I suspect that you postulate 'organisms' and 'species' as real things that evolutionary theories predict the behaviour of. Some theorists haven't - they have regarded the immediate sensory perceptions of our mind as reality, and 'organisms', 'society', 'sub-atomic particles', 'people' etc as tools to predict immediate sensory phenomena (and then there's the problem of defining what a single, irreducible sensory phenomenon is for the purpose of predicting them).
Actually, if pressed to explain my view of reality, it's a lot closer to these theorists you describe. I view my perception of physical reality as the best model of the sensory inputs I receive that I can find. I very well could be a "brain in a vat," but the point is irrelevant because I can't distinguish that hypothesis from the hypothesis that the universe is "real." Thus I might as well apply Occam's razor and use the simpler hypothesis, that being that the inputs I receive are the result of direct physical reality.
A similar argument disposes of the tenets of many religions as unnecessarily complex models of the universe which tell no more than do nontheistic scientific models. Occam's razor allows me to say that as long as I see no direct evidence for a transcendental force in the universe, I need not consider religion.
Anyway, whatever. You've prolly heard these arguments a thousand times over from more intelligent people:).
It looks like your main argument here is: "It has been around for over 150 years (don't forget that a lot of theories are based on correctness of the evolution theory!) so it's propably correct". I can understand that, but you propably didn't really 'dive into' the matter.
On the contrary, I've spent the last semester taking a course on the history of life, one of whose purposes is to make a cogent argument for evolution as a theory quite consistent with observation. Note my terms: consistent with observation. There hasn't been a scientific theory yet proposed that is not, for some detail, "false." The purpose of science is not to look for some ultimate truth, it is rather to try and model the processes of the universe. Evolution is a theory which has given remarkably accurate predictions; that is what I mean when I say it "has stood the test of time."
A few lectures in the course I took focused on the movement in the U.S. to try and produce an alternative theory in some way consistent with the events as literally portrayed in the Bible. This movement seems to have two main tactics:
a) Produce examples/arguments why evolution cannot be correct.
b) Produce an alternate theory to evolution which suggests certain parts of the Biblical story.
The problem is, both these tactics are not science in good faith, because they seem to operate separately within the movement. In order to replace a theory, you must produce another theory that explains properly more than the original theory; in other words, you must find places where the old theory gave bad predictions and your new theory must improve these predictions (as well as predicting accurately everything the old theory did). So "creation scientists" are not acting in good faith when their new theory and their criticisms of the old theory have nothing to do with one another.
When I say "evolution has stood the test of time" what I mean is that in the 150 years since Darwin came up with his theory, no one seems to have produced a theory which explains as much observed phenomena.
The issue of whether atheism is a religion is a whole other point. You're absolutely correct in observing that some people seem to believe that the theories of science are "true" in the same way that you probably believe in a G-d. I've thought about this a lot, and I think what atheism comes down to is to making logical arguments based on the axiom that there is no G-d. Some people believe that there is no G-d as fervently as you probably believe there is one. Science, when practiced in good faith, however, is immune from such arguments, because the physical reality of a G-d (in the sense that Its existence can be inferred from physical phenomena) is a scientific hypothesis like any other. As I see it, there is no or next to no evidence for an active G-d, and so I am forced to conclude that the world now operates in a natural (i.e. consistent and predictable) fashion. This does not, however, mean that I am an atheist. I consider myself to be an agnostic, in the sense that believing in a G-d or a lack Thereof serves no purpose in my life, and so I leave the question open. It is unanswerable by scientific means.
Let me be clear. I think the whole atheism/theism argument is silly--agnostics will not get involved in the discussion, and then all you have left are die-hard believers shouting at deaf ears.
I identify to some extent with the exasperation inherent in your post, but I have a few criticisms of your content.
First of all, with the word "theorem." My area of expertise is mathematics, and in math a theorem is any statement which can be shown to be a logical consequence of axioms assumed at the outset. Now, in math we use a bunch of set theory axioms as the foundation of theorems, and in fact (strange as it may seem) all theorems of mathematics can be formulated as statements in set theory and proven using these axioms.
Physicists have also been known on occasion to use the word "theorem" (Noether's theorem from mechanics, Hawkings' theorem on existence of singularities in GR), but physicists also restrict themselves to the strict definition of theorem--theorems are always logical derivations from basic assumptions (which in physics take the form of hypotheses).
Secondly, I will agree that scientists have an underlying assumption that the world works in a consistent, predictable manner. However, I personally consider this assumption to be an hypothesis, i.e. just as falsifiable as any other proper scientific theory. This hypothesis has a major prediction--roughly, that natural processes proceed the same everywhere and at all times. The existence of such wonderfully verified theories as evolution, quantum theory, and yes, GR, is testament to how remarkable this theory is.
Anyway, my point is that GR is a theory, and placing it as an axiom one can produce theorems like those of Hawking. GR, however, is perfectly falsifiable, and so if this alternate theory turns out to predict phenomena better than GR, eventually it will inherit acceptance. This doesn't, however, mean that physicists working in GR right now will lay down immediately. Partisanship is an important part of the scientific process--without a healthy debate about theories, ideas get stale. The result is that scientists end up adopting the theory which has been least falsified. And I have every confidence that if GR is shown to be substantially more inconsistent with observation than this new theory, then Hawking and everyone else will accept it.
