Wasn't trying to claim that Apple did; just that this isn't exactly a new thing here.
You're right about MS and their fettish for a pen based computer. I remember some of the first incarnations on WinCE: the tablets. I think it was an HP design that included a keyboard and a screen that you could flip around. For a "tablet/web pad" I thought it was the best of both worlds. You could write on the screen AND type and the form factor was fairly light. Good idea, crap sales. The trade off seems to be pay almost the same as a laptop for less functionality, or pay a crap load more for equivalent functionality.
Wow... what a great idea. I'm surprised no one thought of it before. Oh yeah. Apple did.
In all seriousness I think its very cool tech (love my Newton and would probably love one of these too) but I wonder how they'll do mass market wise. They won't be any cheaper than a laptop (prob more expensive due to the touch screens) without too much added benefit.
Very true, which is a shame. I certainly don't claim to have "golden ears" (not after all of the concerts I've been to... what's that ringing?) but from what I can tell MB for MB ATRAC3 works better than MP3. I doubt they'll ever allow it to be used license free either. Even though MDs, Music Clips and MSWalkmans really haven't taken off here worth a squirt, in Europe and Japan the MD is very, very popular. I'm sure they make a tidy sum licensing it out to the likes of Sharp, Panasonic, etc.
What is needed is a cheap, durable, IP free storage medium upon which a CE firm can build a player around (using something like Ogg as the codec).
ATRAC has been used in all MiniDisc units (I belive that was why it was created) and has moved to the Music Clip and MemoryStick walkman. I know Sony's been working on it for about 10 years now, and its a pretty damn good compression scheme.
As for conversion software chances are they'll throw the software in for free. They already do with the music clip / memorystick walkman and some MiniDisc units that you can attach to a computer.
And now, finally, we have the RIAA's latest weapon in the fight against "music thieves". Change the media.
I'd say more the RIAA's latest way of generating revenue. RIAA members made HUGE bank with the transition over to CD. Repackaging content they already own generates a hell of a lot of money for them. In the 80s / 90s many people replaced their old vinyl/tape collection with CDs.
I suspect that's part of their beef with downloadable music (or at least downloadable music that isn't "protected"). If you just purchase the "content" you pay once and can stick it on whatever format you chose (Burn a CD, MP3 player, MiniDisc, new format of choice). Even if everyone paid for their content this way and didn't trade (a'la Napster) this would be a pretty big hit in revenue for them.
As you can see, this debate rages into a black hole, because saying there is no objective reality is also subjective. People who go around claiming this continually are nihilists, but I'm quite happy to believe you just want the point shown, you're not like some reincarnation of Nietzsche.
Indeed, that was my whole point. I am not trying to advocate nihilism at all. Simply saying "It's all subjective. That's it? Well screw it. Nothing matters." is, in my opinion, pretty weenie. Life ain't much fun if you don't have something to believe in (again, IMHO).
Now, since this has actually been a pretty fun topic of discussion (thanks, btw, for indulging) I'm going to clear a couple of things up (slow day at work).
You're sharing the same argument [as fundi x-ians], but clearly not the same beliefs.
I would disagree here. Most fundamentalists don't say "hey, it's just what you believe in." They tend to be more of the "hey, its just what I believe in" type of folks. More on that in a second.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith" [snip] Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
I wouldn't say that all I've been arguing is that "science is basically just faith." Here's, hopefully, an example that better illustrates what I've been getting at:
Lets assume that there are two people, Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi. Both are given "huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism" one the subject of evolution (you could actually pick any topic here). Both agree that they accept that the material evidence at hand was collected fair and square (not bodging of data, etc). Both Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi "form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism..."
Let's say Mr. Science's conclusion is that life evolved over time, adapting to fit its environment. He'll probably admit that they don't have it 100% perfect, but as time goes by and more evidence comes in things will probably be refined.
Lets say Mr. Fundi's conclusion is that evolution is bunk, God still created the earth roughly 6000 years ago and everything we find, from dinosaur fossils to common DNA, is just something God put there to test our faith.
