Incidentally, I suspect using an unfalsifiable Designer to undermine evolutionary biology is a rhetorical equivalent to dividing by zero: You can prove/disprove ANYTHING that way.
Thanks for putting another spin on what I was attempting to explain, I really like the divide-by-zero analogy. That captures the essence of the falsifiability requirement perfectly. The dividend is basically the inquiry you're seeking to ask, the hypothesis would be the divisor, and the quotient would be the conclusion. Even if the quotient is infinitely larger or small that it's difficult to arrive at and approaches infinity, it's still a valid quotient. Have a non-falsifiable zero divisor, then the wheels fall off and you get a rather meaningless, undefined, and illogical conclusion.
Okay...ID falsification: Refute all proposed irreducibly complex structures, once they are enumerated.
That still can't falsify the theory of ID. Even if science is able to demonstrate that macroevolution does work in practice and that nothing biological is irreducibly complex, that's not the information required for falsification. The main tenet of ID is that there is a creator who created life. These people are not concerned about science in the least, the complexity and lack of explanation isn't what bothers them. They have an agenda to declare that there is God, and that God created life, because they MUST prove the scripture that says that's what happened to be true, or they've been believing in a lie. Science would have to prove the lack of existence of this creator god, which is not possible.
This is the fundamental problem with ID-- it's a foregone conclusion that begged for its own hypothesis. The ID hypothesis is basically, "We believe there is an intelligent desginer/creator, and our rationale is that the theory of macroevolution doesn't satisfactorily prove life evolved from inorganic chemicals on its own beyond a shadow of a doubt, and biological mechanisms are too complex for them to explain so a creator must've done it". This sort of hypothesis violates every rule of science.
And theoretical falsification is not the ideal, but it's falsification nonetheless. No, it won't necessarily prove anything about origins of life if a scientist manages to facilitate the creation of life in a laboratory from inorganic chemicals, but it would show that life is not irreducibly complex. Again, though, it still could NEVER disprove the existence of a creator. That element of ID, which uses a supernatural cause to explain the unknown (rather than just leaving that spot on the shelf o' knowledge empty) is the root of why it's unacceptably bad science. "We can see this, but we don't know why," is a hypothesis that doesn't require falsifiability..."We know something we can't possibly know through scientific means, prove we're wrong!" is not falsifiable.
On the contrary; the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable in theory, given time. It is an extrapolation on a readily-observable known, falsifiable mechanism (microevolution). It demands change, if species prove to be immutable over the next several millennia, then macroevolution could consider itself falsified. I don't think artificially accelerated selection to force the process of change necessarily constitutes falsifiability by way of proving the mechanism (or utterly failing to do so), but it's a good start.
On the other hand, the mechanism for Intelligent Design/Relabeled Creationism Nonsense is utterly unfalsifiable. Nobody can ever prove a creator/designer didn't exist. In that that's the root of Creationism/ID, there is no way to prove that false, extrapolation or not. Even if species prove over the long run to be subject to macroevolutionary changes, it is STILL impossible to prove the absence of a creator. Even though macroevolutionary extrapolation probably couldn't conclusively prove the hypothesis regarding the origin of life on Earth should it prove itself as the future unfolds (that much is unfalsifiable given all technology we're able to dream of at this time, regardless of how you look at it, since the origin of life is a historical event and not a method that can be experimentally tested), it cannot disprove the possibility of an unfalsifiable creator. And that is the difference.
At least he offers that much for the sake of accuracy.;) I don't always like the hard line he takes against religion and the existence of God, taking atheism almost to the degree of zeal as a bonafide religion, but at least it sounds like he's consistent in applying the principles he preaches.
Except he's being misleading and his goal isn't to get scientists to look at ID, it's to get the public to think that they can't trust those evil godless scientists, because all they're doing is agenda-pushing. If you can get people to doubt objective facts, there's no limit to what you can do!
EXACTLY! Steins' approach is tangential, which is particularly effective for propaganda purposes. And, amazingly enough, Stein happens to be a career propagandist!
One thing I've had trouble doing with Creationists is convincing them that just because they can pull some random, unquantified, and untested potential causes of error in scientific methods out to raise doubts about a scientific method not only doesn't disprove the particular method, but it also wouldn't support Creationism if it somehow did manage to do so.
For example, take my discussion with a Young-Earth Creationist a year or so ago. I described dating methods. She attempted to foster doubts about radiocarbon dating by talking about how "there could've been different concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past" and about K-Ar igneous rock dating with something nearly as spurious. For the sake of diligence, I looked up these doubt hypotheses myself, most hits were to Creationist websites and not detailed. I then asked her to elaborate on these hypotheses, to be specific on the margin of error these doubts could potentially introduce. Unsurprisingly, she wasn't able to put-up so she wound up shutting-up.
"What would the concentration of carbon compounds in the atmosphere have to be in order to change a date from on the scale of tens of thousands of years, to fewer than 5,000 years, and what mechanism would you propose that would account for this sort of change?"
"Is the potential flaw in the K-Ar dating method substantial enough to cause an igneous rock that solidified less than 5,000 years ago to appear to have solidified hundreds of thousands of years ago based on isotope ratios?"
The moral: you want to object to a scientific method, you'd better have thought about the method and magnitude of the sources of error you're trying to convince scientists of; it's not like faith, where the mere shadow of doubt is catastrophic. Doubts must be quantified and their implications analyzed before any meaningful damage is done to a theory.
Ben Stein wins at propaganda, but fails at science.
A scientific theory is falsifiable. That is, there is a possibility that the hypothesis can be conclusively proven to be untrue (and a negative cannot be proven, and is thus unfalsifiable). There are no alternative theories to macroevolution that have a shred of supporting evidence or are conceivably falsifiable. Macroevolutionary theory is at least theoretically falsifiable, which makes it THE theory.
Everything else is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Here are some of the alternatives:
"We just don't know, it's too confusing and complicated..."
"In the beginning, God created..."
"In the beginning, an "intelligent designer" created..."
"It must've been advanced aliens"
Non-scientific, unfalsifiable hypotheses don't belong in science classes, period. It's not fair to present them on the same footing as an actual theory, and it's not fair to waste time tearing them up in the scientific arena. It's like in the movie where Indiana Jones brought a gun to a swordfight. Or the Egyptian thug brought a sword to a gunfight.