BUT, this does not mean that you can just go around claiming that scientists who have no alternate theory for, say, evolution are necessarily not open-minded. In my opinion, comparing evolution and quantum theory to GR suggests a severe lack of understanding. Evolution has been around for 150 years and itself has been a continuously evolving theory, changing as more information is uncovered. Somehow, however, the basic idea (that species arise from differential change within other species) has stood the test of time. Quantum Theory is very similar--the Standard Model is one of the best predictive models in science, and has been ruthlessly tested in particle accelerators for half a century. GR, on the other hand, is one generalization of special relativity (which has been heavily verified on a microscopic level), and its interesting implications are all in a high-gravity context, about which we have very little direct information. As this new theory agrees with GR for low-gravity environs (like our own), it seems to be a reasonable alternate theory. Whenever you have an area of science where data is not in much abundance, multiple theories will crop up. But usually, large bodies of evidence (like that for quantum theory and evolution) will leave space for only one major theory.
Sorry for the rant. I just get irate when people try to argue about science without the proper context.
Are you kidding? I didn't read the first article, but the second was rife with so-called technologists agitating for elevation of virus-writing to a federal crime. People condemning the "subculture" of anarchist "hackers" "plotting their next move." As I see it, this blatantly disregards a real culprit in this fiasco, the subculture of commercial software development plotting their next release of buggy/hole-ridden software (e.g. Microsoft). Case in point: the McAfee representative quoted at the end of the article in support of tougher anti-piracy legiaslation. This is relevant how? The Congressional hearing (and by extension, the article) has succeeded in ignoring much of the issue, while giving a bully pulpit to commercial software developers. Way to go.
Why should we care about what happens in Michigan?
Let's see...
a) because the Right has decided to try and sneak censorship into Holland libraries, the intention being to develop the illusion of a "consensus" ("Moral Majority," anyone?) on this issue so as to argue it on a national scale.
b) If this were to happen in some other random community, do you think/. would pay anywhere near as much attention as they are to this "local" dispute?
c) Even if the Right didn't have such an agenda, even if Slashdot wasn't the home of/., you should care. For every government-censored public terminal, there're schools full of kids who will be selectively barred from information (about gay rights groups, breast cancer studies, etc.) that would highly enrich their lives.
This is why I care. And this is why I think jamie's doing an awesome service to the community (and to the nation in general) by fighting against the legalization of censorship.
For once, someone understands. I think this is the first post I've seen on Slashdot that accurately represents the situation. The real issue is absolutely whether DVD's should be playable upon purchase, or only with a licensed player.
There's a question that's been on my mind ever since this whole thing started. Is VHS proprietary? There's certainly some sort of VHS organization which controls the logo, so I'm thinking there must be some sort of DVDCCA-like group controlling that technology. If so, then how is buying a DVD player for your television any different from buying a VCR?
Hmmm...maybe this all will become moot when Creative makes its open-API, licensed decoder card...i'm waiting...
Beat me to the punch! It's kinda interesting; if the judge goes by the letter of the law, it seems inevitable that DeCSS will go the way of marijuana--illegal but highly trafficked. The real problem here, it seems, is the fact that the U.S. government seems to be well in the pockets of the media industry. Congress continues to extend copyright protection well beyond any human lifespan, so why not endorse the newest scheme the industry has for abusing copyright in pursuit of the bottom line?
It seems to me quite probable that DVD playing will become, like strong encryption and Playstation mod chips, a lucrative cottage industry off U.S. shores. If only Congress could learn to abandon their dependence on corporate money (and people wonder why I support campaign finance reform).
Anyway, you're absolutely correct. According to the law, this battle has been long won by Goliath (which is why the preliminary injunction was granted in the first place). The war still rages on.
Does anyone else think the timing of these proceedings is a little strange? Back when people were discussing the lawsuit in the first place, I remember there being talk of how Etoys didn't want to lose a chunk of marketshare during the Christmas season rush to people mistakenly going to etoy or becoming disgusted with Etoys as a result of going to etoy. Well, now the Christmas season is over and done with, so the incentives for Etoys to maintain the injunction against etoy have evaporated. They're only pandering to the free-internet-speechers once their original purpose (to protect holiday-season mind- and marketshare) has been amply satisfied.
THIS IS HARDLY A VICTORY.
If Goliath can push David around until Goliath gets his feast, only then letting poor David go, Goliath is still in charge. As others have said, the only way to assure a proper victory is to make sure stupid preliminary injunctions cannot be carried out in the first place. This requires a court decision or legislation. Since the latter is pretty unlikely (Wall Street owns Congress, yadda yadda yadda), we need someone to take one of these lawsuits to completion.
How about a countersuit, etoy? You and the rest of us first-amendment-pushers deserve to reap the rewards.
As a consumer, I'm happy that Blockbusters and Wal-Mart have taken over. They offer much more, and they make it better, cheaper, and easier.
