Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???
Um... Last I remember reeding there was a lot of fruit-fly breading. But in a sense nearly all biology, especially cellular biology, has a big influence on our understanding of evolution. And err, what kind of biologists use stem cells in their research again? (Note: I'm not saying stem cell research has crossed a line at this point, merely that it would be irresponsible not to spend some time figuring out where the line should go. Like it or not evolutionists as the keepers of the "origins myth" have some responsibility in this matter.)
And yes, boundaries are mostly a side issue, but the point is scientists, and their apologists, appear to have a big problem with boundaries at times. (Partly evidenced by this portion of our discussion)
I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge.
Saying that ID as proposed by Behe is not a useful theory is one thing (and I more or less agree, though I think the community at large has been hostile and defensive rather than helpful in this matter). Claiming it is impossible to ever create any useful theory including creationist or intelligent design ideas is quite another. If you're claiming the latter, I can hardly agree. I think this "hard" definition of Naturalism also rules out a lot of interesting chaos principles and notions of hard randomness.
nor offer us insight into how Reality works.
I'm sure you're not claiming to have a full grasp on that capitalized word there...
If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly.
I'm sure I've got nothing on Behe's ID you haven't read before, as you say it is mostly an attempt to tear down another theory rather than being a theory in its own right. I'm further sure you've read enough Phillip Johnson to understand why tough questions about Naturalism and evolution might be important.
However, there is research like this, which happens to be conducted by the church I grew up in (though I'm no longer a member). I'd expect these folks to be derided in many secular circles as fools, but I don't believe that gives them any less right to ask questions than you or I. Any criticism should come from the quality of their ideas and work, not from whether the term "Bible" shows up somewhere on their website...
And hell, why wouldn't you want Blizzard "listening in"?
Why wouldn't you want someone to search your house if you're not doing anything illegal? What have you got to hide crimi^H^H^H^H^Hcitizen?
Not to mention the fact someone might like to hack their version and play on a highly modded server... Oh, but I'm sorry, only rich guys in suits and ties have the right to create, and then only if it's for a profit.
You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?
Well... The study of evolutionary biology in particular could probably be advanced by some pretty sick human experimentation. (Eugenics in WWII being but a weak foreshadow) Of course, it's also debatable how useful that type of "research" actually is/was.
I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design).
Yes, it should also help them understand and question the role of Naturalism in science. (ie: intelligent design can never be part of any scientific theory by definition, do we need to assess what we consider scientific on a more empirical basis?)
Note: Creationism and intelligent design are not "invalid ideas", merely "unscientific". But that's the problem isn't it? Apologists on both sides slipping in small mistakes here and there in an attempt to strengthen their argument, whether on purpose or accident. After a certain point, neither side can communicate with the other any more...
There were some people who used genetic algorithms and "evolved" their programs (usually started with ones they hand-coded). Course, this may not have happened till the late 90's or so. (At least that's when I first recall reading about it, about the time that guy evolved an FPGA that could tell yes/no phrases with no external hardware...)
In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them.
Yes, well, much of what the "public knows" comes directly from what is taught in public schools...
Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it,
Yes, and the religious folks can teach basic human morality and the reasons behind it without refering to a specific diety too, but how comfortable does that make you?
More realistically lessons on basic logical analysis and methods for recognizing a tautology would be a nice pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. I don't see how anyone could recognize when Natural Selection is being misused without it...
Set boundaries? Why?
Looks like I touched a nerve with my phrasing. Life is about setting boundaries. Science is no different. But perhaps you think testing nukes in the desert is a good thing to do?
Oh wow!! you're so right. And just look at all the specific arguments and backing evidence you gave. Oh wait....
Heh... You're just lucky the guy who wrote the article was about as lazy as you are... My incredibility threshold gets hit about paragraph 5. I see tons of claims, and not a bit of backing. (see? didn't take an hour!)
Oh wait... a bit more digging. What you read is a synopsis. Here's the actual argument
it's just someone who is in actuality incredibly stupid, but has no idea that they are.
The bottom of the article claims the author is a post-doc... Guess he must be good at fooling others in addition to hisself.
ID is nothing but creationist apologetics, bowlderized to try to sneak it past the US court system.
Tell ya what: Don't teach my kids your beliefs about the differences between blue-green algae and man or about where the Cambrian explosion came from. Then I won't teach your kids about the "Great Spirit". Deal?
