I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published...
Microsoft is not known for having complete and accurate documentation of any of its APIs or file formats. If you want the absolute truth, you go to the source code. Think about it: if there were a discrepancy between what the documentation says, and what the code does, which one do you think will be considered "in error" in most cases?
It's rare that "specifications" are considered authoritative over "implementation" -- more common that "specifications" are written retroactively based on the implementation when people realise that the source code is an unreadable mess, but they still need to know what it does at a glance.
Excellent! A new source of Illudium Phosdex, no doubt. It will probably be over three hundred years before we can get there, though, by which time our supplies will be alarmingly low.
When Microsoft Targeted Netscape
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It is very clear that, unlike when Microsoft targeted Netscape, they are using their classic method of producing superior software by catering to the needs of the user.
Classic method of producing superior software? As opposed to their classic method of spreading FUD, their classic method of "embrace, extend, extinguish", or their classic method of cutting off the competition's air supply?
I'll grant that Microsoft did improve IE a great deal during the Netscape days, as one of the prongs in a multi-pronged attack on that company. Hell, history shows that the only motivation that Microsoft has for improving IE at all is competitive threat. The fact that they're starting to show some genuine improvement in IE again (after some years of stagnation) is testament to the fact that they're taking Firefox seriously.
What distinguishes this from the Netscape days is that Microsoft already played their "integrate the browser into the OS" trump card, and their new competitor has no "air supply" revenue streams to constrict. On top of which, Google is demonstrating itself to be a damn clever producer of web-applications which are genuinely cross-platform, so the whole "embrace and extend" tactic is starting to show signs of fatigue.
Microsoft might face a new challenge here: going feature-nuts on IE is one way to compete, but it's likely to open up new avenues of insecurity in a browser that already has the worst security track record. I don't think of Firefox as the be-all and end-all in secure browsing, but can Microsoft deliver the goods in security, even against a less-than-perfect competitor? I know they can bolt on features like there's no tomorrow, but it looks to me like security is the major root cause of Firefox migration at this point. Can Microsoft compete on security?
To the extent that physical artefacts were recovered from the trash, there's no question of theft here. I recall reading about a case a while back in which the police obtained evidence without a warrant by taking it from someone's trash, and the court ruled that as non-infringing. Some reporters retaliated by raiding the trash of some high-profile public servants associated with the area, and reporting on it. Sauce for the goose... gotta love it.
Anyhow, what you're asking about is the copyright, no doubt. We've had some succinct answers offered in this thread already, and I'll have to back the "maybe" on this. If it went to court, the arguments would be pretty interesting! Can you throw a copyright in the trash? I don't think the law specifies, and I don't think the courts have ever ruled on it. Interesting concept, though. If I were the lawyering type, I'd want to argue that the copyright was trashed, unless there is some evidence to suggest that the work was retained, or the copyright sold. My argument would be that the material entered the public domain due to abandonment -- although I'd find out what the accepted Latin phrase for that is, to underscore my lawyerhood.
How about, "if a copyright owner abandons all physical embodiments of the work, and has not entrusted the preservation of that work to another party, then, ceterus paribus, the copyright has also been abandoned." (Latin included only for show.)
I, too, would love more philosophy in school. As someone who is only now, in my thirties, discovering the joy of philosophy (and getting perfect grades for the first time ever), I look back and think how much better school would have been for me if there had been the slightest hint of philosophy there.
But that said, if we introduced philosophy into the curriculum, would we introduce only those viewpoints which were sympathetic to modern materialistic science? Only the empiricists and positivists? What about a bit of Feyerabend, the heretic? Feyerabend would really set the cat amongst the pigeons, since he insists that good scientific practice must be diverse. Feyerabend is absolutely pluralist about science, and offers loads of ammunition to those who want "both views" taught in school.
On the other hand, if you're only going to introduce those philosophies compatible with the view, "evolution is the only scientific theory of origins", then what distinguishes this from outright indoctrination? Philosophy is supposed to be about the development of critical skills, not imparting dogma.