I think you're wrong on all three counts, at least with respect to Blockbuster (we don't have any Wal-Marts where I live). The movies at Blockbuster are no better than those at the local college video store (they are, in fact, the same), and the local store, while maybe having fewer cassettes, has more of what I'm looking for (how large is your local Blockbuster's foreign section?). Blockbuster actually charges more than this same video store (i.e. already they've decided to abuse their monopoly on homogeneous entertainment). Finally, Blockbuster is not "easier." In terms of movie selection, I'd much rather talk to a 40-year-old guy who's been watching movies forever than some punk who needed a summer job and doesn't know diddly squat.
This is not a "morality" argument. As a consumer, I consider the rise of Blockbuster to be an affront to my choice of rental videos.
There seem to be a lot of people here who are complaining that this fellow seems to be just up and mimicking what VMware has been doing well for a long time now. VMware did it first, so don't they deserve all the money they can milk from this cash cow?
Well, as i see it, they do and they don't. Yes, they spent lots of money researching this technology, and therefore, yes, they deserve compensation in the form of license fees for the work they've already done. Innovation yields rewards; this is basically why technical progress happens in a money-driven society. But three or four years down the line, do they still deserve the same rewards for innovation? In my opinion, they only deserve such rewards if they continue to really improve their product. This is healthy; companies should only receive consumer dollars if they are providing a service to the consumer. And printing more copies of the same CD is not a service!
In the past, patents drove this system. When inventions were physical and hence easily reverse-engineered, an individual or corporation would take out a patent on an invention into the creation of which they had invested time and money. This would give them a temporary monopoly on the process of making the invention, and thus they could receive (socially-justified) compensation for their investment. After a time, however, the patent would expire, and the technology would be available to anyone, in theory. Thus the inventor would receive compensation, but not a cash cow.
Software, however, has been noticeably immune to patent law (and patent law has been quite ignorant of the dynamics of the software industry, but that's another story). Ever notice how few software companies actually have patents on their software? Monopolies are not forged on patents anymore; they are forged on closed source, which has much the same effect. A potential competitor can see the actions of another company's software, but they cannot reproduce them, because the source is not free. Thus they license the software (much as a competitor in the past would license an invention).
So the natural question is, where is the time limit? How do we make sure companies (cf. Microsoft) do not make excessive amounts of money, more than is a valid reward for a small amount of innovation? Well, one way is to do what Richard Stallman did to Unix--make it free. In 1995 or so, there was a closed-source program called TIA which would allow a user to convert a dial-in Unix shell with internet access into a full-blown SLIP account. Licenses cost $20, and when I saw how well it worked, I got myself a license. But development on TIA eventually stagnated, and not a month passed before I discovered SLiRP, a (public domain) client which could do the same job, only since it had been worked on more it was faster, more robust, and had more features (PPP, etc.). So I switched. Thus the people who made TIA got rewarded for their work, but the open sourced solution won out in the end because it was better.
I propose that free software be the software industry's answer to patent law. Let some programs be closed source, but understand that someone, somewhere is probably working on an open-source clone, or an open source solution which is simpler, or whatever. VMware can make money off their idea for the next year or so, until FreeMware gets on its feet, at which point VMware will either have to drastically improve their product or develop something else, because the free software solution is out there. For the past fifteen years (largely spurred by Richard Stallman) this process has been accelerating and refining itself, what with the GNU tools, multiple free operating systems, CVS, etc. In the end , I believe free software will bring real innovation back to the software industry.
Well, I dunno if it was the iMuse system specifically, but I definitely remember going into a dogfight full of those pesky TIEs and have the music (all MIDI, based on the John Williams originals) seamlessly change from an empty space theme to an Imperial March/Space battle theme. It was some sweet shit, and gave me goosebumps more times than I can remember...
Oh yeah, and they did the same thing in the later games (like X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter) that you were talking about, taking actual orchestral samples and not-so-smoothly integrating them. It's all about the MIDI...
I'm not surprised at all that nobody's interested in producing these batteries. Alkaline batteries are a cash cow for the companies that produce them. Like inflated CD prices, it is to these companies' mutual advantage to keep alkaline battery output comparable across brands, because in the long run it means more batteries will be sold. These "Super-Iron" batteries have the dual disadvantages (advantages if you're a consumer) of lasting longer and being rechargable. This effectively converts batteries into long-term purchases, which no corporation whose infrastructure is built upon alkaline batteries wants to invest in.
To take off, this technology needs some kind of government support, just as emission standards have forced auto manufacturers to clean up their act and laws in states like Massachusetts force electric utilities to help their large clients conserve energy. I have no doubt that iron batteries will eventually take the place of alkalines, even if it takes 10 years.
Anyone else notice the Office 2000 ads now running on our very own/.? I don't know how those morons down at M$ marketing expect to garner any revenue from advertising their newest piece of uberbloatware on a den of the resistance. It's their money, tho; if they want to assist in Linux-based Slash development (and the food which goes on Rob's plate), then that's fine by me. I just think that if the world had a couple fewer idiots, we all would be better off.
It's funny. I completely agree with you, but the truth is that views like yours and mine have only just appeared. Up until the turn of this century, people in this country as anywhere else cared for nothing but their own countrymen. "Internationalism" was nonexistent. Even after WWI, the West generally focused on itself, ignoring the rest of the world. It wasn't until after WWII that internationalism became a term that meant much of anything.
The truth is, internationalism is an ideal that was not realizable until very recently. Some people, through upbringing or otherwise, are unable to dissociate from the notion of US vs. THEM. Selfishness has yet to die.