Mr. Science (and I and I assume you) will probably sit there and say "this guy is full of it. Can't think guy see the evidence so clearly in front of him?" and could go over the evidence, the theories, and all of that over and over and over until we're blue in the face.
Mr. Fundi on the other hand is thinking the exact same thing: "These guys are nuts. How can they be so blind. " and then quote you bible verse that backs up his point.
Now, here's where "faith" comes in. Mr. Scientist (and I and, again I assume you) believe that the universe is something that is free of outside influence, is something that can be observed, studied, and explained rationally.
Mr. Fundi believes that a Supreme Being created the earth and the heavens and that a book that he divinely created is the end all and be all of explanation.
Just for laughs lets just say Mr. Bonkers just walked into the room, looked over the same material evidence and then proclaimed "the universe works in a rational way just like Mr. Science says with one small exception: A supreme being called "Fred" created it all last night, just before the stroke of midnight. Anything that happened before midnight are just memories planted in our head. All of the physical evidence pertaining to anything prior to 'the creation' was planted there.
Now, can we "prove" any of the three wrong? Mr. Fundi's supreme being could very be testing our faith. Mr. Science's universe very well may be free of outside influence. And how do you show Mr. Bonkers isn't, well, bonkers?
I've never claimed that "science is just faith." I do claim though that Mr. Science and I have faith that science does indeed give us the correct answer (or at least the best answer knowing what we know). Subtle, but very large difference.
While I may "not have a very good grasp of the English language" you seem to be flailing around trying to pin some sort of philosophy on my. First it was nihilism, and now fundamentalist creationism (well, more the "You cannot prove me wrong, so I must be right." philosophy). Interesting, since I have never said such thing. Funny, you start off the post quoting (essentially) what I've been arguing, and then do absolutely nothing to disprove it.
This is the essense [sic]of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic
Well, DUH! I've been saying that in every message I've posted. Logic is a tool (or a set of directions). Its what gets you from point A to point Z. But at its most fundamental root point A is an assumption. If you look at any proof and work it backward ("Why is Z true?" "Well, because Y is true" "Why is Y true" "Because X is true"....) eventually you get back to a point where the answer to "why is A true" is simply "because I accept it to be true." In math it is all very cut and dry. In "the real world", admittedly its a little messier, but fundamentally its the same. Any conclusions you come to has its basis on one or more assumptions. Assumption (postulate, axiom, "faith", whatever you want to call it) is the starting point; logic is what drives you out to "logical conclusions".
Interestingly enough you sort of point this out in the following:
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged [sic] tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve [sic] the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
So lets see... a scientist may come to one conclusion because he, at his root, believes what he (and others he trusts) observes and a theologian may come to another because he, at his root, believes everything was created. Well, holy shit... I believe you've summed up what I have saying all along, which is:
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
That is not the same as saying "well, if you can't prove me wrong then I must be right." (and nor for that matter does that make someone a nihilist.) Right and wrong are defined by the system upon which you are arguing. A euclidean and non euclidean geomitrist can argue with each other until they're blue in the face about who's right and who's wrong, but all for naught. Both are right and both are wrong depending on which postulates you hold true. If you don't agree on the basic assumptions then you're just pissing in the wind. A logical debate can only ensue after the ground rules are agreed upon. And those ground rules are, at their most basic level, assumed. And nothing you have said so far has shown me otherwise.
Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
And just for the record (since you've been trying to pin every philosophy in the book on me), I am an atheist who believes in evolution. I would put myself firmly in the "scientific" camp.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
This is the second time you've brought up the definition of faith. At what point have I claimed the definition was anything different? My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably). What material proof do you have that your senses are accurate? What material proof do you have that the world around you does indeed work in the way that you perceive it? What material proof do you have the world even exists? I assume you perceive to be able to touch it, smell it, interact with it, etc. But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Does that make me a nihilist? I think not. I never claimed that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. That's the equivalent of a Euclidean geometrist pouting and saying "that's it, I'm taking my ball home" when Gauss and Bolyai buggered with Euclid's fifth postulate. Values are not baseless, but are defined within the system in which they exist. Which is, at its root, based on assumption.