That is why it is WRONG to teach these hypotheses in a science class-- either the unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable hypothesis will be ridiculed and trashed by a zealous science instructor, or non-science will be elevated in status to real science. Either way, a student is done a disservice, either by having his/her religious believes thrashed, or by not being taught credible science. That is the point you missed from the satirical post you responded to. Science has at least theoretically falsifiable theories for the absurd alternatives suggested, which Christians have believed in the past, and some continue to believe (i.e., that illnesses are caused by demons and cured by praying, and that natural phenomena are the result of benevolence or malevolence of gods). It's just that science, aided by Occam's Razor, has all-but eliminated the superstitious and fantastic explanations for most natural phenomena. We don't teach alternatives to those theories.
And if you don't understand what the implications of what I'm saying are, I challenge you to prove that the "God Germs" hypothesis is false. (Hint: you can't, no matter how foolish it sounds...just like ID.)
The theory that aliens designed life as we know it on Earth is utterly unfalsifiable. Dawkins likely wasn't so much admitting anything, as throwing around other fantastic theories. It's just another flavor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis. It has precisely the same degree of falsifiability as the notions presented in the Holy Bible regarding the existence of God and his creation of everything, and it's intentionally absurd to satire theism. It doesn't matter that everyone knows that FSM is a satirical fabrication, that's the entire point: even though it's a known falsehood, nobody can disprove the existence of the FSM. It cuts to the quick of why Christianity, despite some additional provenance in that people have truly believed in it and its principal actors for a few thousand years, is in exactly the same boat.
Dawkins is being intellectually honest in "admitting" that something unfalsifiable could've happened. In Dawkins' world, aliens (remarkably advanced beings, but nothing supernatural) are a more probable explanation than the ludicrously unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural. Dawkins is only being less-than-objective in his complete discounting of the possibility of God. That's still unfalsifiable, but Dawkins is so opposed to the God Delusion that he just discards the notion outright. I don't like that about him, even though I share much the same view-- I'll respect the remote possibility of an unfalsifiable theory...but I consider that to be such a black mark against it that I really won't dignify it with a point-by-point refutation or any status in a debate.
Ben Stein, on the other hand, is being intellectually dishonest as he pushes his completely unfalsifiable theory and creatively edits footage to make it look like his opponents' theories are just as unfalsifiable. It's not clever, it's disingenuous if Stein is purporting to try to foster an intellectual debate. It's a strawman. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have a degree in macrobiology and I don't recall much of anyone with scientific credibility arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are "the same thing." What evolution science does postulate, however, is that microevolution and macroevolution are inextricably linked together, in that macroevolution is the theoretical cumulative result of microevolution in a population on a massive timescale. The only way this is falsifiable is to wait thousands upon thousands of years while generations of scientists make very careful observations of populations. We have time. That is of course a work in progress, but the field of scientific research is still far younger than the history it's studying, and what has been observed in realtime thus far is barely a blip on the timescale it's making observations about.
The difference in degrees of falsifiability, though, which is what this boils down to, is that evolutionary theory is THEORETICALLY falsifiable, as I outline above. Intelligent Design/"Relabelled Creationist Nonsense" or the other imaginative theories lurking in the wings are utterly unfalsifiable theories. It's not just that they're unpractical, yet possible, to falsify from a theoretical standpoint, they're not even in the same ballpark. This is the standpoint these theories are mocked from, since they will never be falsifiable and they'll never change. It's simply not possible to prove that God (I'm not keen on humoring the pretenses that ID advocates harbor that they're being objective by not pinning-down a specific deity by using the term "designer") didn't create everything. Until a Creationist or objective scientist proposes a theory that's remotely falsifiable, they're going to be mocked when attempting to play the game of science, AND RIGHTLY SO.
All I can say is, if you're correct, I honestly hope Dell's customers sue them for misrepresentation and false advertising just like people who bought various misrepresented Mac products sued Apple. 24-bit 16.7M color =/= "1.67M" (262k) 18-bit. No way, no how.
I'd say "enhanced" color depth would be the appropriate way to describe the various tricks used to simulate 24-bit from an 18-bit screen, but misrepresenting hardware color depth is lying and it's unacceptable, whether Apple does it or Dell does. It's been a while since I've taken apart a Dell or sold parts, so I don't know exactly what's in the e1505/e1705 or the various XPS models they claim as 16.7m color displays, but even Apple wasn't so bold as to claim 16.7m colors on the new 20" eMacs, just saying, "millions! of colors."
I think a lot of the discussion centering around what end-users should have to deal with is tantamount to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I've been an onsite technician for years, both freelance and working for major manufacturers. A good number of my jobs were in the homes of Joe and Mary Sixpack, and I usually fixed exactly the same things for them in Windows which I find myself doing for myself in Linux. And more, since Windows isn't really a stable operating system in that it gets wobbly and slow over time if not maintained well or if it has too much junk software installed.
I made thousands of dollars removing spyware and malware from Windows and otherwise "making the internet faster". Most users don't use their computers for gaming. They don't have exotic computers, or exotic hardware connected to their computers. They surf the web, use email, and use word processors. Most can't even make a distinction between AOL and "the internet".
I think it'll be the end of the world if crapplications like Weatherbug is ever ported over to Linux. That's when Linux will lose its primary advantage over Windows as far as being largely free of crapplications that impair the clueless users' computing experience to the degree it necessitates a housecall from the local geek to get rid of the junk. Until then, Linux stands to save end users both money and grief.
That's also not a stock mouse. Why would anyone expect it to just work and be easy-to-configure without the manufacturer's drivers or additional software?
I seem to recall that I had to install the software for my Microsoft Trackball Optical to get the the extra buttons to work under Windows 2000, and possibly under XP as well. All four of its buttons and the scroll wheel and the wheel button were recognized immediately and functioned correctly under Kubuntu without me needing to do anything (and once recognized, I was able to map all four buttons and the wheel button in games and such). I find that a bit ironic, just saying.
I have yet to see the 17" WUXGA LCD monitors. Or really any WUXGA monitor smaller than about 22". The 17" panels don't appear to have ever been used in the desktop LCD application. They may not be common, in that they're typically only used in higher-end laptops, but they're obviously laptop screens.