Just because matter drawn into a black hole reaches 'c' at the event horizon doesn't mean it would stay fixed at the event horizon. It would continue to fall towards the center at the speed of light--it just wouldn't accelerate any faster.
Actually, the region "inside" the event horizon of a black hole is generally regarded as singular, in the sense that it doesn't satisfy axioms for spacetime upon which general relativity is based. Really, no one knows what happens beyond this boundary; we can only decide behavior at the boundary itself.
There is an important distinction between reverse engineering and clean room methods. Reverse engineering usually involves trying to reconstruct the code of a compiled piece of software from the machine code itself, mimicking low-level functionality. Clean room methods, however, involve trying to emulate functionality without effective access to the compiled program being emulated.
Consider the WINE project. WINE is an attempt to provide the function calls in Windows programming for a UNIX machine. Windows programming is well documented as to which functions provide what functionality and so on. So in theory the WINE developers could work without a windows computer in sight and still produce an excellent implementation of Windows function calls. This is an example of clean room tactics, and actually the fact that WINE is clean room is precisely the reason why M$ hasn't sued the pants off them already.
Compare this to Microsoft's own tactics in incorporating Java into IE. Microsoft entered into a contract with Sun to share Java code, but to preserve Sun's intellectual property (the code itself). Microsoft went against this agreement, using Sun code in their proprietary implementation of Java, hence the lawsuit. You could call this the most blatant form of reverse-engineering; instead of trying to reconstruct code from machine language, they took the code itself!
In any case, you should be mindful of the distinction. In most contexts where patents are not an issue, clean room methods are legal while reverse-engineering is illegal.
Actually, wandering about the site (to the FAQ page, for example) reveals that they've actually been through a few website revisions. I still think it's curious that they don't have any photos of their hardware, but their software seems like it could very well be legit, lending credence to their hardware as well. Anyone have a windows box to try out their software on?
Apparently the Empeg fellows have been doing some website revisions since last I visited. It's still true that when they started, they were just a bunch of photos and technical details, but I guess by now they've come into enough venture capital to start marketing. I wish them the best of luck (and if I ever get a car, I may even buy their product!).
You're pissed that while some people complain that the "glory days" of computing have "ended" (I tend to disagree; the grassroots manner in which free software is taking over the world can only be described as a glorious revolution), people will write off a new face in the computing world because they seem to be marketing their product quite badly. Thus, the computing world of the 70's and 80's has been twisted into the corporate mess of the 90's.
While I too lament the dominant force which media, marketing and corporations wield in our consumer society, I think in this particular case the naysayers have it right. Why do I think this? Basically one word: capital. Mass-producing a piece of hardware requires vast resources, and even constructing a prototype (which looks as nice as this one does) requires a decent amount of cash. Now, I'll accept that this could be a labor of love, the prototype painstakingly constructed, squeezing every penny available for what it was worth. But in this case, I would expect that the inventor would be proud enough of his invention to post information on his site. For an example of how I would expect such a project as this to happen, look at the Empeg. The site is not as squeaky-clean as, say, Diamond, but it is full of pictures and tech specs. The love is clear. With the fellow linked to above, I'm not so sure the love is there.
Hardware (especially consumer-grade hardware) has traditionally been made by companies with many resources to speak of. Think IBM, Intel, Sun, Apple, DEC, AT&T, Microsoft (in recent years), and so on. Occasionally people break onto the scene, but their products are almost never as polished as those produced by the big companies. Not that that is a bad thing necessarily, just that the polish of this product in particular is incongruous with the lack of polish on his web page. Also, why go to the trouble of drawing the thing when purportedly the real thing is sitting next to the computer ready to be photographed?
Now of course, software is a totally different issue. Writing a piece of software requires no tools other than a computer, persistence, ingenuity and programming experience, altogether not requiring much capital at all. In fact, it is precisely this low cost of entry that got all of our favorite geeks on their way to fame and (for some) fortune: Richard Stallman, Bill Gates, Marc Andreesen, Linus Torvalds, and all the rest. And in fact, you can expect shitty marketing from a programmer (in fact, shitty marketing probably means the product is better). All I'm saying is that you can't look at hardware the same way.
Why did I post that crap? I'm just sickened by the gun nuts making political capital out of the grief of these families, and I responded with satire.
We need more people like you.
Of course, some nut'll probably take the numbers in your original post as gospel, and before you know it it WILL be official NRA statistics...be afraid...
I don't know where you've been living, but Corel released WP8 a few months ago...perhaps you intended to write 8.0, or maybe you mistook StarOffice for WP (StarOffice 5.0 being the most recent version). StarOffice is a bloated piece of junk, and I was happy to expunge it once and for all. WP8 is also a bit bloated (who really needs a "Program" window when you're not launching anything besides WP?), it's much more economical than StarOffice ever was, and I dare say quite a bit prettier. It accepts the usual legion of proprietary file formats, but will access directories in linux in a manner no worse than that of, say, netscape. It can even print with lpr:).