Problem is... If scientists can't learn to set boundaries and say "I don't know" when appropriate, I don't see how they can expect non-scientists to.
Sorry, but geologists rationally took apart creationism 200 years ago.
I suppose I'm supposed to fill in your argument for you and believe Lamark just "took apart" creationsim. I can certainly stomach much of his work better than I can stomach Origin of the Species, but he was no more a geologist than Darwin. Last I checked geology had also flatly disproved Darwinian "slow change" evolution within the last 50 years, and the scientific community at large was still in an uproar coming up with theories like punctuated equilibrium and trying to figure out what we know, and what we should probably admit we don't know...
Personally I fail to see what Darwin has to do with simulating genetic mutation on a computer. (A geneticist he certainly wasn't, and the selection can hardly be called "natural") Come to think of it, I've still yet to hear a useful definition of Natural Selection (ie: One other than "everything we know about science, modified daily to make sure the Great Theory can never be disproven").
As to ripping on Creationists or Darwinians as a group... Sorry, I prefer to let someone prove they have an individual ID 10 T problem rather than assuming one based on their worldview.
> Even when we believe they are false, ideas like Creationism threaten to unravel the framework by which we understand the world.
Maybe if you pull your head out of the sand you can see a bit of a point here?
I think the definition of "introduce" may be at issue here. Are we talking about during the code/debug cycle? After initial CVS checkin? After acceptance testing before release? Post-release once software is out in the field?
Each of those has a track record. A developer with 1-2 errors found during acceptence testing in say a 6 month period and none in the field would certainly be "high grade". I guess the question is how that type of developer compares with managed developers with similar (and worse) track-records in terms of securuty problems introduced.
A bigger question is which apps even need security conscience. Leaving network access out of apps that don't need it, and miniimizing it where possible, would probably go at least as far towards securing systems as choosing a managed langauge (most of which have a track record of networking everything to death and destruction then calling it "best practices").
This would all massively reduce performance (especially in terms of memory use) and make things more like a managed language. So, you'd wind up with some kind of bastardized hybrid of C and a managed language?
No thanx. Use C for stuff its good at. Use a managed language for stuff its good at. And whenever possible, keep the bridge between the two as efficient as possible.
As to warnings for using "char"? There's no way I'd want to have my boss breathing down my neck about warnings when I'm trying to write efficient I/O code just because those doing text manipulation can't even choose the right library...
Fair enough, but at least 90% of the stuff written in C and C++ doesn't need to be.
Is that as in: 90% of applications that run blazing fast on an old 486 could easily be re-written to barely run fast enough on a monster 1Ghz/1gig system?
There are some tradeoffs here... And last I checked Java *still* doesn't seem to have snappy GUIs for lightweight apps. (Just loading up the runtime and necessary static portions of the standard library is major overhead, maybe if there was a system that could share runtimes transparently and effectively...) Yes, I'll admit for "heavy weight" GUI apps with OpenGPL support Java's come a long way, but I've yet to see anything that can even perform as well as Notepad in the lightweight arena. (And notepad is a sorry competitor by C standards)
C#? Well... The integration issue is more or less solved from the get-go on that one, but memory waste is still an issue. It's also still pretty immature to go around claiming a hardened security record.
They've asked me if I wanted to do it and I've been expected to say yes, but I've never been told "get this done or you're out of here".
Actually... As I get older, I find myself in the position of asking others whether they'd like to work on something. Believe it or not, I rarely expect a yes answer on any given question (Though I do expect a healthy percentage of yeses). This is because I've always got several other alternatives on the horizon. There's always a list of things to get done, and for each item either they'll do it, someone else will do it, or I'll be doing it myself. (Actually, I try to lay out the alternatives up front, but sometimes I get rushed and only have one prepared at a given time)
Of course, I'm lucky (well I think so) to work at a small company where we get to make a lot of our own decisions on division of work.
Bark orders at me and I'll quit
I think it's human nature to prefer alternatives to narrow commands. I'm pretty sure if you worked where I do you'd put out more effort than you have before without really realizing it... (Well, unless you're already in a pretty good management environment)
, and once you have one programmer like that on the team the rest of them quickly learn that they too can get away with murder and nothing ever gets done.
This works both ways. Get a few very intelligent, effective and self-motivated programmers working on a team and watch the whole team take off.