You're taking just a little bit of knowlege, mixing it with some whacked out philosophy, and claiming that science is a faith because of it!
Actually, I claimed no such thing. I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption.
Sure it is. To use the bad stoner joke: how do you know the colour green looks to you as the colour green looks to me? How do you know that the way you process (and therefor interpret) those senses does not differ from the way others do? This may seem like a small, stupid argument, but you assume that your senses accurately portray the world to you.
Now, get a bunch of people together to agree on some basic assumptions ("hey, there seems to be big bad universe out there and we appear to sense it in roughly the same way") and let the fun begin. "Science" is simply using what you observe and some logic to make sense of the world. Newton did it with gravity. Made some observations, took some measurements and came up with some theories and equations that appeared to explain the phenomena he was observing. And he was wrong. Is that bad? Not at all. Newton's work ended up being pretty damn useful (and still is) because the theories and equations turned out to be pretty good approximations. But Einstein came alone and showed that they were flat out wrong.
Now, has Einstein gotten it right? I doubt it. Like Newton he's probably done the best that he could with all of the information that he has along with some new assumptions about how the universe works. No doubt at some point someone else is going to come along and say "Damn, close but no banana" and come up with something better. And that is the nature of science.
The point of this thread was not to somehow claim that science was a bunch o' crap. It was merely a follow-up to one of the many "creationist have it wrong because they base it on faith while we have it right because we base it on facts." My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make. And while you can take those assumptions to (IMO) different (sometimes ludicrous) extremes: i.e. there is a supreme being who created the earth and the heavens, I am nothing more than a simulation running in a very large computer, etc., science is in no way any different. For every common genetic thread you show in every species someone who believes that there is a Supreme Being who created the world in seven days will just say "God put it there to test us." You can debate, argue, cajole, and/or scream at each other, go through various "reasonings" to show the other what your getting at, it will all be for naught, because at a very basic level you "believe" different things.
I use the word "faith" as simply something that is accepted, not proven (in fact, by definition not proven)
I'm not trying to debunk science here, you are correct about science doing fairly well based on those axioms (universe exists, etc), but am merely trying to point out that those that love to ridicule other for "faiths" (beliefs, whatever you want to call it) are simply stone throwers in glass houses.
As for the Universal Truths. If you find them, how do you know that they are the Universal Truths?
As for faith not requiring reason, maybe it is a problem of semantics, but reason def. does need a starting point (call it axiom, faith, assumption, etc). "Reason" (logic) is like directions. The "Faith" (axiom) is the starting point. "Truth" (facts) are the result.
For example. Take geometry. Start with the same axioms that Euclid did (which he based on his observations of the real world), use some logic and you arrive at "Parallel lines never intersect." Now, tweak those axioms a little, apply the same rules of logic and all of the sudden "Parallel lines do intersect". Different starting points, same directions, different endpoint."
Take a look at Newton. He came up with a way of describing gravity that fit with all of his observations. Along came Einstein and showed that Newton had it all wrong. Newton found a damn good approximation for the way bodies interact on Earth, but still not the correct thing. Has Einstein got it correct? Probably not. So what is scientific "fact" is also based on assumptions backed up by whatever empirical evidence we have at hand.
The reason I put more of my faith in science is because science usually does do a pretty good job of continually evaluating what it knows and tweaks (or overhauls) what its assumptions are about our universe (assuming it exists;).
Show me one axiom in Math or Logic that isn't just accepted. Any logical arguement has to have a root (or sets of roots) that you just accept as true.
Now, this doesn't mean that you can't move science along. Agree on the basic principals (i.e. the universe does indeed exist and acts the way we observe it) and you can build up proofs and truths based on those assumptions. But you take on faith that the universe does indeed exist and acts in the way you observe it.
You must be one of the people ripe for conversion to religion, if you think everything is based on faith.
You "assume" that your senses are giving you accurate information; you "assume" that you actually exist in some physical form are are not a simulation (a'la the Matrix) or the dream of a sleeping butterfly somewhere. Absurd, maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that all of this "evidence" is only as good as the assumptions they're built upon.
