Is how I find the article. Whether or not you believe in evolution, it seems quite unacceptable to me for a scientist/journalist to make bold and provacative claims about how the now-completely-mapped human genetic code proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his religion is the right one after all (I say this because the article seems to make clear to me that evolution is his religion), and then not explain it with one shred of evidence!
What - are we just supposed to take his word for it that this is in fact true? It would have been far more satisfying I should think if he would actually go and show why this is so.
At any rate, some of the reasoning he provides appears non-sequitur to me. If he is claiming that because we have genes which bear similarity to other beings on this planet, we must therefore have descended from them; it doesn't take a genius (or even a creationist) to point out that a common creator would also cause such common genes.
As to what he calls the "jerry-rigged" nature of our genes - this would seem an obvious result of "natural selection"; but I don't see it as being even circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution.
To address a couple of points which have been brought up in a few threads:
"Scientific Creationism" is a misnomer, since you can't use scientific methods to prove a one-time event.
Quite right. But similar reasoning rules out the validity of calling evolution a (scientific) theory as well. In science, a hypothesis is what you call an idea which hasn't yet been proven to be observably true, whereas a theory is something which has been observed to be true. As evolution from one species to another has still to be observed, it too is not a scientific theory. At such a time that such an event can be consistently observed, perhaps then it can be a scientific theory.
The first rule of creationism is: do not doubt your own theory...
While I don't deny that many folks will behave this way (and thus make it a religion), it is wrong to generalize in this way. I for one have no problem examining evidence to counter my conclusions. And I can certainly say that I have known many evolutionists who treat their theory in exactly the same manner as a religion - blind faith is useless both in spiritual and scientific matters. Facts only, please! Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief in God, and likewise has nothing to do with science. Should you present to me compelling evidence that evolution is valid, I shall investigate it and accept it as truth until such a time as evidence to counter it can be produced. I shall also, however, place it beside such other evidences as I have already come across, which led me to my original conclusion in the first place. When there is a huge store of evidence contrary to my current assumptions - at that time may I reconsider them. But at the moment, the reverse is true, so I continue on in my "beliefs".
Yes, but if you read the language of the CA code, that Perl script/does/ in fact fall squarely within what is allowed to be "signed away", unfortunately. For the following combination of reasons:
It is or could be construed to be relating to the company's business.
It was written on company time. This means the company paid for him to write it.
However, this does not change what I noted above - that if you write it entirely on your own time, using only your own resources, and not using trade secrets of your employer; it's yours, no matter what. Believe it or not, this isn't necessarily true in other states.
I just recently signed a pretty much identical agreement at my company.
Why? Because I live and work in California; and the agreement also specifically quoted this section of the California Labor Code:
Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an Invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (a) which does not relate (1) to the business of the employer, or (2) to the employer's actual of demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
IANAL, but the langauge seems simple enough to me: If I didn't use any "trade secrets" of my employer's, didn't use any of their resources to invent it, and it didn't result from something I did for them (was paid to do) - they don't have the right to it - even if I sign a statement saying they do.
I never really cared for MaximumLinux. The articles were filled with things that, IMO, pretty much every Linux user already knew anyway. Seems to me, the only reason someone would get that magazine is if they wanted the software on the CD which came with it, in which case you could go download it for free instead of shelling out dough for the magazine.
My Linux-oriented magazine of choice would be the Linux Journal, which is jam-packed with very useful information on a variety of topics.
IMHO, he states his position quite clearly, and has made this the most non-threatening Cease-and-Desist letter I have ever come across. His demands are simple: He has no problem with people implementing his protocols, or mimicking his design, in fact he encourages it. The only thing he has a problem with is the name, which I should think is readily fixable. Just name it Sasha or something.
Honestly, I don't see what Microsoft can do to permanently render Linux a non-threat, short of
Making Free software illegal
Contributing (shudder!) =)
Even if the most paranoid of these "vicious Microsoft attacks" become reality (many of them are quite likely, and in fact I think we've been seeing some of these already), so what?