I know how much code is "hard work" and how much code is "slacking off".
That's naive, even for a "code like hell" mentality.
So, uh, I suppose you'd fire the guy who wrote qsort, or bit-torrent, or the tiny decss descrambler because they didn't turn in enough lines of code in a day? Heck, I've gone whole weeks where the number of lines of code in my CVS checkins were NEGATIVE (ie: added-removed). Not positive, not zero, but less than zero. Why? Because the guy that came before me was a sloppy hurrywort (or was being overly pressured by management to hack something out quickly) and I took the time to clean up the mess...
Features, requirements, stability, performance deadlines. These things matter. Lines of code? Everyone solves problems differently. Some of the best programmers write extremely small code. Then again, some don't. If you're going to be a technical watchdog, at least be technical about it. (Also remember, there's a good reason managers don't breathe down their engineers necks like they were two year olds... It's degrading, demoralizing, and likely to lose you the kind of self-motivated people you'd like to have around.)
Hmm... did I miss something in the article where he talked about and/or posted source code for something without actually using it to attack computers?
A DNS attack using compromised zombies is neither protected nor speech.
Yes, his crimes were a bit more on the border and less damaging, but he was in jail longer, convicted older, and still seems to have gotten on with his life pretty well. I'd hardly call the guy useless.
I figure this kid has at least as good a chance of turning out a normal guy as Mitnick. (Though only time will tell if he has the moxie for it)
Ya, its almost as bad as putting someone away who merely pulls the trigger on a gun somebody gave them.
I mean really, we all know *average* people can't be expected to control themselves. The fault obviously lies with the gun manufacturers. They should know better than to create such damaging objects.
Slashdot Mirror
Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???
Um... Last I remember reeding there was a lot of fruit-fly breading. But in a sense nearly all biology, especially cellular biology, has a big influence on our understanding of evolution. And err, what kind of biologists use stem cells in their research again? (Note: I'm not saying stem cell research has crossed a line at this point, merely that it would be irresponsible not to spend some time figuring out where the line should go. Like it or not evolutionists as the keepers of the "origins myth" have some responsibility in this matter.)
And yes, boundaries are mostly a side issue, but the point is scientists, and their apologists, appear to have a big problem with boundaries at times. (Partly evidenced by this portion of our discussion)
I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge.
Saying that ID as proposed by Behe is not a useful theory is one thing (and I more or less agree, though I think the community at large has been hostile and defensive rather than helpful in this matter). Claiming it is impossible to ever create any useful theory including creationist or intelligent design ideas is quite another. If you're claiming the latter, I can hardly agree. I think this "hard" definition of Naturalism also rules out a lot of interesting chaos principles and notions of hard randomness.
nor offer us insight into how Reality works.
I'm sure you're not claiming to have a full grasp on that capitalized word there...
If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly.
I'm sure I've got nothing on Behe's ID you haven't read before, as you say it is mostly an attempt to tear down another theory rather than being a theory in its own right. I'm further sure you've read enough Phillip Johnson to understand why tough questions about Naturalism and evolution might be important.
However, there is research like this, which happens to be conducted by the church I grew up in (though I'm no longer a member). I'd expect these folks to be derided in many secular circles as fools, but I don't believe that gives them any less right to ask questions than you or I. Any criticism should come from the quality of their ideas and work, not from whether the term "Bible" shows up somewhere on their website...
And it is their choice to use a tech manner or legal manner. While we would prefer a tech way of doing things - it is their site, their option.
Yes, but it is our law and our internet. What the law protects is not up to them.
And hell, why wouldn't you want Blizzard "listening in"?
Why wouldn't you want someone to search your house if you're not doing anything illegal? What have you got to hide crimi^H^H^H^H^Hcitizen?
Not to mention the fact someone might like to hack their version and play on a highly modded server... Oh, but I'm sorry, only rich guys in suits and ties have the right to create, and then only if it's for a profit.
You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?
Well... The study of evolutionary biology in particular could probably be advanced by some pretty sick human experimentation. (Eugenics in WWII being but a weak foreshadow) Of course, it's also debatable how useful that type of "research" actually is/was.
I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design).
Yes, it should also help them understand and question the role of Naturalism in science. (ie: intelligent design can never be part of any scientific theory by definition, do we need to assess what we consider scientific on a more empirical basis?)
