightened me about the non-existence of my ideas. I lay myself at the mercy of your "real world" experience.
Now, Evolution is a law of nature, not a theory
In much the same way that Newton's gravity was a law, not a theory? Methinks we have very different ideas of what is meant by 'law' and 'theory'. For me, like many scientists, laws are prohibitions defined by theories. I'm not exactly sure what they are for you. Maybe some kind of 'absolute' and 'certain' knowledge? I don't know...
Not to mention that the Quantum mechanical Model isn't completely right either.
Hmmm...a scientific theory as I understand/define it can never be known to be 'completely right', because it will always have to be falsifiable (even if no one ever falsifies it).
Understanding domain is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
Meh. 'Domain' is just a way of letting many epistemological methodologies all be called 'science'. I'll take my critical-rationalism and damn the rest!
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
So let me get this straight, you think we should entertain the idea of replacing the theory of evolution with the theory that the earth is only 10,000 years old and life came about in it's current form by way of a "magic man"?
I highlighted the answer to your question (it's in my original post). If English is not your native tongue: the word "certifiable", is often used as shorthand for "certifiably insane".
If you think is was trying to say otherwise in my post I apologize for not being clear with my satire. I did mention however that I believed this proposal and those behind it to be "certifiable". My main point was to caution against dogmatic adherence, instead of critical acceptance, of the scientific theory.
Academia held to Newton's theory because it's STILL RIGHT*.
* only applicable for sufficiently small values truth
On a more serious note, you do appear to have a rather utilitarian view of "right". I, on the other hand, choose to reject utilitarian-instrumentalism due to it's inability to encourage daring and adventurous progress in the sciences. For me, "good enough" is not good enough for the empirical sciences, even if it is good enough for basic engineering, mechanics, etc.
1. "Texans are all ass-backwards hicks and should be murdered" -Tolerant Liberal /.er that claims to have read an issue of Scientific American
2. "This is why America sucks" -EuroTard
3. "Religion is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves, of all evil" -Sgt. Atheist
4. "Intelligent design is not Creationism. It's philosophical." -Closet Creationist
5. "Science is..." insert simplistic, high-school-esque view of 'The Scientific Method' -Every
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
I got my reservations last week.
I still need to save up for mine. I always seem to spend my spare $0.02 on providing unheeded advice, and undesired opinions.
I can't tell if you are somehow trying to be funny or not. Either way, epic fail.
Please hand in your geek card on your way out.
Oh, for mod points...
Nice insights. Especially the "any publicity is good publicity" one. From the comments I've read so far for this article everyone seems to have missed that point, which seems to be the root of their motivation in this case.
Well done!
when they accidentally a whole bunny?! Who knows!?
OK...I admit this is a fabrication
Whew, thanks for the admission! For a second there I thought you were serious!
Ha! I bet I'm faster at reaching 100mph than your car. Only takes me about 5 seconds
Bats aren't horses, sheep or baseball bats
In the face of all the potential examples of what bats are not, your failure to pick 3 things is mind-boggling.
...how many Pied Pipers will be laid off?
All the ones that the feds can't catch. Or so I hope.
This next season of Mythbusters is gonna be AWESOME!!
I, for one, welcome our new underground overlords. Sorry, the thought of super-Gophers scares me more than cloned dogs, or Africanized bees, or cloned dogs with Africanized bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you.
Best string of Simpsons references. Ever.
...the same place they learned that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, there are 2,000 pounds in a ton, and 1 yard = 1 meter.
One of these examples is not like the others.
Hint: 0.1% difference for a value never used (for practical purposes) vs. 0% difference (at least in my country) vs. a 10% difference for units we use (for practical purposes) regularly. Of course, I never learned your last (and worst) example in grade school (or ever). Is that part of the vaunted UK education curriculum?
"Cheat" codes?! Sounds more like God codes to me. And that makes it blasphemy!!
What concerns me more than lack of knowledge of basic facts is that many adults don't really understand something as simple and basic as "the scientific method"...might explain why so many can't distinguish between what they think the bible says and testable, provable fact.
What concerns me is your (and most of the tech communities') lack of understanding of "the fact" that there are a multitude of fundamentally different yet broadly accepted scientific methods used by different scientists/fields, defined by the underlying epistemological assumptions (i.e. principle of induction, or principle of falsifiability, or instrumentalism, or logical positivism et al) while railing against the public for not knowing whatever it is you think The Scientific Method is.
The scientific method used by a researcher who believes that Science is purely instrumental (a very common belief) will have a very different process (and consequently, result) than one who holds falsifiability as the criteria for legitimacy of a scientific theory.
But too many scientists want to pretend that philosophy, even philosophy of science and/or epistemology, doesn't affect their work...so the skewed perceptions of the interested lay people continue (believing that there is some kind of perfect/near-perfect consensus/unity amongst scientists).
Yeah, someone from Caltech said the same thing, but you can't trust second-rate sources when it comes to space analysts...
Microsoft delivers what businesses want:
Electrolytes?