Of course, I try to go GTK and GPL whenever possible, so one of these days I'll download AbiWord and be done with WordPerfect. But I WP is definitely one of the most sincere, respectful ports of a proprietary piece of Windows software I've seen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Kerberos Loophole May Close around Microsoft's Neck"
:)
heh
Something tells me the bias may be on our side this time, folks
Actually, if pressed to explain my view of reality, it's a lot closer to these theorists you describe. I view my perception of physical reality as the best model of the sensory inputs I receive that I can find. I very well could be a "brain in a vat," but the point is irrelevant because I can't distinguish that hypothesis from the hypothesis that the universe is "real." Thus I might as well apply Occam's razor and use the simpler hypothesis, that being that the inputs I receive are the result of direct physical reality.
A similar argument disposes of the tenets of many religions as unnecessarily complex models of the universe which tell no more than do nontheistic scientific models. Occam's razor allows me to say that as long as I see no direct evidence for a transcendental force in the universe, I need not consider religion.
Anyway, whatever. You've prolly heard these arguments a thousand times over from more intelligent people :).
Your post was a lot of fun to read, thanks.
On the contrary, I've spent the last semester taking a course on the history of life, one of whose purposes is to make a cogent argument for evolution as a theory quite consistent with observation. Note my terms: consistent with observation. There hasn't been a scientific theory yet proposed that is not, for some detail, "false." The purpose of science is not to look for some ultimate truth, it is rather to try and model the processes of the universe. Evolution is a theory which has given remarkably accurate predictions; that is what I mean when I say it "has stood the test of time."
A few lectures in the course I took focused on the movement in the U.S. to try and produce an alternative theory in some way consistent with the events as literally portrayed in the Bible. This movement seems to have two main tactics:
a) Produce examples/arguments why evolution cannot be correct.
b) Produce an alternate theory to evolution which suggests certain parts of the Biblical story.
The problem is, both these tactics are not science in good faith, because they seem to operate separately within the movement. In order to replace a theory, you must produce another theory that explains properly more than the original theory; in other words, you must find places where the old theory gave bad predictions and your new theory must improve these predictions (as well as predicting accurately everything the old theory did). So "creation scientists" are not acting in good faith when their new theory and their criticisms of the old theory have nothing to do with one another.
When I say "evolution has stood the test of time" what I mean is that in the 150 years since Darwin came up with his theory, no one seems to have produced a theory which explains as much observed phenomena.
The issue of whether atheism is a religion is a whole other point. You're absolutely correct in observing that some people seem to believe that the theories of science are "true" in the same way that you probably believe in a G-d. I've thought about this a lot, and I think what atheism comes down to is to making logical arguments based on the axiom that there is no G-d. Some people believe that there is no G-d as fervently as you probably believe there is one. Science, when practiced in good faith, however, is immune from such arguments, because the physical reality of a G-d (in the sense that Its existence can be inferred from physical phenomena) is a scientific hypothesis like any other. As I see it, there is no or next to no evidence for an active G-d, and so I am forced to conclude that the world now operates in a natural (i.e. consistent and predictable) fashion. This does not, however, mean that I am an atheist. I consider myself to be an agnostic, in the sense that believing in a G-d or a lack Thereof serves no purpose in my life, and so I leave the question open. It is unanswerable by scientific means.
Let me be clear. I think the whole atheism/theism argument is silly--agnostics will not get involved in the discussion, and then all you have left are die-hard believers shouting at deaf ears.
First of all, with the word "theorem." My area of expertise is mathematics, and in math a theorem is any statement which can be shown to be a logical consequence of axioms assumed at the outset. Now, in math we use a bunch of set theory axioms as the foundation of theorems, and in fact (strange as it may seem) all theorems of mathematics can be formulated as statements in set theory and proven using these axioms.
Physicists have also been known on occasion to use the word "theorem" (Noether's theorem from mechanics, Hawkings' theorem on existence of singularities in GR), but physicists also restrict themselves to the strict definition of theorem--theorems are always logical derivations from basic assumptions (which in physics take the form of hypotheses).
Secondly, I will agree that scientists have an underlying assumption that the world works in a consistent, predictable manner. However, I personally consider this assumption to be an hypothesis, i.e. just as falsifiable as any other proper scientific theory. This hypothesis has a major prediction--roughly, that natural processes proceed the same everywhere and at all times. The existence of such wonderfully verified theories as evolution, quantum theory, and yes, GR, is testament to how remarkable this theory is.
Anyway, my point is that GR is a theory, and placing it as an axiom one can produce theorems like those of Hawking. GR, however, is perfectly falsifiable, and so if this alternate theory turns out to predict phenomena better than GR, eventually it will inherit acceptance. This doesn't, however, mean that physicists working in GR right now will lay down immediately. Partisanship is an important part of the scientific process--without a healthy debate about theories, ideas get stale. The result is that scientists end up adopting the theory which has been least falsified. And I have every confidence that if GR is shown to be substantially more inconsistent with observation than this new theory, then Hawking and everyone else will accept it.