Worst case: Enterprise and main-stream business world gets so plastered with anti-Linux propoganda that they start believing it. Linux loses most of its hold in the server market. Linux, however, not being devestated by the sudden loss of non-existent consumer dollars, continues to exist, and to be used by all of us who use it as our personal OS and would never believe such propoganda anyway. So Linux doesn't die, and only loses a market in which it has only recently acquired wide-spread notoriety. A year or two down the road, people will have had, um, a year or two to re-examine the accuracy of what they've heard hitherto, being still able to compare words with a still-existant OS. Eventually, Linux regains its market as before.
Since Linux can't be "killed", no matter what Microsoft attempts, why would anyone (except Microsoft) have any cause to worry?
I am utterly amazed that everyone is coming down on Yahoo for this - Yahoo wasn't "influenced" by the French Government, they were ruled in violation of the law! They are held liable by the French government for any Frank who finds this stuff on their site.
How is this any different than a U.S. court deciding Yahoo must be held accountable? It isn't. Yahoo must comply, or block every IP in France.
If you have a problem with it, rant against the French government, not Yahoo!
It's too bad that this kind of theft will probably scare people away from online purchases even when it's a database that's cracked rather than their transactions.
Nah. Most people who are already shopping online will probably continue to do so. All security issues are generally a case of security vs. convenience, and when the convenience is great enough, seems like it usually overrules insecurities. Of course, the reverse is true if the insecurities are great enough to overrule convenience...
Really, now - if used responsibly, digital sigs are a great idea, and perfectly legitimate ways of determining the origin. If you're not using a passphrase, and someone steals your private key and begins using it, whose fault is that?
I think Churchill's point may have been a valid one.
There are, I believe, significantly more homonyms in Japanese than there are in English. This problem is non-existant in writing, because different characters are used for most homonyms. In speaking, the problem is solved by actually ghost-writing the character onto one's hand, so someone can deduce the meaning. Often, notebooks in Japanese business meetings are used for writing characters in large print so the notebook may be turned around for others' viewing convenience.
-------------------------------
I think if Perl were written in Japanese, you'd
see verbs on the tail-ends of sentences.
split( ',', @foo );
would become
( ',', @foo ) split;
(except it would be written in Japanese, not
English).
Besides verbs, word order often doesn't matter, as words are followed with relationals that tell you what purpose they serve. So you could well see it written as:
@foo wo ',' ni split;
Which, due to the grammatical particles, would just as easily be written:
Did anyone else hesitate at the very top paragraph in this article:
Linux gaming is a hot topic today. However, many problems still plague the infant platform such as standards and a central company to enforce those standards. Indrema, a recently formed San Francisco Bay Area-based company plans to change this with the release of the Indrema Entertainment System (IES) by next spring.
Does this really have anything to do with what Indrema is doing with their gaming system? They may perhaps enforce standards within the realm of their console, but certainly not within the realm of Linux! One of the many things that makes Linux truly beautiful is the fact that such standards as exist, exist by the choice of its users. If I wanted enforced standards I'd stick to Windows!
Also, I get a bit ticked when people use terms such as "infant platform" -- Linux has been around much longer than Windows95 has been ('92 vs. 96), and being 100% POSIX compliant makes it semi-quasi-UNIX, which was spawned in the 70's.
I know, I know, Linux ain't UNIX, because it doesn't share it's source code, but hey! If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes like a duck...
HTML, like any other authored content, is absolutely copyrightable. There was an argument I read above that declared that HTML isn't copyrightable, since all the tags and code used has been used before. But that's true of the english language, so that's an absurd argument. If the advertising company was really stupid, like, say, drew up their own contract without any legal help, then it is entirely possible that the HTML code does in fact belong to the company that authored it. But this is very unlikely, as such a copyright, unlicensed, would prohibit this advertising company from even using the code on their site. Not very useful, to be sure. I should point out here, that non-contract jobs done for hire are always the property of the employer. Contract jobs, however, depend on the language of the contract to implicitly declare it so. However, I've never heard of a contract that did otherwise.
Maybe it's just me, but I hate to see anything associated with Linus Torvalds getting money from AOL.;)
(JK - of course you'll take money from wherever it comes. But AOL really worries me. Bastardization of the net....)
Re:Please stop repeating this lie.