Note: Creationism and intelligent design are not "invalid ideas", merely "unscientific". But that's the problem isn't it? Apologists on both sides slipping in small mistakes here and there in an attempt to strengthen their argument, whether on purpose or accident. After a certain point, neither side can communicate with the other any more...
There were some people who used genetic algorithms and "evolved" their programs (usually started with ones they hand-coded). Course, this may not have happened till the late 90's or so. (At least that's when I first recall reading about it, about the time that guy evolved an FPGA that could tell yes/no phrases with no external hardware...)
Nice point!
In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them.
Yes, well, much of what the "public knows" comes directly from what is taught in public schools...
Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it,
Yes, and the religious folks can teach basic human morality and the reasons behind it without refering to a specific diety too, but how comfortable does that make you?
More realistically lessons on basic logical analysis and methods for recognizing a tautology would be a nice pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. I don't see how anyone could recognize when Natural Selection is being misused without it...
Set boundaries? Why?
Looks like I touched a nerve with my phrasing. Life is about setting boundaries. Science is no different. But perhaps you think testing nukes in the desert is a good thing to do?
Oh wow!! you're so right. And just look at all the specific arguments and backing evidence you gave. Oh wait....
Heh... You're just lucky the guy who wrote the article was about as lazy as you are... My incredibility threshold gets hit about paragraph 5. I see tons of claims, and not a bit of backing. (see? didn't take an hour!)
Oh wait... a bit more digging. What you read is a synopsis. Here's the actual argument
it's just someone who is in actuality incredibly stupid, but has no idea that they are.
The bottom of the article claims the author is a post-doc... Guess he must be good at fooling others in addition to hisself.
no... no text, i'm too lazy to write anything here.
ID is nothing but creationist apologetics, bowlderized to try to sneak it past the US court system.
Tell ya what: Don't teach my kids your beliefs about the differences between blue-green algae and man or about where the Cambrian explosion came from. Then I won't teach your kids about the "Great Spirit". Deal?
Problem is... If scientists can't learn to set boundaries and say "I don't know" when appropriate, I don't see how they can expect non-scientists to.
Sorry, but geologists rationally took apart creationism 200 years ago.
I suppose I'm supposed to fill in your argument for you and believe Lamark just "took apart" creationsim. I can certainly stomach much of his work better than I can stomach Origin of the Species, but he was no more a geologist than Darwin. Last I checked geology had also flatly disproved Darwinian "slow change" evolution within the last 50 years, and the scientific community at large was still in an uproar coming up with theories like punctuated equilibrium and trying to figure out what we know, and what we should probably admit we don't know...
Personally I fail to see what Darwin has to do with simulating genetic mutation on a computer. (A geneticist he certainly wasn't, and the selection can hardly be called "natural") Come to think of it, I've still yet to hear a useful definition of Natural Selection (ie: One other than "everything we know about science, modified daily to make sure the Great Theory can never be disproven").
As to ripping on Creationists or Darwinians as a group... Sorry, I prefer to let someone prove they have an individual ID 10 T problem rather than assuming one based on their worldview.
> Even when we believe they are false, ideas like Creationism threaten to unravel the framework by which we understand the world.
Maybe if you pull your head out of the sand you can see a bit of a point here?
Unless the reason the hole popped in the first place was overpressure... Better a small hole than a burst seam.
Analogies can be fun but... they're still just analogies.
I think the definition of "introduce" may be at issue here. Are we talking about during the code/debug cycle? After initial CVS checkin? After acceptance testing before release? Post-release once software is out in the field?
Each of those has a track record. A developer with 1-2 errors found during acceptence testing in say a 6 month period and none in the field would certainly be "high grade". I guess the question is how that type of developer compares with managed developers with similar (and worse) track-records in terms of securuty problems introduced.
A bigger question is which apps even need security conscience. Leaving network access out of apps that don't need it, and miniimizing it where possible, would probably go at least as far towards securing systems as choosing a managed langauge (most of which have a track record of networking everything to death and destruction then calling it "best practices").
This would all massively reduce performance (especially in terms of memory use) and make things more like a managed language. So, you'd wind up with some kind of bastardized hybrid of C and a managed language?
No thanx. Use C for stuff its good at. Use a managed language for stuff its good at. And whenever possible, keep the bridge between the two as efficient as possible.