As someone best put it, "Everyting you prove with these axioms are true within the logical structure defined by the axsioms."
All truths (proofs, facts, etc) are built on faith (assumptions, axsioms, etc).
Well, I'm certainly not what you would call a "believer", but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith). To others what you choose to believe in is just as "ludicrous" as their beliefs are to you.
Depends on the unit. Some units allow high speed dubbing if both the CD player and MD player are capable and you connect via digital cable. Still not as easy as throwing CDs in a jukebox and ripping them overnight, but not too bad.
Or better yet go with the new version of Sony's MD (yes, I know most around here think Sony are satan, and yes they have a sorta content control in them but its easy to get around and the MD *is* pretty damn good kit). 320 minutes on a ~$3 disc.
there is no center of the Universe in current cosmology
Sure there is. The answer, though, has to do with "when" and not "where." Assuming the universe started from a singularity that would be the center of the universe.
Essentially he argues that Open Source undermines intellectual property (which is true)
I disagree. I think OS (or Free Software) and IP are orthogonal issues. OS (Free) software doesn't undermine itellectual property at all. Someone who releases software under the GPL is simply sharing his/her IP with others and stipulates that if you wish to build on that work you must also release those additions under the same rules. In fact, it is Copyright law that gives the GPL its teeth. You can be both pro IP and pro OS.
Then why don't you fork the code, create some sort of new organizational structure / committee and do it properly? That's what the GPL is all about, right? Put your money where your mouth is.
I always love people (OSOpinion submitters and ZDNet staffers) who seem to have all of the answers to perceived problems, especially when they aren't involved in the process in the first place. I bet you're the type that bitches about the government and doesn't vote.
Heavy spacesuits? ROFL, like that matters in zero gravity *NOT*
Uh... like it matters YES. *MASS* my friend. Weightlessness doesn't mean masslessness. You may not have to "hold" up a heavy suit, but you do have to move it.
Uh... uh.... maybe you should recompile your kernel???
Seriously though, Linux is what Linux is. If you want to give a micro kernel a whack try Hurd. From what I understand it's coming along nicely and they could probably use all the help they can get.
It always amazes me when people say things like "I like my Ford, but why can't it be more like a Toyota?" Linux isn't (and shouldn't be) a one size fits all OS.
Uh... not quite. AltaVista was divested from Compaq and sold to CMGi, the black hole of internet money. Don't blame Compaq (well, at least not for this).
do you think he could sue any 8-year olds birthday party?
Of course not. It's not a public performance.
What about a movie it was sung in?
MOST CERTAINLY. In fact, that's why that song is made up because at the time they were filming they didn't have the rights to use "Happy Birthday" in video, only the version released to so valuable (in terms of publishing rights). When they filmed the movie "Big" the crew had to film the birthday scene twice, once with "Happy Birthday" and once with some crappy song they had theatres.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about MS and their fettish for a pen based computer. I remember some of the first incarnations on WinCE: the tablets. I think it was an HP design that included a keyboard and a screen that you could flip around. For a "tablet/web pad" I thought it was the best of both worlds. You could write on the screen AND type and the form factor was fairly light. Good idea, crap sales. The trade off seems to be pay almost the same as a laptop for less functionality, or pay a crap load more for equivalent functionality.
The Bastard.
In all seriousness I think its very cool tech (love my Newton and would probably love one of these too) but I wonder how they'll do mass market wise. They won't be any cheaper than a laptop (prob more expensive due to the touch screens) without too much added benefit.
The Bastard.
What is needed is a cheap, durable, IP free storage medium upon which a CE firm can build a player around (using something like Ogg as the codec).
As for conversion software chances are they'll throw the software in for free. They already do with the music clip / memorystick walkman and some MiniDisc units that you can attach to a computer.
I'd say more the RIAA's latest way of generating revenue. RIAA members made HUGE bank with the transition over to CD. Repackaging content they already own generates a hell of a lot of money for them. In the 80s / 90s many people replaced their old vinyl/tape collection with CDs.