Also, you could also get 24-bit displays in Dell's 15" e1505 Inspiron laptop and derivatives like the XPS of the corresponding size. Other manufacturers no doubt have similar choices. The e1505 is far from an oddball, it was one of the more popular and inexpensive general-purpose consumer laptops on the market, and it has a 15" 24-bit WXSGA display. Yes, the newest 15" Inspiron has an 18-bit display, but that's because Dell cheapened it to compete on a price point. That's basically what Apple did with the smaller eMac LCD to increase their profit margin, only they didn't really tell the full truth about the change and they weren't honest about the actual hardware color depth of that model.
If you want to confirm, go check Dell's website: go to Support, Manuals, locate the owner's manual, view it in HTML, and jump to specifications. Dell is quite honest about their specs, listing the 6bpp displays as 262,144 (or 262k in some manuals) colors, and the 8bpp displays are of course the 16.7 million colors.
I think the disconnect, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you do not believe that operating systems can be structured so that they are immune to viruses. Is this correct?
Do you believe that an OS can be structured to tell the difference between an application that's Working as Intended (tm) and an application that has been exploited or is just plain malware? I don't believe one can be. Computers will continue to be operated by humans, who make poor choices. Applications that run on top of OSes will continue to be written by developers who aren't perfect and may be downright incompetent, which can open-up machines to exploits.
The only disconnect I perceive is that you seem to think that there's a mutually-exclusive difference between trojans, viruses, and botnets the way you use those terms. These things are indeed different, but not in the way you seem to believe they are.
--A trojan is an exploit vector that exploits ignorance or gullibility, i.e., flaws in the fleshy operator (other exploits involve hardware, firmware, or software flaws).
--A virus is simply a type of malware, as is a worm, backdoor, or botnet daemon; they are the application that takes some action (and typically have the exploit packaged with them, but not necessarily).
--A botnet is just one of the potential consequences of malware, it doesn't matter how the machine was compromised, just that it's running the daemon that allows the botherder to control it.
Do you realize that a trojan is quite capable of tricking a user into installing the malware necessary to turn a *nix machine into a botnet node? If an OS is vulnerable to trojans, it can be turned to the whims of whatever the provider of the malware wished it to be.
Do you believe that someone couldn't craft a *nix binary that, if executed under elevated permissions, would open ports, install an SMTP daemon, and install an SSH daemon that would allow a botherder to control the actions of the SMTP server or do anything else with that machine?
In my experience, the difference between matte and glossy usually is linked to the display's resolution and color depth. I like higher-performance laptops, so this probably isn't the absolute rule, but...
I have a Dell XPS m1730, the resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) for a 17" screen and based on the published specifications, it seems to definitely be a 24-bit color display. It's also glossy.
I have a Thinkpad Z61p, also WUXGA, but based on the specs, it's definitely only an 18-bit color display. It's a matte 15.4" screen.
The most cited reason I've seen for this difference is that the matte screens diffuse each pixel's output, which masks defects and also helps blend colors better despite the lower color depth. The tiny bit of diffusion can also help blur out the pixel pitch a little in lower resolution screens. When a display has high pixel density and 24-bit color depth, glossy screens do make for sharper images and blacker blacks, despite the annoying glare.
As for obnoxious color, most manufacturers and consumers seem to turn chrominance up too high and have the luminance out-of-whack too, regardless of the display type. The 24-bit screens tend to have a much higher contrast ratio than the 18-bit screens as well, which means the picture will look lousy if it's not adjusted. Turn the chrominance down. Turn the luminance down. Turn the contrast down. Your eyes will thank you for it. A blue gel (available at video production and some camera stores) is really nice to have for calibrating monitors and televisions, if you have a good test pattern you can output to the screen.
What if all a user is guilty of is not downloading (or being able to download) a few dozen megs of patches from Microsoft on a regular basis, in order to correct the egregious security flaws that require no user interaction as they infect a machine?
That's a lot of the problem-- Outlook and Internet Explorer are prone to just automatically executing whatever they encounter with elevated permissions if they're not patched and locked-down completely. End-user incompetence is not the only thing to blame anymore.
I will say that it's unfair to everyone else who pays to use the internet & run or utilize services that people who aren't maintaining their computers competently are able to make a mess of things. ISPs should be more proactive in kicking machines off their networks that exhibit evidence of being compromised.
Not even Linux boxes are safe from hacking. [softpedia.com]
Point one: That's not an example of "hacking/being hacked". That's an example of a virus that relies heavily on end-user stupidity. I.e., executing a file with elevated permissions.
Point two: It's not a prevalent exploit, with Symantec estimating that there have been fewer than 49 infections over the past six years.
We have a lot of programs written by people who simply do not understand security issues. Windows, for example,
I couldn't agree more! Oh, okay, I did get clever when snipping that quote, but more seriously, Windows was clearly written by people who were not terribly concerned or competent when it came to building a multiuser, network OS. The preponderance of exploits that take advantage of remote, privilege-escalation, and auto-execution exploits in Windows and the Microsoft applications that come bundled with it underscore this point. Name a single Linux remote exploit, patched or not. Name a single Linux privilege-escalation exploit. Or a single auto-execution one of the sort that had Outlook Express automatically installing malware if a user just received an email with a malicious payload.
You just can't hope for a sturdy structure if you're building on a crumbling foundation. Security incompetence can bring down the sturdiest structures, but it takes far more than "just not being completely incompetent" to secure a structure that could be blown down in a breeze because it's so shoddy.
If someone signs-on with Network Solutions, it's par for the course. It's just what they do, from domain "tasting", to putting holds on domains people search on, to sending out misleading renewal notices, to other highly questionable practices, they're still acting like they act like they're still the registrar monopoly. Until ICANN decides to smack them down, they'll continue to push the limits.
It's almost like they hold meetings to decide which abusive or sleazy practice they'll see how long they can get away with each month.
I used to be an operator for a water works, their security was a complete joke. Under their system, the municipal water supply was only safe as long as nobody wanted to poison it. The plant grounds weren't secure (there was a gaping hole under the perimeter fence due to terrain, nobody cared), the fence wasn't topped with barbed-wire as I recall, and while the proper doors on the plant were secured with locks, the assorted access hatches, some at ground level, were completely unlocked. There was no intrusion alert system of any sort, and the location wasn't staffed 24/7. Well, it should've been staffed 24/7, but the district manager was a kook who maintained a hard line that "nobody should ever have to work a graveyard shift!", even when we all volunteered for it and desperately wanted to improve operations by doing so during summer when we ran over our rated capacity for 18 hours a day. But I digress.