BUT, this does not mean that you can just go around claiming that scientists who have no alternate theory for, say, evolution are necessarily not open-minded. In my opinion, comparing evolution and quantum theory to GR suggests a severe lack of understanding. Evolution has been around for 150 years and itself has been a continuously evolving theory, changing as more information is uncovered. Somehow, however, the basic idea (that species arise from differential change within other species) has stood the test of time. Quantum Theory is very similar--the Standard Model is one of the best predictive models in science, and has been ruthlessly tested in particle accelerators for half a century. GR, on the other hand, is one generalization of special relativity (which has been heavily verified on a microscopic level), and its interesting implications are all in a high-gravity context, about which we have very little direct information. As this new theory agrees with GR for low-gravity environs (like our own), it seems to be a reasonable alternate theory. Whenever you have an area of science where data is not in much abundance, multiple theories will crop up. But usually, large bodies of evidence (like that for quantum theory and evolution) will leave space for only one major theory.
Sorry for the rant. I just get irate when people try to argue about science without the proper context.
Are you kidding? I didn't read the first article, but the second was rife with so-called technologists agitating for elevation of virus-writing to a federal crime. People condemning the "subculture" of anarchist "hackers" "plotting their next move." As I see it, this blatantly disregards a real culprit in this fiasco, the subculture of commercial software development plotting their next release of buggy/hole-ridden software (e.g. Microsoft). Case in point: the McAfee representative quoted at the end of the article in support of tougher anti-piracy legiaslation. This is relevant how? The Congressional hearing (and by extension, the article) has succeeded in ignoring much of the issue, while giving a bully pulpit to commercial software developers. Way to go.
Why should we care about what happens in Michigan?
/. would pay anywhere near as much attention as they are to this "local" dispute?
/., you should care. For every government-censored public terminal, there're schools full of kids who will be selectively barred from information (about gay rights groups, breast cancer studies, etc.) that would highly enrich their lives.
Let's see...
a) because the Right has decided to try and sneak censorship into Holland libraries, the intention being to develop the illusion of a "consensus" ("Moral Majority," anyone?) on this issue so as to argue it on a national scale.
b) If this were to happen in some other random community, do you think
c) Even if the Right didn't have such an agenda, even if Slashdot wasn't the home of
This is why I care. And this is why I think jamie's doing an awesome service to the community (and to the nation in general) by fighting against the legalization of censorship.
For once, someone understands. I think this is the first post I've seen on Slashdot that accurately represents the situation. The real issue is absolutely whether DVD's should be playable upon purchase, or only with a licensed player.
There's a question that's been on my mind ever since this whole thing started. Is VHS proprietary? There's certainly some sort of VHS organization which controls the logo, so I'm thinking there must be some sort of DVDCCA-like group controlling that technology. If so, then how is buying a DVD player for your television any different from buying a VCR?
Hmmm...maybe this all will become moot when Creative makes its open-API, licensed decoder card...i'm waiting...
Beat me to the punch! It's kinda interesting; if the judge goes by the letter of the law, it seems inevitable that DeCSS will go the way of marijuana--illegal but highly trafficked. The real problem here, it seems, is the fact that the U.S. government seems to be well in the pockets of the media industry. Congress continues to extend copyright protection well beyond any human lifespan, so why not endorse the newest scheme the industry has for abusing copyright in pursuit of the bottom line?
It seems to me quite probable that DVD playing will become, like strong encryption and Playstation mod chips, a lucrative cottage industry off U.S. shores. If only Congress could learn to abandon their dependence on corporate money (and people wonder why I support campaign finance reform).
Anyway, you're absolutely correct. According to the law, this battle has been long won by Goliath (which is why the preliminary injunction was granted in the first place). The war still rages on.
Does anyone else think the timing of these proceedings is a little strange? Back when people were discussing the lawsuit in the first place, I remember there being talk of how Etoys didn't want to lose a chunk of marketshare during the Christmas season rush to people mistakenly going to etoy or becoming disgusted with Etoys as a result of going to etoy. Well, now the Christmas season is over and done with, so the incentives for Etoys to maintain the injunction against etoy have evaporated. They're only pandering to the free-internet-speechers once their original purpose (to protect holiday-season mind- and marketshare) has been amply satisfied.
THIS IS HARDLY A VICTORY.
If Goliath can push David around until Goliath gets his feast, only then letting poor David go, Goliath is still in charge. As others have said, the only way to assure a proper victory is to make sure stupid preliminary injunctions cannot be carried out in the first place. This requires a court decision or legislation. Since the latter is pretty unlikely (Wall Street owns Congress, yadda yadda yadda), we need someone to take one of these lawsuits to completion.
How about a countersuit, etoy? You and the rest of us first-amendment-pushers deserve to reap the rewards.
As a consumer, I'm happy that Blockbusters and Wal-Mart have taken over. They offer much more, and they make it better, cheaper, and easier.
I think you're wrong on all three counts, at least with respect to Blockbuster (we don't have any Wal-Marts where I live). The movies at Blockbuster are no better than those at the local college video store (they are, in fact, the same), and the local store, while maybe having fewer cassettes, has more of what I'm looking for (how large is your local Blockbuster's foreign section?). Blockbuster actually charges more than this same video store (i.e. already they've decided to abuse their monopoly on homogeneous entertainment). Finally, Blockbuster is not "easier." In terms of movie selection, I'd much rather talk to a 40-year-old guy who's been watching movies forever than some punk who needed a summer job and doesn't know diddly squat.
This is not a "morality" argument. As a consumer, I consider the rise of Blockbuster to be an affront to my choice of rental videos.