Frankly I'm betting that philosophy will be kept well and truly out of the school system until the final overthrow of said system, since a decent dose of philosophy (involving several views that contradict each other and all make good points) encourages too much thought. God help us if students should start thinking for themselves, and not just act like willing sponges that soak up whatever fact-of-the-day is served to them. Think of the trouble it would cause! Think of how much more work teaching would involve if students had their intelligence nurtured, rather than being made to work according to the pattern of textbook-du-jour.
Philosophy has no place in modern schooling. This is why we are reduced to arguments as to which view of science gets exclusive distribution rights in school. To acknowledge that there might not be one single true view of science would open pandora's box in regards to the teaching of science. The students would start asking those kinds of smart alec questions which undermine the teacher's authority, leading to massive control problems. As someone who made the bad political move of questioning authority in school (as a student), I think I have just explained my way to a clearer understanding of why there was, is, and will be no philosophy in school.
So here's a point to ponder. I think that a goodly portion of the Slashdot audience thinks "critical skills are good, and we ought to encourage them in school". First up, note that my (somewhat cynical) description of the school process above suggests that school simply can not do this without bringing about its own destruction. In short, the students would become smart enough to realise that school is stupid, and revolt.
But that aside, consider the following dilemma. What if it were demonstrated that teaching two conflicting views of science (both of them credibly defended -- not a "real man versus straw man" situation) produces students with better critical skills? If you're one of the many who've commented that "evolution == science, and !evolution == !science", then would you be willing to allow a pseudoscience into the science curriculum if it improved critical thinking in general? No doubt you would not if there were no benefit, but would you be willing to sacrifice the "purity" of science teaching if it fostered greater critical skills? If not, then what about teaching philosophy and including those philosophers that have the best arguments against modern science, like Feyerabend?
In the first part of Matthew 19, some Pharisees come to Jesus to test him out. They ask about the legality of divorce. His answer rests on the creation account -- the precedent of Adam and Eve. Now I suppose that it's possible to assert that Jesus didn't actually believe the creation account was a historical truth, but I've seen no evidence to back that view. Jewish orthodoxy is that the creation account is literal, not metaphoric, or a fabrication. Consequently, I think Jesus would roundly contradict your view of history -- he would point to the scriptures (the "Old Testament" in our parlance) as the ultimate source of information on the matter, not the stars, stones, or bones.
This observation prompts me to ask why you describe yourself as "Christian". Actually, I could ask many people that, because there are many like you who call themselves "Christian" who do not follow Christ. Christ's teaching rests very squarely on the Old Testament. If you reject the veracity of the Old Testament, you have departed from the teaching of Jesus at a very fundamental level.
Surely there are more appropriate things to call yourself? What is it about Christianity that you believe, accept, or affirm? Given that information, maybe we can find a better religion for you -- one whose leading figure is not a fundamentalist like Jesus.
I was thinking more along the lines of "submergence", apropos of that sinking feeling one gets in a corporate environment where stupidity is mandated from On High.
On the matter of artificial scarcity in the DNS, you may find my "Cornucopia" idea interesting. It's in the category of crazy ideas that ought to be considered, even if only to break people out of an established mindset. (Also at my site.) The basic premiss of the idea: "What if every domain name you wanted was available?"
I think that Python is supposed to be better in benchmarks not listed on that page, such as "mean time to correctly add a feature to unfamiliar code, written by someone who has since left the company".
If you get orderd by a court to comply with an order,you dont start acting like a 3 year old who has had their crayons taken away for drawing on the walls.
I dunno -- it paid off for them in their antitrust case with the US Department of Justice, didn't it? Admittedly, the judge got pretty peeved with them, but I think that got the judge into more trouble than it did Microsoft.
Science Fiction is a sub-category of Fantasy. Actually, it's probably more than one sub-category of fantasy, or a "dimension" of fantasy.