That was just the pathetic security picture at the water works plant itself. Neither of the two ~300k gallon water tanks off-grounds had their main hatches secured with more than a flimsy padlock (there were no 'hatch open' alarms or anything, not that it would've mattered with nobody working overnight anyway and the district being so technologically incompetent that there simply was no technology), and they weren't in visible locations.
I'm sure things have gotten a little better since I worked there, 9/11 happened in the meantime. This water district served a suburb of one of the larger US cities, so it could well have been a target. There was no excuse for even the simplest security measures not being taken. All it would've taken was someone with a twisted mission from God to wreak havoc, and the water supply for tens of thousands of people would've been tainted and unsafe.
Guess what? If you allow someone to pay with Paypal, and don't have proof from a 3rd-party courier with tracking that the parcel was delivered to that person, you never shipped it if the buyer decides to file a dispute. Kiss your money and the time you spent delivering items goodbye, the so-called Seller Protection Policy is a complete sham even if you do follow the rules to the letter, which you're not if you don't have a verifiable online delivery confirmation method. Under the "Seller Protection Policy", a buyer just has to file a dispute and return the item to you. It doesn't matter how egregious the lies they tell Paypal are, they're 100% correct because they can file a chargeback, which might cause Paypal to lose money. So, the seller is wrong and gets left holding the bag for whatever the buyer decides to return.
The moral is, if you don't know your buyer well enough to trust them to mail you cash after you've delivered the product, you'd better think twice before using Paypal for anything.
First point: The black-hat scum don't even have anywhere near 100% of the Windows market; there are plenty of competent Windows admins.
Second point: As far as Linux goes, it's highly unlikely the trickery attacks would be successful with Linux users, folks in that demographic generally have more than half a clue about how computers function and are savvy. The platform is far more secure, so most Linux exploits would likely involve the operator granting them permissions.
Third point: Mac users, not so much, quite a few apparently fell for that "install this viewer to look at porn!" trojan a couple of months ago. They're the current morons in the UNIX world, not unlike the computer operators in the Windows world whose systems comprise the botnets.
Ultimately, I do believe Windows fading away would lead to a fantastic new internet, much cleaner than the malware filth and spam that clogs the common network today. But I'm still not so overconfident as to say that Linux or Mac boxes won't fall. Some will be tapped, exploits will be found (and patched). Security failures are simply a fact of life, being that no code is perfect and computers are run by fallible humans with varying degrees of ignorance and gullibility. Again, it's all a matter of magnitude.
Think of it as an online Skinner Box with virtual rewards. It's designed to condition people into behavioral patterns in exchange for a stimulus. If the stimulus is pleasurable enough to cause them to neglect critical things in their lives, then the subject might exhibit superficial SYMPTOMS of addiction, but it's still conditioning. Sure, drugs condition people too, but there's a difference between psychological conditioning and physical chemical dependence.
I saw an interesting spoof of one of those office motivational posters (not quite a Demotivator (tm), just your typical LOLposter) with a photo of Dubbya.
The caption read:
INT: Not everyone uses Charisma as their dump stat.
Once upon a time, there was a city where most people lived in tents. Most were made of ripstop nylon, but there were some made of canvas, blue tarps, and some were basically old garbage bags.
Obviously, tents aren't that secure. Most people didn't bother to even try to secure the flaps on their tents, some bought and installed luggage padlocks to secure the zippers, but even those were only a slight hinderance in this city that relied mostly upon trust and goodwill. All an intruder needed was a knife to slash a hole in the fabric or a stitch-puller to intrude on others' tents, for the purpose of mischief, hiding radios that only broadcast advertisements, stealing information, and the like. Some even set-up shop in other folks' tents, posting advertising and selling goods and services, simply not caring about the actual owners' wishes.
There weren't only tents in the city. Some people did live in wooden or stone shacks, and a few of the tent-dwellers even modified their tents into reinforced shanties with sheets of metal and plywood. They were largely ignored by the criminal element, simply because the time and effort it took to break into one reinforced tent or shack, they could break-into several tents and accomplish the same ends. Given that the overwhelming number of ne'er-do-wells in this city only possessed pocketknives, they lacked the means to break into the stronger structures, and typically had to resort to tricking the residents of those structures into leaving the doors ajar.
Windows has two critical traits that cause it to be such a problem on the internet: it's easily compromised and extremely popular. If either factor wasn't in its favor, the problem probably wouldn't be quite as serious, but Windows just hasn't developed appropriately for use in a multiuser, networked computing environment. The same rules that apply when you're camping in the wilderness when you're isolated become absurd when you're building a shelter when there are other people, including criminal elements, in close proximity.
To the question you pose, I think the answer is probably going to turn out to be, "Actually, yes". The overwhelming majority of current exploits are against pathetic Windows security, where there is little separation between the outside vs. inside, and no compartmentalization on the inside to limit the damage. There will still be some level of crime and confidence games in communities that have greater individual security, but the casual and inexperienced criminals wouldn't have the sort of free reign they enjoy when it takes little skill or knowledge to accomplish their goals. Would an internet dominated by Linux and OS X still have machines compromised into zombies on botnets? Of course, they're still maintained by humans who don't all care about security and fall for tricks. But it wouldn't be anywhere near on this magnitude.
If most go unreported you can't really infer much from the minority which are reported. One possible reason for a rape being unreported is if the perpetrator was the "wrong gender", especially if that also applied to the victim.
Quite true, except that 'unreported' doesn't necessarily mean 'undiscovered'...many times such things are discovered indirectly or reported well after the fact, when the statistic likely won't be entered. Many adults recount abuse they suffered as children when the case is so cold that there's nothing to investigate and no charges that can be filed. Likewise, many victims of date rape don't want to make waves and often blame themselves. I don't know about "wrong genders" as they apply to victims or perpetrators. Male-male rape certainly happens, but incidents of women raping men are pretty difficult to establish (unless it's a woman sexually abusing a man with an object, or forcibly injecting him with an erectile drug) and society's double-standards.
