The societies you've listed are all engaged in the same behavior: powering their economies with the burning of fossil fuels. The Earth's ecosystem as a single entity is under threat because our activities affect the entire globe without distinction or prejudice.
I think his idea that civilization as a whole will collapse is absurd...
You should familiarize yourself with Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (he also wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, and he's hardly a radical). In this book, there are many examples of societies that have altered their environments to such a degree that they crumble and vanish. The Mayan is one such culture.
The idea that civilization couldn't possibly collapse is more than naive. What omnipotent guiding hand is there to save us? What does Earth care? What does the solar system care? The Earth is something like 5 billion years old. Homo sapiens have been around for what, a few hundred thousand years? That's hardly a wink in the grand scheme.
There is absolutely no reason to think we couldn't be snuffed out over the next few hundred or thousand years because of our own lack of integrity and foresight.
I'm speaking well beyond my knowledge, but I'll stick to my argument and say that the divergence of clocks has more to do with velocity than gravity warping time.
Regarding the doubts about evolution, you're absolutely right. I am pointing out that science is all about investigating phenomena that we can't experience directly. What good is science otherwise? That's the point of the electrical example. No one's seen an electron power a filament, but we don't doubt that it's the properties of electro-magnetism that power a globe. There is a theory that describes it with no reference to a designer or all powerful being. Practically all of science should raise objections with creationists and IDists. It's a subtle argument that I'm afraid I'm unable to articulate precisely, nor, would it seem, convincingly. I'm suggesting the IDists' world view is not consistent and their understanding of science incomplete, at best, and hence they shouldn't have any influence on science curricula. I'd go so far to suggest they are insidious, but I don't have the energy to make that argument--but the judge in the case seems to have done a good job of it.
I was speaking to the world frame of anti-evolutionists, but there are no shortage of manifestations of evolution, some of which I'll list here--but not because I think you're unaware. In particular, the continuing evolution of bacteria that render some antibiotics obsolete; the ever mutating influenza virus; and modern man's dental problems (our teeth are too big for our jaw bones). There is also the fossil record, with particular reference to Archaeopteryx and the transition from dinosaur to bird; specific adaptations in isolated environments, eg the flightless kiwi bird of New Zealand or the ocular structure of squid (depending on the depth of their usual feeding grounds, squid have square or round pupils due to the level of illumination); and the genetic record that demonstrates a surprising amount of common genes across species.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. I'm not particularly knowledgable in physics, but it's my understanding that the theory of relativity suggests that gravity warps space-time. Now I know that it has been empiracally and proven that two clocks travelling at different speeds will diverge. However, I don't know of anyone who's seen space-time, nor the effect of gravity on space-time. I know of no attempts beyond mathematical analysis to demonstrate space-time. I could very well be wrong here.
Let me elaborate on my initial point. Just about any scientific theory should make Creationists worry because a scientific theory describes complex phenomena without any mention of God. Geology, genetics, physics, astronomy, medicine, physiology, mathematics etc. That's the whole point of science: describe things that are hard. Show me any repeatable experiment that digs out the equivalent of the Grand Canyon over thousands of years. Do you now doubt geology?
BTW, I believe there have been repeatable experiments mutations and micro-organisms as noted in other posts. Plus, not every mutation results in an advantage--don't straw man an argument! Also, I believe the fossil record supplies much, much better than circumstantial evidence.
I found this usage comment on dictionary.com interesting:
Usage Note: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean "to find a profitable or practical use for." Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction.
I'm more interested in real world results than theoretically conceptions from years ago that haven't bought in anything yet......
Then you'd be interested to know that field theory was developed by Evariste Galois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evariste_Galois/ in the 1800s. Galois studied abstract algebra precisely because he believed it would never have any practical application. However, the CDs and DVDs of today would not work without the error detection/correction techniques based on field theory. I think it's premature to be deciding the quality and impact of Tannenbaum's academic work.
I'm a big Linux fan, and a big Linus fan. It's a great story, and Linus has had a huge impact on computing. However, from what I know, Linus has a few responsibilities other than coordinating Linux developement. Tannenbaum, on the other hand, has done original research, written several books, and taught at least one univeristy course. Not bad by any measure.
Two more things. One, Linux is the result of the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of great programmers around the world. Two, don't confuse popularity with quality. Linux is great--for a work station. If you're running a server exposed to the internet, you'd be better off running Open BSD.
Tannenbaum may have failed to call how computing would take shape. However, I can help but believe we'd be better off if his predictions of RISC architectures and micro-kernels, particularly the micro-kernels, had come to be.
The ZDNet article, Internet Explorer 7 Beta: a first look, opens with " It's been almost four years since Microsoft refreshed its venerable Internet Explorer browser." Perhaps a review of the word venerable is in order:
venerable
adj.
1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
2. Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.
IE has inadequate CSS compliance and a history of insecurity. If you've ever tried to program IE to do client-side XML handling, you'd know they coughed up a hairy fur ball on that as well. It has neither virture nor dignity. It is definately not worthy of reverence.