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and Netscape still has pages on its own site (everywhere actually) still referring to the current release as "Netscape 4.5"... The point isn't that Netscape's trying to sound better than Microsoft, the point is that Netscape isn't very good with up-to-date web sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Is how I find the article. Whether or not you believe in evolution, it seems quite unacceptable to me for a scientist/journalist to make bold and provacative claims about how the now-completely-mapped human genetic code proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his religion is the right one after all (I say this because the article seems to make clear to me that evolution is his religion), and then not explain it with one shred of evidence!
What - are we just supposed to take his word for it that this is in fact true? It would have been far more satisfying I should think if he would actually go and show why this is so.
At any rate, some of the reasoning he provides appears non-sequitur to me. If he is claiming that because we have genes which bear similarity to other beings on this planet, we must therefore have descended from them; it doesn't take a genius (or even a creationist) to point out that a common creator would also cause such common genes.
As to what he calls the "jerry-rigged" nature of our genes - this would seem an obvious result of "natural selection"; but I don't see it as being even circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution.
To address a couple of points which have been brought up in a few threads:
"Scientific Creationism" is a misnomer, since you can't use scientific methods to prove a one-time event.
Quite right. But similar reasoning rules out the validity of calling evolution a (scientific) theory as well. In science, a hypothesis is what you call an idea which hasn't yet been proven to be observably true, whereas a theory is something which has been observed to be true. As evolution from one species to another has still to be observed, it too is not a scientific theory. At such a time that such an event can be consistently observed, perhaps then it can be a scientific theory.The first rule of creationism is: do not doubt your own theory...
While I don't deny that many folks will behave this way (and thus make it a religion), it is wrong to generalize in this way. I for one have no problem examining evidence to counter my conclusions. And I can certainly say that I have known many evolutionists who treat their theory in exactly the same manner as a religion - blind faith is useless both in spiritual and scientific matters. Facts only, please! Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief in God, and likewise has nothing to do with science. Should you present to me compelling evidence that evolution is valid, I shall investigate it and accept it as truth until such a time as evidence to counter it can be produced. I shall also, however, place it beside such other evidences as I have already come across, which led me to my original conclusion in the first place. When there is a huge store of evidence contrary to my current assumptions - at that time may I reconsider them. But at the moment, the reverse is true, so I continue on in my "beliefs".
Yes, but if you read the language of the CA code, that Perl script /does/ in fact fall squarely within what is allowed to be "signed away", unfortunately. For the following combination of reasons:
However, this does not change what I noted above - that if you write it entirely on your own time, using only your own resources, and not using trade secrets of your employer; it's yours, no matter what. Believe it or not, this isn't necessarily true in other states.
I just recently signed a pretty much identical agreement at my company.
Why? Because I live and work in California; and the agreement also specifically quoted this section of the California Labor Code:
IANAL, but the langauge seems simple enough to me: If I didn't use any "trade secrets" of my employer's, didn't use any of their resources to invent it, and it didn't result from something I did for them (was paid to do) - they don't have the right to it - even if I sign a statement saying they do.
I never really cared for MaximumLinux. The articles were filled with things that, IMO, pretty much every Linux user already knew anyway. Seems to me, the only reason someone would get that magazine is if they wanted the software on the CD which came with it, in which case you could go download it for free instead of shelling out dough for the magazine.
My Linux-oriented magazine of choice would be the Linux Journal, which is jam-packed with very useful information on a variety of topics.
IMHO, he states his position quite clearly, and has made this the most non-threatening Cease-and-Desist letter I have ever come across. His demands are simple: He has no problem with people implementing his protocols, or mimicking his design, in fact he encourages it. The only thing he has a problem with is the name, which I should think is readily fixable. Just name it Sasha or something.
Honestly, I don't see what Microsoft can do to permanently render Linux a non-threat, short of
Even if the most paranoid of these "vicious Microsoft attacks" become reality (many of them are quite likely, and in fact I think we've been seeing some of these already), so what?