About all you can do with the data is try to make educated guesses based on what cases are reported or discovered. The statistics seem to be strong enough even focusing only on known, verifiable cases to make pretty definitive statements that rapes by complete strangers is rare; knowing more would likely only make that figure relatively smaller. Which is mostly a good thing, I think. This means that people can be more concerned with being suspicious about the enemies they know, rather than living in fear of the largely imaginary psychopath-villains who are rather few and far between, but whose influence has been inflated to ridiculous proportions. See also, terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for putting another spin on what I was attempting to explain, I really like the divide-by-zero analogy. That captures the essence of the falsifiability requirement perfectly. The dividend is basically the inquiry you're seeking to ask, the hypothesis would be the divisor, and the quotient would be the conclusion. Even if the quotient is infinitely larger or small that it's difficult to arrive at and approaches infinity, it's still a valid quotient. Have a non-falsifiable zero divisor, then the wheels fall off and you get a rather meaningless, undefined, and illogical conclusion.
That still can't falsify the theory of ID. Even if science is able to demonstrate that macroevolution does work in practice and that nothing biological is irreducibly complex, that's not the information required for falsification. The main tenet of ID is that there is a creator who created life. These people are not concerned about science in the least, the complexity and lack of explanation isn't what bothers them. They have an agenda to declare that there is God, and that God created life, because they MUST prove the scripture that says that's what happened to be true, or they've been believing in a lie. Science would have to prove the lack of existence of this creator god, which is not possible.
This is the fundamental problem with ID-- it's a foregone conclusion that begged for its own hypothesis. The ID hypothesis is basically, "We believe there is an intelligent desginer/creator, and our rationale is that the theory of macroevolution doesn't satisfactorily prove life evolved from inorganic chemicals on its own beyond a shadow of a doubt, and biological mechanisms are too complex for them to explain so a creator must've done it". This sort of hypothesis violates every rule of science.
And theoretical falsification is not the ideal, but it's falsification nonetheless. No, it won't necessarily prove anything about origins of life if a scientist manages to facilitate the creation of life in a laboratory from inorganic chemicals, but it would show that life is not irreducibly complex. Again, though, it still could NEVER disprove the existence of a creator. That element of ID, which uses a supernatural cause to explain the unknown (rather than just leaving that spot on the shelf o' knowledge empty) is the root of why it's unacceptably bad science. "We can see this, but we don't know why," is a hypothesis that doesn't require falsifiability..."We know something we can't possibly know through scientific means, prove we're wrong!" is not falsifiable.
On the contrary; the theory of macroevolution is falsifiable in theory, given time. It is an extrapolation on a readily-observable known, falsifiable mechanism (microevolution). It demands change, if species prove to be immutable over the next several millennia, then macroevolution could consider itself falsified. I don't think artificially accelerated selection to force the process of change necessarily constitutes falsifiability by way of proving the mechanism (or utterly failing to do so), but it's a good start.
On the other hand, the mechanism for Intelligent Design/Relabeled Creationism Nonsense is utterly unfalsifiable. Nobody can ever prove a creator/designer didn't exist. In that that's the root of Creationism/ID, there is no way to prove that false, extrapolation or not. Even if species prove over the long run to be subject to macroevolutionary changes, it is STILL impossible to prove the absence of a creator. Even though macroevolutionary extrapolation probably couldn't conclusively prove the hypothesis regarding the origin of life on Earth should it prove itself as the future unfolds (that much is unfalsifiable given all technology we're able to dream of at this time, regardless of how you look at it, since the origin of life is a historical event and not a method that can be experimentally tested), it cannot disprove the possibility of an unfalsifiable creator. And that is the difference.
At least he offers that much for the sake of accuracy. ;) I don't always like the hard line he takes against religion and the existence of God, taking atheism almost to the degree of zeal as a bonafide religion, but at least it sounds like he's consistent in applying the principles he preaches.
EXACTLY! Steins' approach is tangential, which is particularly effective for propaganda purposes. And, amazingly enough, Stein happens to be a career propagandist!
One thing I've had trouble doing with Creationists is convincing them that just because they can pull some random, unquantified, and untested potential causes of error in scientific methods out to raise doubts about a scientific method not only doesn't disprove the particular method, but it also wouldn't support Creationism if it somehow did manage to do so.
For example, take my discussion with a Young-Earth Creationist a year or so ago. I described dating methods. She attempted to foster doubts about radiocarbon dating by talking about how "there could've been different concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past" and about K-Ar igneous rock dating with something nearly as spurious. For the sake of diligence, I looked up these doubt hypotheses myself, most hits were to Creationist websites and not detailed. I then asked her to elaborate on these hypotheses, to be specific on the margin of error these doubts could potentially introduce. Unsurprisingly, she wasn't able to put-up so she wound up shutting-up.
"What would the concentration of carbon compounds in the atmosphere have to be in order to change a date from on the scale of tens of thousands of years, to fewer than 5,000 years, and what mechanism would you propose that would account for this sort of change?"
"Is the potential flaw in the K-Ar dating method substantial enough to cause an igneous rock that solidified less than 5,000 years ago to appear to have solidified hundreds of thousands of years ago based on isotope ratios?"
The moral: you want to object to a scientific method, you'd better have thought about the method and magnitude of the sources of error you're trying to convince scientists of; it's not like faith, where the mere shadow of doubt is catastrophic. Doubts must be quantified and their implications analyzed before any meaningful damage is done to a theory.
Ben Stein wins at propaganda, but fails at science.
...it means what you think it means.
A scientific theory is falsifiable. That is, there is a possibility that the hypothesis can be conclusively proven to be untrue (and a negative cannot be proven, and is thus unfalsifiable). There are no alternative theories to macroevolution that have a shred of supporting evidence or are conceivably falsifiable. Macroevolutionary theory is at least theoretically falsifiable, which makes it THE theory.
Everything else is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Here are some of the alternatives:
Non-scientific, unfalsifiable hypotheses don't belong in science classes, period. It's not fair to present them on the same footing as an actual theory, and it's not fair to waste time tearing them up in the scientific arena. It's like in the movie where Indiana Jones brought a gun to a swordfight. Or the Egyptian thug brought a sword to a gunfight.