Fantasy has to do with make-believe realms, like Middle Earth, or Narnia, or Discworld, or The Foundation, or Barsoom. Sometimes the realm is meant to be Earth itself, but not as we know it, such as in Minority Report. In some cases, the fantasy element is so minor that we'd probably classify it as drama rather than fantasy. Movies like Chain Reaction, Enemy of the State, and Mercury Rising have sci-fi elements (fantasy technology), although those fantasy elements aren't too far wide of reality, and only provide a context for the action and drama, which largely centres around people fleeing from powerful and secretive organisations that want to rub them out (in all three cases!).
Some flavours of sci-fi fantasy are "sci-fi" only because they are futuristic, such as in Star Trek, or set in space, such as Battlestar Galactica. Others, being more at the core of what sci-fi "purists" consider the real deal, are based on "what if" scenarios, such as "what if it were possible to accurately predict long term social trends mathematically?" -- which roughly describes the premise of Asimov's Foundation series. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy goes humorously overboard with "what if" scenarios, rather than sticking to a single one: the guide itself is a "what if", the legend of Magrathea is "what would people buy in an advanced society if they were really rich", the Hagunenons are "what if a species could evolve at whim", the Babel Fish, in addition to being a convenient plot device to avoid language issues, is "what if there existed a naturally occurring universal translator", and so on. The narrative of the Guide itself is the main vehicle for the "what if" scenarios.
All this leads me to say that all science fiction is fantasy, and all fantasy is fiction, but the converse statements are not true. So although I agree with the parent that fantasy without a science element is not sci-fi, I disagree strongly with the conclusion that "science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different". Science fiction is a particular kind of fantasy.
I think you're analysing it more deeply than was intended. The argument is supposed to go something like this.
Microsoft is developing a patent arsenal for defensive reasons.
Patents can't be used defensively when there is no patent law.
Therefore, Microsoft needs software patents in Europe so that they can defend themselves in Europe.
It's specious, since if there were no patents on software at all, they wouldn't need any defence against them. They'd be better off lobbying to remove software patents in the USA. But, they are, as usual, being disingenuous in their remarks. I reckon they intend to use software patents defensively against anything that threatens them, including but not limited to software patent threats. Patents are the best weapon anyone's been able to think of to cripple free software development, for instance, and that's the biggest threat on their radar at the moment.
What proof do I have? Only past patterns of behaviour and applied common sense. How come Microsoft's patent-frenzy is such a recent phenomenon if it has no connection with the free software threat, hmm? I mean, sure, they've been patenting things for a long time, but they only went ape-shit over them after they figured they might use them to cudgel a penguin. Seems obvious to me, at any rate.
I like languages mostly for the way they challenge my established thinking on programming. Smalltalk wasn't that much of a challenge to me, because I learned it fairly late in the overall scheme of things, and had already learned some of its concepts from other, more recent languages. Eiffel taught me the joys of assertions and programming by contract, as well as the joys and limitations of the OO inheritance model. Haskell was fascinating for its lazy evaluation, and the possibility of infinite lists.
But Perl! Ah, Perl! Such a bundle of contradictions! It violated every rule I held dear about language theory, and was a better language for it. Perl doesn't try to be a theoretically perfect language for any particular theory of linguistic perfection. It has principles, but it is not a slave to those principles. It has a degree of consistency, but never a foolish consistency.
No language on Earth has made me rethink my concepts of "what makes a good language" more than Perl.
Seldon's science of Psycho-history allowed him to know the future, the consequences of his actions, and how to bring about his desired circumstances. But in "Foundation and Earth" (as I recall), an argument is raised as to whether Seldon's plan for the future is, in fact, the best plan.
Think about it a little harder, dude. Science can tell you about consequences, but your judgement as to which consequence is the better is not, in itself, scientific. Scientifically informed, perhaps, or scientifically ignorant, but never itself scientific.
no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe.
Science is, loosely speaking, the study of the observable universe, and the attempt to describe it in as law-like terms as possible. The idea that science (and whatever methods it happens to use in our day) is the best for producing knowledge about the physical world is about as startling as the idea that bakery is the best means for producing bread.
or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know".
Not to mention a loose sense of "all". No amount of science will tell us what our aims ought to be in life, or about social values, or morality. Science can tell us about the consequences of our actions, but not which of those consequences we should prefer.
Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.
Venerable? An interesting choice of words. It makes your position seem so much more symmetric in relation to those who lament the world's lack of knowledge of scripture and failure to venerate a god of some sort.
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
That's a hasty conclusion, and a problematic one. Let's grant for the moment that hypotheses affording no testable predictions about the observable universe are unscientific. Let us then consider the possibility that unscientific hypotheses are meaningless. That's a hypothesis, isn't it? "Unscientific hypotheses are meaningless" is itself a hypothesis. Is it a scientific hypothesis, or an unscientific one? How do you perform a scientific test for meaningfulness? Statements and meanings are non-physical, ruling out scientific testing, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unscientific. So if we accept it as true, we must also accept it as meaningless, which is self defeating, since a statement must be meaningful to be true.
I conclude that your belief in the sufficiency of science exceeds its just grounds, and, on top of that, your logic skills could use some work.
I am a moral realist. I believe that some actions have a moral value, in the same way I believe that propositions have a truth-value. I believe that "murder is wrong" is both meaningful and trivially true, because "murder" is a kind of killing that is, by definition, a "wrong" killing.
Of course, what with Microsoft lurking in the shadows behind "SCO vs Anything Linux-Related" and infusing cash here and there, one can be excused for suspecting that Microsoft may have slipped Canopy a few million to make destruction of evidence a priority.
Look, I hate to be picky, but the fact that you've been modded up to +5 insightful is demonstrating a real problem here. So listen up, geeks of mathematics, logic, computer science, and other heavily left-brained things: you can't think like this when the subject is law. Law just doesn't work like that. For starters, you can't assume that law B will be enforced in such-and-such a way because law A is. They are different laws! Copyright and defamation are entirely different beasts with entirely different legal tests for jurisdictional relevance. In this case, we're not even talking about similar jurisdictions, let alone similar laws. Actually, a jurisdiction doesn't seem to have been chosen yet, since nobody has been summoned to an actual court -- it's just landshark sabre-rattling so far.
I could go on, but the thing I really want to say is don't reduce law to mathematics, at least not unless you understand a bit about law and the circumstances under which it is reasonable to do so. Failure to do this may result in embarrassingly bad reasoning.
In my opinion, the really interesting thing about all this is that you've worked out your axioms from your a priori certainty that 1 + 1 = 2. You chose your axioms to suit that truth, right? I mean to say that any old fool who can add one and one will give you "two" as the answer, but talking about identity operators is a rather more sophisticated concept. It's not like we defined the axioms first, and then figured out that "1 + 1 = 2" follows from the axioms, is it? Seems like cheating, doesn't it?
Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time. Thus, it's not just a link dump, and it does engage in a certain kind of rudimentary editor-work; it's just that "editor" is to "Slashdot" is as "artist" is to "stick-figure".
This is my approach to movies and video games: if there's a title coming out in which I expect to be interested, then I go out of my way to avoid ads, previews, and reviews. Avoid the hype, and then you'll enjoy the product on its own merits rather than being let down. If I'm already mostly sold on the product, sight unseen, then hype is going to do nothing but spoil it for me. If I want to know a little more about the item before purchasing, then I hold back and wait until I've seen the general sentiment in reviews from early purchasers; in the case of games, I may also download the demo version when and if available.
DUNDi stands for "Distributed Universal Number Discovery". It is a peer to peer system for locating Internet gateways to telephony services. Unlike traditional centralized services (such as ENUM), DUNDi is fully distributed, with no central authority. DUNDi is not a Voice over IP signalling or media protocol: it publishes routes which are in turn accessed via industry standard protocols such as IAX, SIP and H.323.
The above information is taken (with minor edits) from the dundi.com website. It's the sort of information that would have been useful in the executive summary, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is not known for having complete and accurate documentation of any of its APIs or file formats. If you want the absolute truth, you go to the source code. Think about it: if there were a discrepancy between what the documentation says, and what the code does, which one do you think will be considered "in error" in most cases?