I suspect that's part of their beef with downloadable music (or at least downloadable music that isn't "protected"). If you just purchase the "content" you pay once and can stick it on whatever format you chose (Burn a CD, MP3 player, MiniDisc, new format of choice). Even if everyone paid for their content this way and didn't trade (a'la Napster) this would be a pretty big hit in revenue for them.
The Bastard
Indeed, that was my whole point. I am not trying to advocate nihilism at all. Simply saying "It's all subjective. That's it? Well screw it. Nothing matters." is, in my opinion, pretty weenie. Life ain't much fun if you don't have something to believe in (again, IMHO).
Now, since this has actually been a pretty fun topic of discussion (thanks, btw, for indulging) I'm going to clear a couple of things up (slow day at work).
You're sharing the same argument [as fundi x-ians], but clearly not the same beliefs.
I would disagree here. Most fundamentalists don't say "hey, it's just what you believe in." They tend to be more of the "hey, its just what I believe in" type of folks. More on that in a second.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith" [snip] Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
I wouldn't say that all I've been arguing is that "science is basically just faith." Here's, hopefully, an example that better illustrates what I've been getting at:
Lets assume that there are two people, Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi. Both are given "huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism" one the subject of evolution (you could actually pick any topic here). Both agree that they accept that the material evidence at hand was collected fair and square (not bodging of data, etc). Both Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi "form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism..."
Let's say Mr. Science's conclusion is that life evolved over time, adapting to fit its environment. He'll probably admit that they don't have it 100% perfect, but as time goes by and more evidence comes in things will probably be refined.
Lets say Mr. Fundi's conclusion is that evolution is bunk, God still created the earth roughly 6000 years ago and everything we find, from dinosaur fossils to common DNA, is just something God put there to test our faith.
Mr. Science (and I and I assume you) will probably sit there and say "this guy is full of it. Can't think guy see the evidence so clearly in front of him?" and could go over the evidence, the theories, and all of that over and over and over until we're blue in the face.
Mr. Fundi on the other hand is thinking the exact same thing: "These guys are nuts. How can they be so blind. " and then quote you bible verse that backs up his point.
Now, here's where "faith" comes in. Mr. Scientist (and I and, again I assume you) believe that the universe is something that is free of outside influence, is something that can be observed, studied, and explained rationally.
Mr. Fundi believes that a Supreme Being created the earth and the heavens and that a book that he divinely created is the end all and be all of explanation.
Just for laughs lets just say Mr. Bonkers just walked into the room, looked over the same material evidence and then proclaimed "the universe works in a rational way just like Mr. Science says with one small exception: A supreme being called "Fred" created it all last night, just before the stroke of midnight. Anything that happened before midnight are just memories planted in our head. All of the physical evidence pertaining to anything prior to 'the creation' was planted there.
Now, can we "prove" any of the three wrong? Mr. Fundi's supreme being could very be testing our faith. Mr. Science's universe very well may be free of outside influence. And how do you show Mr. Bonkers isn't, well, bonkers?
I've never claimed that "science is just faith." I do claim though that Mr. Science and I have faith that science does indeed give us the correct answer (or at least the best answer knowing what we know). Subtle, but very large difference.
I hope that helps.
While I may "not have a very good grasp of the English language" you seem to be flailing around trying to pin some sort of philosophy on my. First it was nihilism, and now fundamentalist creationism (well, more the "You cannot prove me wrong, so I must be right." philosophy). Interesting, since I have never said such thing. Funny, you start off the post quoting (essentially) what I've been arguing, and then do absolutely nothing to disprove it.
This is the essense [sic]of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic
Well, DUH! I've been saying that in every message I've posted. Logic is a tool (or a set of directions). Its what gets you from point A to point Z. But at its most fundamental root point A is an assumption. If you look at any proof and work it backward ("Why is Z true?" "Well, because Y is true" "Why is Y true" "Because X is true" ....) eventually you get back to a point where the answer to "why is A true" is simply "because I accept it to be true." In math it is all very cut and dry. In "the real world", admittedly its a little messier, but fundamentally its the same. Any conclusions you come to has its basis on one or more assumptions. Assumption (postulate, axiom, "faith", whatever you want to call it) is the starting point; logic is what drives you out to "logical conclusions".