As to warnings for using "char"? There's no way I'd want to have my boss breathing down my neck about warnings when I'm trying to write efficient I/O code just because those doing text manipulation can't even choose the right library...
Fair enough, but at least 90% of the stuff written in C and C++ doesn't need to be.
Is that as in: 90% of applications that run blazing fast on an old 486 could easily be re-written to barely run fast enough on a monster 1Ghz/1gig system?
There are some tradeoffs here... And last I checked Java *still* doesn't seem to have snappy GUIs for lightweight apps. (Just loading up the runtime and necessary static portions of the standard library is major overhead, maybe if there was a system that could share runtimes transparently and effectively...) Yes, I'll admit for "heavy weight" GUI apps with OpenGPL support Java's come a long way, but I've yet to see anything that can even perform as well as Notepad in the lightweight arena. (And notepad is a sorry competitor by C standards)
C#? Well... The integration issue is more or less solved from the get-go on that one, but memory waste is still an issue. It's also still pretty immature to go around claiming a hardened security record.
What good is an online music store going to be if a large percentage of the major record labels decline to participate because of the lack of DRM?
It's going to be great for indie labels and experimenting to see if a new model really can work (with lower middleman costs...)
I *said* no text didn't I??!
Got all confused between petals and leaves, and of course I wasn't even sure the thing on the petal was actually an "N" (could have been an "H")
They've asked me if I wanted to do it and I've been expected to say yes, but I've never been told "get this done or you're out of here".
Actually... As I get older, I find myself in the position of asking others whether they'd like to work on something. Believe it or not, I rarely expect a yes answer on any given question (Though I do expect a healthy percentage of yeses). This is because I've always got several other alternatives on the horizon. There's always a list of things to get done, and for each item either they'll do it, someone else will do it, or I'll be doing it myself. (Actually, I try to lay out the alternatives up front, but sometimes I get rushed and only have one prepared at a given time)
Of course, I'm lucky (well I think so) to work at a small company where we get to make a lot of our own decisions on division of work.
Bark orders at me and I'll quit
I think it's human nature to prefer alternatives to narrow commands. I'm pretty sure if you worked where I do you'd put out more effort than you have before without really realizing it... (Well, unless you're already in a pretty good management environment)
, and once you have one programmer like that on the team the rest of them quickly learn that they too can get away with murder and nothing ever gets done.
This works both ways. Get a few very intelligent, effective and self-motivated programmers working on a team and watch the whole team take off.
I know how much code is "hard work" and how much code is "slacking off".
That's naive, even for a "code like hell" mentality.
So, uh, I suppose you'd fire the guy who wrote qsort, or bit-torrent, or the tiny decss descrambler because they didn't turn in enough lines of code in a day? Heck, I've gone whole weeks where the number of lines of code in my CVS checkins were NEGATIVE (ie: added-removed). Not positive, not zero, but less than zero. Why? Because the guy that came before me was a sloppy hurrywort (or was being overly pressured by management to hack something out quickly) and I took the time to clean up the mess...
Features, requirements, stability, performance deadlines. These things matter. Lines of code? Everyone solves problems differently. Some of the best programmers write extremely small code. Then again, some don't. If you're going to be a technical watchdog, at least be technical about it. (Also remember, there's a good reason managers don't breathe down their engineers necks like they were two year olds... It's degrading, demoralizing, and likely to lose you the kind of self-motivated people you'd like to have around.)
You somehow related to Camp Mivoden?
Seem to recall seeing that on the wall there... Those things are really TOUGH by the way!
How about felony speech?!
Hmm... did I miss something in the article where he talked about and/or posted source code for something without actually using it to attack computers?
A DNS attack using compromised zombies is neither protected nor speech.
Like Kevin Mitnick?
Yes, his crimes were a bit more on the border and less damaging, but he was in jail longer, convicted older, and still seems to have gotten on with his life pretty well. I'd hardly call the guy useless.
I figure this kid has at least as good a chance of turning out a normal guy as Mitnick. (Though only time will tell if he has the moxie for it)
Ya, its almost as bad as putting someone away who merely pulls the trigger on a gun somebody gave them.
I mean really, we all know *average* people can't be expected to control themselves. The fault obviously lies with the gun manufacturers. They should know better than to create such damaging objects.
I suppose they're just sitting around dieing without ever a change in sight?