It's rare that "specifications" are considered authoritative over "implementation" -- more common that "specifications" are written retroactively based on the implementation when people realise that the source code is an unreadable mess, but they still need to know what it does at a glance.
Excellent! A new source of Illudium Phosdex, no doubt. It will probably be over three hundred years before we can get there, though, by which time our supplies will be alarmingly low.
Classic method of producing superior software? As opposed to their classic method of spreading FUD, their classic method of "embrace, extend, extinguish", or their classic method of cutting off the competition's air supply?
I'll grant that Microsoft did improve IE a great deal during the Netscape days, as one of the prongs in a multi-pronged attack on that company. Hell, history shows that the only motivation that Microsoft has for improving IE at all is competitive threat. The fact that they're starting to show some genuine improvement in IE again (after some years of stagnation) is testament to the fact that they're taking Firefox seriously.
What distinguishes this from the Netscape days is that Microsoft already played their "integrate the browser into the OS" trump card, and their new competitor has no "air supply" revenue streams to constrict. On top of which, Google is demonstrating itself to be a damn clever producer of web-applications which are genuinely cross-platform, so the whole "embrace and extend" tactic is starting to show signs of fatigue.
Microsoft might face a new challenge here: going feature-nuts on IE is one way to compete, but it's likely to open up new avenues of insecurity in a browser that already has the worst security track record. I don't think of Firefox as the be-all and end-all in secure browsing, but can Microsoft deliver the goods in security, even against a less-than-perfect competitor? I know they can bolt on features like there's no tomorrow, but it looks to me like security is the major root cause of Firefox migration at this point. Can Microsoft compete on security?
Anyhow, what you're asking about is the copyright, no doubt. We've had some succinct answers offered in this thread already, and I'll have to back the "maybe" on this. If it went to court, the arguments would be pretty interesting! Can you throw a copyright in the trash? I don't think the law specifies, and I don't think the courts have ever ruled on it. Interesting concept, though. If I were the lawyering type, I'd want to argue that the copyright was trashed, unless there is some evidence to suggest that the work was retained, or the copyright sold. My argument would be that the material entered the public domain due to abandonment -- although I'd find out what the accepted Latin phrase for that is, to underscore my lawyerhood.
How about, "if a copyright owner abandons all physical embodiments of the work, and has not entrusted the preservation of that work to another party, then, ceterus paribus, the copyright has also been abandoned." (Latin included only for show.)
But that said, if we introduced philosophy into the curriculum, would we introduce only those viewpoints which were sympathetic to modern materialistic science? Only the empiricists and positivists? What about a bit of Feyerabend, the heretic? Feyerabend would really set the cat amongst the pigeons, since he insists that good scientific practice must be diverse. Feyerabend is absolutely pluralist about science, and offers loads of ammunition to those who want "both views" taught in school.
On the other hand, if you're only going to introduce those philosophies compatible with the view, "evolution is the only scientific theory of origins", then what distinguishes this from outright indoctrination? Philosophy is supposed to be about the development of critical skills, not imparting dogma.
Frankly I'm betting that philosophy will be kept well and truly out of the school system until the final overthrow of said system, since a decent dose of philosophy (involving several views that contradict each other and all make good points) encourages too much thought. God help us if students should start thinking for themselves, and not just act like willing sponges that soak up whatever fact-of-the-day is served to them. Think of the trouble it would cause! Think of how much more work teaching would involve if students had their intelligence nurtured, rather than being made to work according to the pattern of textbook-du-jour.
Philosophy has no place in modern schooling. This is why we are reduced to arguments as to which view of science gets exclusive distribution rights in school. To acknowledge that there might not be one single true view of science would open pandora's box in regards to the teaching of science. The students would start asking those kinds of smart alec questions which undermine the teacher's authority, leading to massive control problems. As someone who made the bad political move of questioning authority in school (as a student), I think I have just explained my way to a clearer understanding of why there was, is, and will be no philosophy in school.
So here's a point to ponder. I think that a goodly portion of the Slashdot audience thinks "critical skills are good, and we ought to encourage them in school". First up, note that my (somewhat cynical) description of the school process above suggests that school simply can not do this without bringing about its own destruction. In short, the students would become smart enough to realise that school is stupid, and revolt.