Interestingly enough you sort of point this out in the following:
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged [sic] tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve [sic] the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
So lets see... a scientist may come to one conclusion because he, at his root, believes what he (and others he trusts) observes and a theologian may come to another because he, at his root, believes everything was created. Well, holy shit... I believe you've summed up what I have saying all along, which is:
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
That is not the same as saying "well, if you can't prove me wrong then I must be right." (and nor for that matter does that make someone a nihilist.) Right and wrong are defined by the system upon which you are arguing. A euclidean and non euclidean geomitrist can argue with each other until they're blue in the face about who's right and who's wrong, but all for naught. Both are right and both are wrong depending on which postulates you hold true. If you don't agree on the basic assumptions then you're just pissing in the wind. A logical debate can only ensue after the ground rules are agreed upon. And those ground rules are, at their most basic level, assumed. And nothing you have said so far has shown me otherwise.
Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
And just for the record (since you've been trying to pin every philosophy in the book on me), I am an atheist who believes in evolution. I would put myself firmly in the "scientific" camp.
This is the second time you've brought up the definition of faith. At what point have I claimed the definition was anything different? My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably). What material proof do you have that your senses are accurate? What material proof do you have that the world around you does indeed work in the way that you perceive it? What material proof do you have the world even exists? I assume you perceive to be able to touch it, smell it, interact with it, etc. But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Does that make me a nihilist? I think not. I never claimed that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. That's the equivalent of a Euclidean geometrist pouting and saying "that's it, I'm taking my ball home" when Gauss and Bolyai buggered with Euclid's fifth postulate. Values are not baseless, but are defined within the system in which they exist. Which is, at its root, based on assumption.
Name me one thing that is fact that does not require any amount of assumption. Just one.
Actually, I claimed no such thing. I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption.
Sure it is. To use the bad stoner joke: how do you know the colour green looks to you as the colour green looks to me? How do you know that the way you process (and therefor interpret) those senses does not differ from the way others do? This may seem like a small, stupid argument, but you assume that your senses accurately portray the world to you.
Now, get a bunch of people together to agree on some basic assumptions ("hey, there seems to be big bad universe out there and we appear to sense it in roughly the same way") and let the fun begin. "Science" is simply using what you observe and some logic to make sense of the world. Newton did it with gravity. Made some observations, took some measurements and came up with some theories and equations that appeared to explain the phenomena he was observing. And he was wrong. Is that bad? Not at all. Newton's work ended up being pretty damn useful (and still is) because the theories and equations turned out to be pretty good approximations. But Einstein came alone and showed that they were flat out wrong.
Now, has Einstein gotten it right? I doubt it. Like Newton he's probably done the best that he could with all of the information that he has along with some new assumptions about how the universe works. No doubt at some point someone else is going to come along and say "Damn, close but no banana" and come up with something better. And that is the nature of science.
The point of this thread was not to somehow claim that science was a bunch o' crap. It was merely a follow-up to one of the many "creationist have it wrong because they base it on faith while we have it right because we base it on facts." My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make. And while you can take those assumptions to (IMO) different (sometimes ludicrous) extremes: i.e. there is a supreme being who created the earth and the heavens, I am nothing more than a simulation running in a very large computer, etc., science is in no way any different. For every common genetic thread you show in every species someone who believes that there is a Supreme Being who created the world in seven days will just say "God put it there to test us." You can debate, argue, cajole, and/or scream at each other, go through various "reasonings" to show the other what your getting at, it will all be for naught, because at a very basic level you "believe" different things.
I'm not trying to debunk science here, you are correct about science doing fairly well based on those axioms (universe exists, etc), but am merely trying to point out that those that love to ridicule other for "faiths" (beliefs, whatever you want to call it) are simply stone throwers in glass houses.
As for the Universal Truths. If you find them, how do you know that they are the Universal Truths?
As for faith not requiring reason, maybe it is a problem of semantics, but reason def. does need a starting point (call it axiom, faith, assumption, etc). "Reason" (logic) is like directions. The "Faith" (axiom) is the starting point. "Truth" (facts) are the result.