Microsoft always manages to turn the beautiful art of programming into the management of train wrecks.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office historically has been reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software. In the 1970s, the P.T.O. avoided granting any patent if the invention utilized a calculation made by a computer. Their rationale was that patents could only be granted to processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter. Patents could not be granted to scientific truths or mathematical expressions of it. The P.T.O. viewed computer programs and inventions containing or relating to computer programs as mere mathematical algorithms, and not processes or machines. As such, software related inventions were considered non-statutory (see the BitLaw discussion on patent requirements for further information on the requirement that inventions be statutory). http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html
Software is not so special. However, a full-powered platform unencumbered by patents and restrictive licensing is, and definately worth fighting for. Google for 'software patents' and you'll find better expressions of the argument than I could ever come up with.
Copyright and trade secrets legislation are more than adequate for the protection of software IP.
BTW, this, "Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant?," is a staw man. Don't accuse of a position that none has taken.
I think the point the author's making here is that Macs are high retail, but if you want a reliable PC, you'll be spending comparable money. Bad security and mediocre robustness mean high retail Macs are a better deal. (I don't want to argue the truth of that, I just wanted to make the author's point--or at least elucidate a reasonable conclusion.)
Take my comment with a grain of salt. I cited you for bad manners. The subject line indicated--well, I guess failed to indicate--that I wasn't entirely serious.
However, let me elaborate. As your children's personalities emerge, does your appreciation of their value change? No, I suspect not. Their personalities develop, but I'm guessing you value them exactly the same. I'm also guessing you hold them in high, high esteem. I can tell from your post above.
The insult is that you've conditionalized the value of a child, and you've assoicated their value with that of a compiler! Perhaps a better phrase would have been, "we won't fully realize their personality until they've matured a bit." But that really doesn't work, either. We don't want a compiler with persoanlity as much as value.
But, hey, you're right. I nit-pick. Here's another peeve: I can't stand when people say, "I was babysitting my kids last night." Sorry, but you can't babysit your own children. Other people do that. You mind, watch, care for, or supervise your own children. You babysit for others.
I also can't tolerate the phrase, "the bottom line." It's such an insult to the other side of the conversation. It's saying, "I have the weight of rational economics on my side, and you just can't argue with that."
The truth is, you wrote a great review and you clearly know what your doing.
I guess I'm just a bit touchy about research at universities being maligned--which, granted, wasn't the point or even gist of your post. I agree, federal grants will have a burden of politics. Perhaps any significant sum of money will have a burden of politics, public money or otherwise.
Regarding Haliburton, it's true, I don't know much about them. (Was Dresser a spin-off or a purchase?) I'll bet, however, should they have to consolidate, they sell off Dresser and other subsidiaries before they give up their core business, which I'm guessing is getting federal contracts for large infrastructure and logistics projects. There's no bidding and little oversite.
Sorry, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing for a safer North America (world, really), not for the terrorists' cause.
You should understand your enemy, not kid yourself about their motives. The US would be safer if the administration would address the real problems, not gloss over with inane phrases like 'they hate our freedom'.
I recommend you watch 'The Fog of War'. In it, Robert McNamara, secretary of defense for Kennedy and Johnson, architect of the Vietnam war, says, amnong many other things, that you must know your enemy. You must understand their motivation.
Anyway, ok. Everyone loves freedom for themselves. Happy? Message not invalidated.
As for your post, you're still making straw man arguments. How can you align me with the terrorists (even if between the lines)? Perhaps you could read my original post more closely.
Taking a psychotic, intelligent, unapologetic mass murderer with political ambitions at face value on his public propoganda?
No, not all his propaganda, just this one area. You've made a straw man argument.
Everyone loves freedom. When people are desperate for it, they do crazy things. A lot of innocent people died on 9/11. The terrorists are repugnant. These two fact don't absolve the US of it's hegemonic activities.
I don't think Bin Laden was able to fund his operation and motivate people to do such awful things because they hate freedom. I think the administration is lying. Lying to hide truths it would rather not come to light. Lying for vested interests.
They love research grants even more when no strings are attached. Do you really think private entities don't apply pressure when they fund research?
What about Haliburton? The love their federal contracts.
Say, does Haliburton make significant money from anything besides federal contracts? Do they make appliances or aeroplanes? Do they do medical research?
To be consistent, shouldn't you extend your disdain for anyone or group that gets a significant portion of their funds from the government? (And if Haliburton is a bad example, I know there are many, many "private" companies that make all or nearly all of their income from public money.)
There's a lot of fundamental research that happens at Universities that businesses have no interest in. Anthropology, paleontology, history, mathematics, physics, cosmology, geology, biology, etc. You just can't privatize it because no one envisions the payoff. But remember, your CDs and DVDs use error detection/correction mechanisms based on mathematics, specifically group and field theory, developed in the 1700s. This math was viewed as completely without practical application for centuries! Indeed, the founder, Galois I believe, revelled in the fact that his theory had no application but was completely esoteric.