But that aside, consider the following dilemma. What if it were demonstrated that teaching two conflicting views of science (both of them credibly defended -- not a "real man versus straw man" situation) produces students with better critical skills? If you're one of the many who've commented that "evolution == science, and !evolution == !science", then would you be willing to allow a pseudoscience into the science curriculum if it improved critical thinking in general? No doubt you would not if there were no benefit, but would you be willing to sacrifice the "purity" of science teaching if it fostered greater critical skills? If not, then what about teaching philosophy and including those philosophers that have the best arguments against modern science, like Feyerabend?
This observation prompts me to ask why you describe yourself as "Christian". Actually, I could ask many people that, because there are many like you who call themselves "Christian" who do not follow Christ. Christ's teaching rests very squarely on the Old Testament. If you reject the veracity of the Old Testament, you have departed from the teaching of Jesus at a very fundamental level.
Surely there are more appropriate things to call yourself? What is it about Christianity that you believe, accept, or affirm? Given that information, maybe we can find a better religion for you -- one whose leading figure is not a fundamentalist like Jesus.
I was thinking more along the lines of "submergence", apropos of that sinking feeling one gets in a corporate environment where stupidity is mandated from On High.
On the matter of artificial scarcity in the DNS, you may find my "Cornucopia" idea interesting. It's in the category of crazy ideas that ought to be considered, even if only to break people out of an established mindset. (Also at my site.) The basic premiss of the idea: "What if every domain name you wanted was available?"
I think that Python is supposed to be better in benchmarks not listed on that page, such as "mean time to correctly add a feature to unfamiliar code, written by someone who has since left the company".
I dunno -- it paid off for them in their antitrust case with the US Department of Justice, didn't it? Admittedly, the judge got pretty peeved with them, but I think that got the judge into more trouble than it did Microsoft.
Fantasy has to do with make-believe realms, like Middle Earth, or Narnia, or Discworld, or The Foundation, or Barsoom. Sometimes the realm is meant to be Earth itself, but not as we know it, such as in Minority Report. In some cases, the fantasy element is so minor that we'd probably classify it as drama rather than fantasy. Movies like Chain Reaction, Enemy of the State, and Mercury Rising have sci-fi elements (fantasy technology), although those fantasy elements aren't too far wide of reality, and only provide a context for the action and drama, which largely centres around people fleeing from powerful and secretive organisations that want to rub them out (in all three cases!).
Some flavours of sci-fi fantasy are "sci-fi" only because they are futuristic, such as in Star Trek, or set in space, such as Battlestar Galactica. Others, being more at the core of what sci-fi "purists" consider the real deal, are based on "what if" scenarios, such as "what if it were possible to accurately predict long term social trends mathematically?" -- which roughly describes the premise of Asimov's Foundation series. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy goes humorously overboard with "what if" scenarios, rather than sticking to a single one: the guide itself is a "what if", the legend of Magrathea is "what would people buy in an advanced society if they were really rich", the Hagunenons are "what if a species could evolve at whim", the Babel Fish, in addition to being a convenient plot device to avoid language issues, is "what if there existed a naturally occurring universal translator", and so on. The narrative of the Guide itself is the main vehicle for the "what if" scenarios.
All this leads me to say that all science fiction is fantasy, and all fantasy is fiction, but the converse statements are not true. So although I agree with the parent that fantasy without a science element is not sci-fi, I disagree strongly with the conclusion that "science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different". Science fiction is a particular kind of fantasy.
Nice photos, Jani.
I think you're analysing it more deeply than was intended. The argument is supposed to go something like this.
It's specious, since if there were no patents on software at all, they wouldn't need any defence against them. They'd be better off lobbying to remove software patents in the USA. But, they are, as usual, being disingenuous in their remarks. I reckon they intend to use software patents defensively against anything that threatens them, including but not limited to software patent threats. Patents are the best weapon anyone's been able to think of to cripple free software development, for instance, and that's the biggest threat on their radar at the moment.