There seem to be a lot of people here who are complaining that this fellow seems to be just up and mimicking what VMware has been doing well for a long time now. VMware did it first, so don't they deserve all the money they can milk from this cash cow?
Well, as i see it, they do and they don't. Yes, they spent lots of money researching this technology, and therefore, yes, they deserve compensation in the form of license fees for the work they've already done. Innovation yields rewards; this is basically why technical progress happens in a money-driven society. But three or four years down the line, do they still deserve the same rewards for innovation? In my opinion, they only deserve such rewards if they continue to really improve their product. This is healthy; companies should only receive consumer dollars if they are providing a service to the consumer. And printing more copies of the same CD is not a service!
In the past, patents drove this system. When inventions were physical and hence easily reverse-engineered, an individual or corporation would take out a patent on an invention into the creation of which they had invested time and money. This would give them a temporary monopoly on the process of making the invention, and thus they could receive (socially-justified) compensation for their investment. After a time, however, the patent would expire, and the technology would be available to anyone, in theory. Thus the inventor would receive compensation, but not a cash cow.
Software, however, has been noticeably immune to patent law (and patent law has been quite ignorant of the dynamics of the software industry, but that's another story). Ever notice how few software companies actually have patents on their software? Monopolies are not forged on patents anymore; they are forged on closed source, which has much the same effect. A potential competitor can see the actions of another company's software, but they cannot reproduce them, because the source is not free. Thus they license the software (much as a competitor in the past would license an invention).
So the natural question is, where is the time limit? How do we make sure companies (cf. Microsoft) do not make excessive amounts of money, more than is a valid reward for a small amount of innovation? Well, one way is to do what Richard Stallman did to Unix--make it free. In 1995 or so, there was a closed-source program called TIA which would allow a user to convert a dial-in Unix shell with internet access into a full-blown SLIP account. Licenses cost $20, and when I saw how well it worked, I got myself a license. But development on TIA eventually stagnated, and not a month passed before I discovered SLiRP, a (public domain) client which could do the same job, only since it had been worked on more it was faster, more robust, and had more features (PPP, etc.). So I switched. Thus the people who made TIA got rewarded for their work, but the open sourced solution won out in the end because it was better.
I propose that free software be the software industry's answer to patent law. Let some programs be closed source, but understand that someone, somewhere is probably working on an open-source clone, or an open source solution which is simpler, or whatever. VMware can make money off their idea for the next year or so, until FreeMware gets on its feet, at which point VMware will either have to drastically improve their product or develop something else, because the free software solution is out there. For the past fifteen years (largely spurred by Richard Stallman) this process has been accelerating and refining itself, what with the GNU tools, multiple free operating systems, CVS, etc. In the end , I believe free software will bring real innovation back to the software industry.
-Josh
Normal Slashdot: Green
Ask Slashdot: Grey
Radio: Black
BSD: Red
Your Rights Online: Brown
Apache: Purple
Kinda weird if you ask me, but CmdrTaco ain't askin' me
A different color for different themed sections
Well, I dunno if it was the iMuse system specifically, but I definitely remember going into a dogfight full of those pesky TIEs and have the music (all MIDI, based on the John Williams originals) seamlessly change from an empty space theme to an Imperial March/Space battle theme. It was some sweet shit, and gave me goosebumps more times than I can remember...
Oh yeah, and they did the same thing in the later games (like X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter) that you were talking about, taking actual orchestral samples and not-so-smoothly integrating them. It's all about the MIDI...
I'm not surprised at all that nobody's interested in producing these batteries. Alkaline batteries are a cash cow for the companies that produce them. Like inflated CD prices, it is to these companies' mutual advantage to keep alkaline battery output comparable across brands, because in the long run it means more batteries will be sold. These "Super-Iron" batteries have the dual disadvantages (advantages if you're a consumer) of lasting longer and being rechargable. This effectively converts batteries into long-term purchases, which no corporation whose infrastructure is built upon alkaline batteries wants to invest in.
To take off, this technology needs some kind of government support, just as emission standards have forced auto manufacturers to clean up their act and laws in states like Massachusetts force electric utilities to help their large clients conserve energy. I have no doubt that iron batteries will eventually take the place of alkalines, even if it takes 10 years.
Anyone else notice the Office 2000 ads now running on our very own /.? I don't know how those morons down at M$ marketing expect to garner any revenue from advertising their newest piece of uberbloatware on a den of the resistance. It's their money, tho; if they want to assist in Linux-based Slash development (and the food which goes on Rob's plate), then that's fine by me. I just think that if the world had a couple fewer idiots, we all would be better off.
-josh
It's funny. I completely agree with you, but the truth is that views like yours and mine have only just appeared. Up until the turn of this century, people in this country as anywhere else cared for nothing but their own countrymen. "Internationalism" was nonexistent. Even after WWI, the West generally focused on itself, ignoring the rest of the world. It wasn't until after WWII that internationalism became a term that meant much of anything.
The truth is, internationalism is an ideal that was not realizable until very recently. Some people, through upbringing or otherwise, are unable to dissociate from the notion of US vs. THEM. Selfishness has yet to die.
Just because matter drawn into a black hole reaches 'c' at the event horizon doesn't mean it would stay fixed at the event horizon. It would continue to fall towards the center at the speed of light--it just wouldn't accelerate any faster.