For example. Take geometry. Start with the same axioms that Euclid did (which he based on his observations of the real world), use some logic and you arrive at "Parallel lines never intersect." Now, tweak those axioms a little, apply the same rules of logic and all of the sudden "Parallel lines do intersect". Different starting points, same directions, different endpoint."
Take a look at Newton. He came up with a way of describing gravity that fit with all of his observations. Along came Einstein and showed that Newton had it all wrong. Newton found a damn good approximation for the way bodies interact on Earth, but still not the correct thing. Has Einstein got it correct? Probably not. So what is scientific "fact" is also based on assumptions backed up by whatever empirical evidence we have at hand.
The reason I put more of my faith in science is because science usually does do a pretty good job of continually evaluating what it knows and tweaks (or overhauls) what its assumptions are about our universe (assuming it exists ;).
Now, this doesn't mean that you can't move science along. Agree on the basic principals (i.e. the universe does indeed exist and acts the way we observe it) and you can build up proofs and truths based on those assumptions. But you take on faith that the universe does indeed exist and acts in the way you observe it.
You must be one of the people ripe for conversion to religion, if you think everything is based on faith.
Thanks... needed a good chuckle.
You "assume" that your senses are giving you accurate information; you "assume" that you actually exist in some physical form are are not a simulation (a'la the Matrix) or the dream of a sleeping butterfly somewhere. Absurd, maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that all of this "evidence" is only as good as the assumptions they're built upon.
As someone best put it, "Everyting you prove with these axioms are true within the logical structure defined by the axsioms."
All truths (proofs, facts, etc) are built on faith (assumptions, axsioms, etc).
Well, I'm certainly not what you would call a "believer", but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith). To others what you choose to believe in is just as "ludicrous" as their beliefs are to you.
Depends on the unit. Some units allow high speed dubbing if both the CD player and MD player are capable and you connect via digital cable. Still not as easy as throwing CDs in a jukebox and ripping them overnight, but not too bad.
Or better yet go with the new version of Sony's MD (yes, I know most around here think Sony are satan, and yes they have a sorta content control in them but its easy to get around and the MD *is* pretty damn good kit). 320 minutes on a ~$3 disc.
Sure there is. The answer, though, has to do with "when" and not "where." Assuming the universe started from a singularity that would be the center of the universe.
I'm waiting for Murdoch to green light the Fox special "The Great Holocaust Hoax" and "The Great Spherical Earth Hoax."
I disagree. I think OS (or Free Software) and IP are orthogonal issues. OS (Free) software doesn't undermine itellectual property at all. Someone who releases software under the GPL is simply sharing his/her IP with others and stipulates that if you wish to build on that work you must also release those additions under the same rules. In fact, it is Copyright law that gives the GPL its teeth. You can be both pro IP and pro OS.
The Bastard
I always love people (OSOpinion submitters and ZDNet staffers) who seem to have all of the answers to perceived problems, especially when they aren't involved in the process in the first place. I bet you're the type that bitches about the government and doesn't vote.
Uh... like it matters YES. *MASS* my friend. Weightlessness doesn't mean masslessness. You may not have to "hold" up a heavy suit, but you do have to move it.
You might want to know your stuff...
Beats me... I just like it.
Seriously though, Linux is what Linux is. If you want to give a micro kernel a whack try Hurd. From what I understand it's coming along nicely and they could probably use all the help they can get.
It always amazes me when people say things like "I like my Ford, but why can't it be more like a Toyota?" Linux isn't (and shouldn't be) a one size fits all OS.
Uh... not quite. AltaVista was divested from Compaq and sold to CMGi, the black hole of internet money. Don't blame Compaq (well, at least not for this).
Of course not. It's not a public performance.
What about a movie it was sung in?
MOST CERTAINLY. In fact, that's why that song is made up because at the time they were filming they didn't have the rights to use "Happy Birthday" in video, only the version released to so valuable (in terms of publishing rights). When they filmed the movie "Big" the crew had to film the birthday scene twice, once with "Happy Birthday" and once with some crappy song they had theatres.