What proof do I have? Only past patterns of behaviour and applied common sense. How come Microsoft's patent-frenzy is such a recent phenomenon if it has no connection with the free software threat, hmm? I mean, sure, they've been patenting things for a long time, but they only went ape-shit over them after they figured they might use them to cudgel a penguin. Seems obvious to me, at any rate.
But Perl! Ah, Perl! Such a bundle of contradictions! It violated every rule I held dear about language theory, and was a better language for it. Perl doesn't try to be a theoretically perfect language for any particular theory of linguistic perfection. It has principles, but it is not a slave to those principles. It has a degree of consistency, but never a foolish consistency.
No language on Earth has made me rethink my concepts of "what makes a good language" more than Perl.
Think about it a little harder, dude. Science can tell you about consequences, but your judgement as to which consequence is the better is not, in itself, scientific. Scientifically informed, perhaps, or scientifically ignorant, but never itself scientific.
Science is, loosely speaking, the study of the observable universe, and the attempt to describe it in as law-like terms as possible. The idea that science (and whatever methods it happens to use in our day) is the best for producing knowledge about the physical world is about as startling as the idea that bakery is the best means for producing bread.
or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know".
Not to mention a loose sense of "all". No amount of science will tell us what our aims ought to be in life, or about social values, or morality. Science can tell us about the consequences of our actions, but not which of those consequences we should prefer.
Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.
Venerable? An interesting choice of words. It makes your position seem so much more symmetric in relation to those who lament the world's lack of knowledge of scripture and failure to venerate a god of some sort.
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
That's a hasty conclusion, and a problematic one. Let's grant for the moment that hypotheses affording no testable predictions about the observable universe are unscientific. Let us then consider the possibility that unscientific hypotheses are meaningless. That's a hypothesis, isn't it? "Unscientific hypotheses are meaningless" is itself a hypothesis. Is it a scientific hypothesis, or an unscientific one? How do you perform a scientific test for meaningfulness? Statements and meanings are non-physical, ruling out scientific testing, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unscientific. So if we accept it as true, we must also accept it as meaningless, which is self defeating, since a statement must be meaningful to be true.
I conclude that your belief in the sufficiency of science exceeds its just grounds, and, on top of that, your logic skills could use some work.
But try to prove that Right and Wrong are real.
Of course, what with Microsoft lurking in the shadows behind "SCO vs Anything Linux-Related" and infusing cash here and there, one can be excused for suspecting that Microsoft may have slipped Canopy a few million to make destruction of evidence a priority.
I could go on, but the thing I really want to say is don't reduce law to mathematics, at least not unless you understand a bit about law and the circumstances under which it is reasonable to do so. Failure to do this may result in embarrassingly bad reasoning.
That would be Bill Gates.
This was a poll topic in a past life.
In my opinion, the really interesting thing about all this is that you've worked out your axioms from your a priori certainty that 1 + 1 = 2. You chose your axioms to suit that truth, right? I mean to say that any old fool who can add one and one will give you "two" as the answer, but talking about identity operators is a rather more sophisticated concept. It's not like we defined the axioms first, and then figured out that "1 + 1 = 2" follows from the axioms, is it? Seems like cheating, doesn't it?
Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time. Thus, it's not just a link dump, and it does engage in a certain kind of rudimentary editor-work; it's just that "editor" is to "Slashdot" is as "artist" is to "stick-figure".
I think I'll make that my new sig.
This is my approach to movies and video games: if there's a title coming out in which I expect to be interested, then I go out of my way to avoid ads, previews, and reviews. Avoid the hype, and then you'll enjoy the product on its own merits rather than being let down. If I'm already mostly sold on the product, sight unseen, then hype is going to do nothing but spoil it for me. If I want to know a little more about the item before purchasing, then I hold back and wait until I've seen the general sentiment in reviews from early purchasers; in the case of games, I may also download the demo version when and if available.
The above information is taken (with minor edits) from the dundi.com website. It's the sort of information that would have been useful in the executive summary, IMHO.