That is why it is WRONG to teach these hypotheses in a science class-- either the unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable hypothesis will be ridiculed and trashed by a zealous science instructor, or non-science will be elevated in status to real science. Either way, a student is done a disservice, either by having his/her religious believes thrashed, or by not being taught credible science. That is the point you missed from the satirical post you responded to. Science has at least theoretically falsifiable theories for the absurd alternatives suggested, which Christians have believed in the past, and some continue to believe (i.e., that illnesses are caused by demons and cured by praying, and that natural phenomena are the result of benevolence or malevolence of gods). It's just that science, aided by Occam's Razor, has all-but eliminated the superstitious and fantastic explanations for most natural phenomena. We don't teach alternatives to those theories.
And if you don't understand what the implications of what I'm saying are, I challenge you to prove that the "God Germs" hypothesis is false. (Hint: you can't, no matter how foolish it sounds...just like ID.)
The theory that aliens designed life as we know it on Earth is utterly unfalsifiable. Dawkins likely wasn't so much admitting anything, as throwing around other fantastic theories. It's just another flavor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis. It has precisely the same degree of falsifiability as the notions presented in the Holy Bible regarding the existence of God and his creation of everything, and it's intentionally absurd to satire theism. It doesn't matter that everyone knows that FSM is a satirical fabrication, that's the entire point: even though it's a known falsehood, nobody can disprove the existence of the FSM. It cuts to the quick of why Christianity, despite some additional provenance in that people have truly believed in it and its principal actors for a few thousand years, is in exactly the same boat.
Dawkins is being intellectually honest in "admitting" that something unfalsifiable could've happened. In Dawkins' world, aliens (remarkably advanced beings, but nothing supernatural) are a more probable explanation than the ludicrously unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural. Dawkins is only being less-than-objective in his complete discounting of the possibility of God. That's still unfalsifiable, but Dawkins is so opposed to the God Delusion that he just discards the notion outright. I don't like that about him, even though I share much the same view-- I'll respect the remote possibility of an unfalsifiable theory...but I consider that to be such a black mark against it that I really won't dignify it with a point-by-point refutation or any status in a debate.
Ben Stein, on the other hand, is being intellectually dishonest as he pushes his completely unfalsifiable theory and creatively edits footage to make it look like his opponents' theories are just as unfalsifiable. It's not clever, it's disingenuous if Stein is purporting to try to foster an intellectual debate. It's a strawman. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have a degree in macrobiology and I don't recall much of anyone with scientific credibility arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are "the same thing." What evolution science does postulate, however, is that microevolution and macroevolution are inextricably linked together, in that macroevolution is the theoretical cumulative result of microevolution in a population on a massive timescale. The only way this is falsifiable is to wait thousands upon thousands of years while generations of scientists make very careful observations of populations. We have time. That is of course a work in progress, but the field of scientific research is still far younger than the history it's studying, and what has been observed in realtime thus far is barely a blip on the timescale it's making observations about.
The difference in degrees of falsifiability, though, which is what this boils down to, is that evolutionary theory is THEORETICALLY falsifiable, as I outline above. Intelligent Design/"Relabelled Creationist Nonsense" or the other imaginative theories lurking in the wings are utterly unfalsifiable theories. It's not just that they're unpractical, yet possible, to falsify from a theoretical standpoint, they're not even in the same ballpark. This is the standpoint these theories are mocked from, since they will never be falsifiable and they'll never change. It's simply not possible to prove that God (I'm not keen on humoring the pretenses that ID advocates harbor that they're being objective by not pinning-down a specific deity by using the term "designer") didn't create everything. Until a Creationist or objective scientist proposes a theory that's remotely falsifiable, they're going to be mocked when attempting to play the game of science, AND RIGHTLY SO.
All I can say is, if you're correct, I honestly hope Dell's customers sue them for misrepresentation and false advertising just like people who bought various misrepresented Mac products sued Apple. 24-bit 16.7M color =/= "1.67M" (262k) 18-bit. No way, no how.
I'd say "enhanced" color depth would be the appropriate way to describe the various tricks used to simulate 24-bit from an 18-bit screen, but misrepresenting hardware color depth is lying and it's unacceptable, whether Apple does it or Dell does. It's been a while since I've taken apart a Dell or sold parts, so I don't know exactly what's in the e1505/e1705 or the various XPS models they claim as 16.7m color displays, but even Apple wasn't so bold as to claim 16.7m colors on the new 20" eMacs, just saying, "millions! of colors."
I think a lot of the discussion centering around what end-users should have to deal with is tantamount to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I've been an onsite technician for years, both freelance and working for major manufacturers. A good number of my jobs were in the homes of Joe and Mary Sixpack, and I usually fixed exactly the same things for them in Windows which I find myself doing for myself in Linux. And more, since Windows isn't really a stable operating system in that it gets wobbly and slow over time if not maintained well or if it has too much junk software installed.
I made thousands of dollars removing spyware and malware from Windows and otherwise "making the internet faster". Most users don't use their computers for gaming. They don't have exotic computers, or exotic hardware connected to their computers. They surf the web, use email, and use word processors. Most can't even make a distinction between AOL and "the internet".
I think it'll be the end of the world if crapplications like Weatherbug is ever ported over to Linux. That's when Linux will lose its primary advantage over Windows as far as being largely free of crapplications that impair the clueless users' computing experience to the degree it necessitates a housecall from the local geek to get rid of the junk. Until then, Linux stands to save end users both money and grief.
That's also not a stock mouse. Why would anyone expect it to just work and be easy-to-configure without the manufacturer's drivers or additional software?
I seem to recall that I had to install the software for my Microsoft Trackball Optical to get the the extra buttons to work under Windows 2000, and possibly under XP as well. All four of its buttons and the scroll wheel and the wheel button were recognized immediately and functioned correctly under Kubuntu without me needing to do anything (and once recognized, I was able to map all four buttons and the wheel button in games and such). I find that a bit ironic, just saying.
I have yet to see the 17" WUXGA LCD monitors. Or really any WUXGA monitor smaller than about 22". The 17" panels don't appear to have ever been used in the desktop LCD application. They may not be common, in that they're typically only used in higher-end laptops, but they're obviously laptop screens.