Worst case: Enterprise and main-stream business world gets so plastered with anti-Linux propoganda that they start believing it. Linux loses most of its hold in the server market. Linux, however, not being devestated by the sudden loss of non-existent consumer dollars, continues to exist, and to be used by all of us who use it as our personal OS and would never believe such propoganda anyway. So Linux doesn't die, and only loses a market in which it has only recently acquired wide-spread notoriety. A year or two down the road, people will have had, um, a year or two to re-examine the accuracy of what they've heard hitherto, being still able to compare words with a still-existant OS. Eventually, Linux regains its market as before. Since Linux can't be "killed", no matter what Microsoft attempts, why would anyone (except Microsoft) have any cause to worry?
I am utterly amazed that everyone is coming down on Yahoo for this - Yahoo wasn't "influenced" by the French Government, they were ruled in violation of the law! They are held liable by the French government for any Frank who finds this stuff on their site.
How is this any different than a U.S. court deciding Yahoo must be held accountable? It isn't. Yahoo must comply, or block every IP in France. If you have a problem with it, rant against the French government, not Yahoo!
It's too bad that this kind of theft will probably scare people away from online purchases even when it's a database that's cracked rather than their transactions.
Nah. Most people who are already shopping online will probably continue to do so. All security issues are generally a case of security vs. convenience, and when the convenience is great enough, seems like it usually overrules insecurities. Of course, the reverse is true if the insecurities are great enough to overrule convenience...
Anyone who believes the Internet has "peaked" doesn't know anything whatsoever about the Internet.
They probably think the World Wide Web and the Internet are the same thing...
Really, now - if used responsibly, digital sigs are a great idea, and perfectly legitimate ways of determining the origin. If you're not using a passphrase, and someone steals your private key and begins using it, whose fault is that?
I think Churchill's point may have been a valid one.
There are, I believe, significantly more homonyms in Japanese than there are in English. This problem is non-existant in writing, because different characters are used for most homonyms. In speaking, the problem is solved by actually ghost-writing the character onto one's hand, so someone can deduce the meaning. Often, notebooks in Japanese business meetings are used for writing characters in large print so the notebook may be turned around for others' viewing convenience.
-------------------------------
I think if Perl were written in Japanese, you'd see verbs on the tail-ends of sentences.
split( ',', @foo );
would become
( ',', @foo ) split;
(except it would be written in Japanese, not English).
Besides verbs, word order often doesn't matter, as words are followed with relationals that tell you what purpose they serve. So you could well see it written as:
@foo wo ',' ni split;
Which, due to the grammatical particles, would just as easily be written:
',' ni @foo wo split;
- cylence
Does this really have anything to do with what Indrema is doing with their gaming system? They may perhaps enforce standards within the realm of their console, but certainly not within the realm of Linux! One of the many things that makes Linux truly beautiful is the fact that such standards as exist, exist by the choice of its users. If I wanted enforced standards I'd stick to Windows!
Also, I get a bit ticked when people use terms such as "infant platform" -- Linux has been around much longer than Windows95 has been ('92 vs. 96), and being 100% POSIX compliant makes it semi-quasi-UNIX, which was spawned in the 70's.
I know, I know, Linux ain't UNIX, because it doesn't share it's source code, but hey! If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes like a duck...
HTML, like any other authored content, is absolutely copyrightable. There was an argument I read above that declared that HTML isn't copyrightable, since all the tags and code used has been used before. But that's true of the english language, so that's an absurd argument. If the advertising company was really stupid, like, say, drew up their own contract without any legal help, then it is entirely possible that the HTML code does in fact belong to the company that authored it. But this is very unlikely, as such a copyright, unlicensed, would prohibit this advertising company from even using the code on their site. Not very useful, to be sure. I should point out here, that non-contract jobs done for hire are always the property of the employer. Contract jobs, however, depend on the language of the contract to implicitly declare it so. However, I've never heard of a contract that did otherwise.
Maybe it's just me, but I hate to see anything associated with Linus Torvalds getting money from AOL. ;)
(JK - of course you'll take money from wherever it comes. But AOL really worries me. Bastardization of the net....)
Yes, and Netscape still has pages on its own site (everywhere actually) still referring to the current release as "Netscape 4.5"... The point isn't that Netscape's trying to sound better than Microsoft, the point is that Netscape isn't very good with up-to-date web sites.