Actually, the region "inside" the event horizon of a black hole is generally regarded as singular, in the sense that it doesn't satisfy axioms for spacetime upon which general relativity is based. Really, no one knows what happens beyond this boundary; we can only decide behavior at the boundary itself.
-josh
There is an important distinction between reverse engineering and clean room methods. Reverse engineering usually involves trying to reconstruct the code of a compiled piece of software from the machine code itself, mimicking low-level functionality. Clean room methods, however, involve trying to emulate functionality without effective access to the compiled program being emulated.
Consider the WINE project. WINE is an attempt to provide the function calls in Windows programming for a UNIX machine. Windows programming is well documented as to which functions provide what functionality and so on. So in theory the WINE developers could work without a windows computer in sight and still produce an excellent implementation of Windows function calls. This is an example of clean room tactics, and actually the fact that WINE is clean room is precisely the reason why M$ hasn't sued the pants off them already.
Compare this to Microsoft's own tactics in incorporating Java into IE. Microsoft entered into a contract with Sun to share Java code, but to preserve Sun's intellectual property (the code itself). Microsoft went against this agreement, using Sun code in their proprietary implementation of Java, hence the lawsuit. You could call this the most blatant form of reverse-engineering; instead of trying to reconstruct code from machine language, they took the code itself!
In any case, you should be mindful of the distinction. In most contexts where patents are not an issue, clean room methods are legal while reverse-engineering is illegal.
Actually, wandering about the site (to the FAQ page, for example) reveals that they've actually been through a few website revisions. I still think it's curious that they don't have any photos of their hardware, but their software seems like it could very well be legit, lending credence to their hardware as well. Anyone have a windows box to try out their software on?
Apparently the Empeg fellows have been doing some website revisions since last I visited. It's still true that when they started, they were just a bunch of photos and technical details, but I guess by now they've come into enough venture capital to start marketing. I wish them the best of luck (and if I ever get a car, I may even buy their product!).
-josh
You're pissed that while some people complain that the "glory days" of computing have "ended" (I tend to disagree; the grassroots manner in which free software is taking over the world can only be described as a glorious revolution), people will write off a new face in the computing world because they seem to be marketing their product quite badly. Thus, the computing world of the 70's and 80's has been twisted into the corporate mess of the 90's.
While I too lament the dominant force which media, marketing and corporations wield in our consumer society, I think in this particular case the naysayers have it right. Why do I think this? Basically one word: capital. Mass-producing a piece of hardware requires vast resources, and even constructing a prototype (which looks as nice as this one does) requires a decent amount of cash. Now, I'll accept that this could be a labor of love, the prototype painstakingly constructed, squeezing every penny available for what it was worth. But in this case, I would expect that the inventor would be proud enough of his invention to post information on his site. For an example of how I would expect such a project as this to happen, look at the Empeg. The site is not as squeaky-clean as, say, Diamond, but it is full of pictures and tech specs. The love is clear. With the fellow linked to above, I'm not so sure the love is there.
Hardware (especially consumer-grade hardware) has traditionally been made by companies with many resources to speak of. Think IBM, Intel, Sun, Apple, DEC, AT&T, Microsoft (in recent years), and so on. Occasionally people break onto the scene, but their products are almost never as polished as those produced by the big companies. Not that that is a bad thing necessarily, just that the polish of this product in particular is incongruous with the lack of polish on his web page. Also, why go to the trouble of drawing the thing when purportedly the real thing is sitting next to the computer ready to be photographed?
Now of course, software is a totally different issue. Writing a piece of software requires no tools other than a computer, persistence, ingenuity and programming experience, altogether not requiring much capital at all. In fact, it is precisely this low cost of entry that got all of our favorite geeks on their way to fame and (for some) fortune: Richard Stallman, Bill Gates, Marc Andreesen, Linus Torvalds, and all the rest. And in fact, you can expect shitty marketing from a programmer (in fact, shitty marketing probably means the product is better). All I'm saying is that you can't look at hardware the same way.
-josh
ARGH! It's too late for me, but save yourselves. There are spoilers at the end of the Dave Barry article (though suitably twisted).
Why did I post that crap? I'm just sickened by the gun nuts making political capital out of the grief of these families, and I responded with satire.
We need more people like you.
Of course, some nut'll probably take the numbers in your original post as gospel, and before you know it it WILL be official NRA statistics...be afraid...
I downloaded the 5.0 Linux port this week
:).
I don't know where you've been living, but Corel released WP8 a few months ago...perhaps you intended to write 8.0, or maybe you mistook StarOffice for WP (StarOffice 5.0 being the most recent version). StarOffice is a bloated piece of junk, and I was happy to expunge it once and for all. WP8 is also a bit bloated (who really needs a "Program" window when you're not launching anything besides WP?), it's much more economical than StarOffice ever was, and I dare say quite a bit prettier. It accepts the usual legion of proprietary file formats, but will access directories in linux in a manner no worse than that of, say, netscape. It can even print with lpr
Of course, I try to go GTK and GPL whenever possible, so one of these days I'll download AbiWord and be done with WordPerfect. But I WP is definitely one of the most sincere, respectful ports of a proprietary piece of Windows software I've seen.