Also, you could also get 24-bit displays in Dell's 15" e1505 Inspiron laptop and derivatives like the XPS of the corresponding size. Other manufacturers no doubt have similar choices. The e1505 is far from an oddball, it was one of the more popular and inexpensive general-purpose consumer laptops on the market, and it has a 15" 24-bit WXSGA display. Yes, the newest 15" Inspiron has an 18-bit display, but that's because Dell cheapened it to compete on a price point. That's basically what Apple did with the smaller eMac LCD to increase their profit margin, only they didn't really tell the full truth about the change and they weren't honest about the actual hardware color depth of that model.
If you want to confirm, go check Dell's website: go to Support, Manuals, locate the owner's manual, view it in HTML, and jump to specifications. Dell is quite honest about their specs, listing the 6bpp displays as 262,144 (or 262k in some manuals) colors, and the 8bpp displays are of course the 16.7 million colors.
There are 8bpp laptops, and they're not oddballs.
Do you believe that an OS can be structured to tell the difference between an application that's Working as Intended (tm) and an application that has been exploited or is just plain malware? I don't believe one can be. Computers will continue to be operated by humans, who make poor choices. Applications that run on top of OSes will continue to be written by developers who aren't perfect and may be downright incompetent, which can open-up machines to exploits.
The only disconnect I perceive is that you seem to think that there's a mutually-exclusive difference between trojans, viruses, and botnets the way you use those terms. These things are indeed different, but not in the way you seem to believe they are.
--A trojan is an exploit vector that exploits ignorance or gullibility, i.e., flaws in the fleshy operator (other exploits involve hardware, firmware, or software flaws).
--A virus is simply a type of malware, as is a worm, backdoor, or botnet daemon; they are the application that takes some action (and typically have the exploit packaged with them, but not necessarily).
--A botnet is just one of the potential consequences of malware, it doesn't matter how the machine was compromised, just that it's running the daemon that allows the botherder to control it.
Do you realize that a trojan is quite capable of tricking a user into installing the malware necessary to turn a *nix machine into a botnet node? If an OS is vulnerable to trojans, it can be turned to the whims of whatever the provider of the malware wished it to be.
Do you believe that someone couldn't craft a *nix binary that, if executed under elevated permissions, would open ports, install an SMTP daemon, and install an SSH daemon that would allow a botherder to control the actions of the SMTP server or do anything else with that machine?
In my experience, the difference between matte and glossy usually is linked to the display's resolution and color depth. I like higher-performance laptops, so this probably isn't the absolute rule, but...
I have a Dell XPS m1730, the resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) for a 17" screen and based on the published specifications, it seems to definitely be a 24-bit color display. It's also glossy.
I have a Thinkpad Z61p, also WUXGA, but based on the specs, it's definitely only an 18-bit color display. It's a matte 15.4" screen.
The most cited reason I've seen for this difference is that the matte screens diffuse each pixel's output, which masks defects and also helps blend colors better despite the lower color depth. The tiny bit of diffusion can also help blur out the pixel pitch a little in lower resolution screens. When a display has high pixel density and 24-bit color depth, glossy screens do make for sharper images and blacker blacks, despite the annoying glare.
As for obnoxious color, most manufacturers and consumers seem to turn chrominance up too high and have the luminance out-of-whack too, regardless of the display type. The 24-bit screens tend to have a much higher contrast ratio than the 18-bit screens as well, which means the picture will look lousy if it's not adjusted. Turn the chrominance down. Turn the luminance down. Turn the contrast down. Your eyes will thank you for it. A blue gel (available at video production and some camera stores) is really nice to have for calibrating monitors and televisions, if you have a good test pattern you can output to the screen.
A good number of the glossy screens are 24-bit color displays, the matte screens generally are only 18-bit.
What if all a user is guilty of is not downloading (or being able to download) a few dozen megs of patches from Microsoft on a regular basis, in order to correct the egregious security flaws that require no user interaction as they infect a machine?
That's a lot of the problem-- Outlook and Internet Explorer are prone to just automatically executing whatever they encounter with elevated permissions if they're not patched and locked-down completely. End-user incompetence is not the only thing to blame anymore.
I will say that it's unfair to everyone else who pays to use the internet & run or utilize services that people who aren't maintaining their computers competently are able to make a mess of things. ISPs should be more proactive in kicking machines off their networks that exhibit evidence of being compromised.
Point one: That's not an example of "hacking/being hacked". That's an example of a virus that relies heavily on end-user stupidity. I.e., executing a file with elevated permissions.
Point two: It's not a prevalent exploit, with Symantec estimating that there have been fewer than 49 infections over the past six years.
We have a lot of programs written by people who simply do not understand security issues. Windows, for example,I couldn't agree more! Oh, okay, I did get clever when snipping that quote, but more seriously, Windows was clearly written by people who were not terribly concerned or competent when it came to building a multiuser, network OS. The preponderance of exploits that take advantage of remote, privilege-escalation, and auto-execution exploits in Windows and the Microsoft applications that come bundled with it underscore this point. Name a single Linux remote exploit, patched or not. Name a single Linux privilege-escalation exploit. Or a single auto-execution one of the sort that had Outlook Express automatically installing malware if a user just received an email with a malicious payload.
You just can't hope for a sturdy structure if you're building on a crumbling foundation. Security incompetence can bring down the sturdiest structures, but it takes far more than "just not being completely incompetent" to secure a structure that could be blown down in a breeze because it's so shoddy.
If someone signs-on with Network Solutions, it's par for the course. It's just what they do, from domain "tasting", to putting holds on domains people search on, to sending out misleading renewal notices, to other highly questionable practices, they're still acting like they act like they're still the registrar monopoly. Until ICANN decides to smack them down, they'll continue to push the limits.
It's almost like they hold meetings to decide which abusive or sleazy practice they'll see how long they can get away with each month.
I'm not sure such a thing exists.
I used to be an operator for a water works, their security was a complete joke. Under their system, the municipal water supply was only safe as long as nobody wanted to poison it. The plant grounds weren't secure (there was a gaping hole under the perimeter fence due to terrain, nobody cared), the fence wasn't topped with barbed-wire as I recall, and while the proper doors on the plant were secured with locks, the assorted access hatches, some at ground level, were completely unlocked. There was no intrusion alert system of any sort, and the location wasn't staffed 24/7. Well, it should've been staffed 24/7, but the district manager was a kook who maintained a hard line that "nobody should ever have to work a graveyard shift!", even when we all volunteered for it and desperately wanted to improve operations by doing so during summer when we ran over our rated capacity for 18 hours a day. But I digress.
That was just the pathetic security picture at the water works plant itself. Neither of the two ~300k gallon water tanks off-grounds had their main hatches secured with more than a flimsy padlock (there were no 'hatch open' alarms or anything, not that it would've mattered with nobody working overnight anyway and the district being so technologically incompetent that there simply was no technology), and they weren't in visible locations.
I'm sure things have gotten a little better since I worked there, 9/11 happened in the meantime. This water district served a suburb of one of the larger US cities, so it could well have been a target. There was no excuse for even the simplest security measures not being taken. All it would've taken was someone with a twisted mission from God to wreak havoc, and the water supply for tens of thousands of people would've been tainted and unsafe.
Guess what? If you allow someone to pay with Paypal, and don't have proof from a 3rd-party courier with tracking that the parcel was delivered to that person, you never shipped it if the buyer decides to file a dispute. Kiss your money and the time you spent delivering items goodbye, the so-called Seller Protection Policy is a complete sham even if you do follow the rules to the letter, which you're not if you don't have a verifiable online delivery confirmation method. Under the "Seller Protection Policy", a buyer just has to file a dispute and return the item to you. It doesn't matter how egregious the lies they tell Paypal are, they're 100% correct because they can file a chargeback, which might cause Paypal to lose money. So, the seller is wrong and gets left holding the bag for whatever the buyer decides to return.
The moral is, if you don't know your buyer well enough to trust them to mail you cash after you've delivered the product, you'd better think twice before using Paypal for anything.
First point: The black-hat scum don't even have anywhere near 100% of the Windows market; there are plenty of competent Windows admins.
Second point: As far as Linux goes, it's highly unlikely the trickery attacks would be successful with Linux users, folks in that demographic generally have more than half a clue about how computers function and are savvy. The platform is far more secure, so most Linux exploits would likely involve the operator granting them permissions.
Third point: Mac users, not so much, quite a few apparently fell for that "install this viewer to look at porn!" trojan a couple of months ago. They're the current morons in the UNIX world, not unlike the computer operators in the Windows world whose systems comprise the botnets.
Ultimately, I do believe Windows fading away would lead to a fantastic new internet, much cleaner than the malware filth and spam that clogs the common network today. But I'm still not so overconfident as to say that Linux or Mac boxes won't fall. Some will be tapped, exploits will be found (and patched). Security failures are simply a fact of life, being that no code is perfect and computers are run by fallible humans with varying degrees of ignorance and gullibility. Again, it's all a matter of magnitude.
Think of it as an online Skinner Box with virtual rewards. It's designed to condition people into behavioral patterns in exchange for a stimulus. If the stimulus is pleasurable enough to cause them to neglect critical things in their lives, then the subject might exhibit superficial SYMPTOMS of addiction, but it's still conditioning. Sure, drugs condition people too, but there's a difference between psychological conditioning and physical chemical dependence.
I saw an interesting spoof of one of those office motivational posters (not quite a Demotivator (tm), just your typical LOLposter) with a photo of Dubbya.
The caption read:
That just seems totally appropriate here. :)
Once upon a time, there was a city where most people lived in tents. Most were made of ripstop nylon, but there were some made of canvas, blue tarps, and some were basically old garbage bags.
Obviously, tents aren't that secure. Most people didn't bother to even try to secure the flaps on their tents, some bought and installed luggage padlocks to secure the zippers, but even those were only a slight hinderance in this city that relied mostly upon trust and goodwill. All an intruder needed was a knife to slash a hole in the fabric or a stitch-puller to intrude on others' tents, for the purpose of mischief, hiding radios that only broadcast advertisements, stealing information, and the like. Some even set-up shop in other folks' tents, posting advertising and selling goods and services, simply not caring about the actual owners' wishes.
There weren't only tents in the city. Some people did live in wooden or stone shacks, and a few of the tent-dwellers even modified their tents into reinforced shanties with sheets of metal and plywood. They were largely ignored by the criminal element, simply because the time and effort it took to break into one reinforced tent or shack, they could break-into several tents and accomplish the same ends. Given that the overwhelming number of ne'er-do-wells in this city only possessed pocketknives, they lacked the means to break into the stronger structures, and typically had to resort to tricking the residents of those structures into leaving the doors ajar.
Windows has two critical traits that cause it to be such a problem on the internet: it's easily compromised and extremely popular. If either factor wasn't in its favor, the problem probably wouldn't be quite as serious, but Windows just hasn't developed appropriately for use in a multiuser, networked computing environment. The same rules that apply when you're camping in the wilderness when you're isolated become absurd when you're building a shelter when there are other people, including criminal elements, in close proximity.
To the question you pose, I think the answer is probably going to turn out to be, "Actually, yes". The overwhelming majority of current exploits are against pathetic Windows security, where there is little separation between the outside vs. inside, and no compartmentalization on the inside to limit the damage. There will still be some level of crime and confidence games in communities that have greater individual security, but the casual and inexperienced criminals wouldn't have the sort of free reign they enjoy when it takes little skill or knowledge to accomplish their goals. Would an internet dominated by Linux and OS X still have machines compromised into zombies on botnets? Of course, they're still maintained by humans who don't all care about security and fall for tricks. But it wouldn't be anywhere near on this magnitude.
Quite true, except that 'unreported' doesn't necessarily mean 'undiscovered'...many times such things are discovered indirectly or reported well after the fact, when the statistic likely won't be entered. Many adults recount abuse they suffered as children when the case is so cold that there's nothing to investigate and no charges that can be filed. Likewise, many victims of date rape don't want to make waves and often blame themselves. I don't know about "wrong genders" as they apply to victims or perpetrators. Male-male rape certainly happens, but incidents of women raping men are pretty difficult to establish (unless it's a woman sexually abusing a man with an object, or forcibly injecting him with an erectile drug) and society's double-standards.
About all you can do with the data is try to make educated guesses based on what cases are reported or discovered. The statistics seem to be strong enough even focusing only on known, verifiable cases to make pretty definitive statements that rapes by complete strangers is rare; knowing more would likely only make that figure relatively smaller. Which is mostly a good thing, I think. This means that people can be more concerned with being suspicious about the enemies they know, rather than living in fear of the largely imaginary psychopath-villains who are rather few and far between, but whose influence has been inflated to ridiculous proportions. See also, terrorism.