Slashdot Mirror
The societies you've listed are all engaged in the same behavior: powering their economies with the burning of fossil fuels. The Earth's ecosystem as a single entity is under threat because our activities affect the entire globe without distinction or prejudice.
Ah, good. So you won't mind, then, when I drain my septic tank onto your property. After all, you don't want to interfere with my livelihood.
You should familiarize yourself with Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (he also wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, and he's hardly a radical). In this book, there are many examples of societies that have altered their environments to such a degree that they crumble and vanish. The Mayan is one such culture.
The idea that civilization couldn't possibly collapse is more than naive. What omnipotent guiding hand is there to save us? What does Earth care? What does the solar system care? The Earth is something like 5 billion years old. Homo sapiens have been around for what, a few hundred thousand years? That's hardly a wink in the grand scheme.
There is absolutely no reason to think we couldn't be snuffed out over the next few hundred or thousand years because of our own lack of integrity and foresight.Exactly--all that is invented is a patent.
Regarding the doubts about evolution, you're absolutely right. I am pointing out that science is all about investigating phenomena that we can't experience directly. What good is science otherwise? That's the point of the electrical example. No one's seen an electron power a filament, but we don't doubt that it's the properties of electro-magnetism that power a globe. There is a theory that describes it with no reference to a designer or all powerful being. Practically all of science should raise objections with creationists and IDists. It's a subtle argument that I'm afraid I'm unable to articulate precisely, nor, would it seem, convincingly. I'm suggesting the IDists' world view is not consistent and their understanding of science incomplete, at best, and hence they shouldn't have any influence on science curricula. I'd go so far to suggest they are insidious, but I don't have the energy to make that argument--but the judge in the case seems to have done a good job of it.
I was speaking to the world frame of anti-evolutionists, but there are no shortage of manifestations of evolution, some of which I'll list here--but not because I think you're unaware. In particular, the continuing evolution of bacteria that render some antibiotics obsolete; the ever mutating influenza virus; and modern man's dental problems (our teeth are too big for our jaw bones). There is also the fossil record, with particular reference to Archaeopteryx and the transition from dinosaur to bird; specific adaptations in isolated environments, eg the flightless kiwi bird of New Zealand or the ocular structure of squid (depending on the depth of their usual feeding grounds, squid have square or round pupils due to the level of illumination); and the genetic record that demonstrates a surprising amount of common genes across species.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. I'm not particularly knowledgable in physics, but it's my understanding that the theory of relativity suggests that gravity warps space-time. Now I know that it has been empiracally and proven that two clocks travelling at different speeds will diverge. However, I don't know of anyone who's seen space-time, nor the effect of gravity on space-time. I know of no attempts beyond mathematical analysis to demonstrate space-time. I could very well be wrong here.
Let me elaborate on my initial point. Just about any scientific theory should make Creationists worry because a scientific theory describes complex phenomena without any mention of God. Geology, genetics, physics, astronomy, medicine, physiology, mathematics etc. That's the whole point of science: describe things that are hard. Show me any repeatable experiment that digs out the equivalent of the Grand Canyon over thousands of years. Do you now doubt geology?
BTW, I believe there have been repeatable experiments mutations and micro-organisms as noted in other posts. Plus, not every mutation results in an advantage--don't straw man an argument! Also, I believe the fossil record supplies much, much better than circumstantial evidence.LOL!!
There is the scientific theory of electro-magnatism. Do you dispute that electricity is a fact? Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?
Is it just me, or does Linus sound a little whiney?
Then you'd be interested to know that field theory was developed by Evariste Galois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evariste_Galois/ in the 1800s. Galois studied abstract algebra precisely because he believed it would never have any practical application. However, the CDs and DVDs of today would not work without the error detection/correction techniques based on field theory. I think it's premature to be deciding the quality and impact of Tannenbaum's academic work.
I'm a big Linux fan, and a big Linus fan. It's a great story, and Linus has had a huge impact on computing. However, from what I know, Linus has a few responsibilities other than coordinating Linux developement. Tannenbaum, on the other hand, has done original research, written several books, and taught at least one univeristy course. Not bad by any measure.
Two more things. One, Linux is the result of the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of great programmers around the world. Two, don't confuse popularity with quality. Linux is great--for a work station. If you're running a server exposed to the internet, you'd be better off running Open BSD.
Tannenbaum may have failed to call how computing would take shape. However, I can help but believe we'd be better off if his predictions of RISC architectures and micro-kernels, particularly the micro-kernels, had come to be.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you.The ZDNet article, Internet Explorer 7 Beta: a first look, opens with " It's been almost four years since Microsoft refreshed its venerable Internet Explorer browser." Perhaps a review of the word venerable is in order:
venerable
adj.
IE has inadequate CSS compliance and a history of insecurity. If you've ever tried to program IE to do client-side XML handling, you'd know they coughed up a hairy fur ball on that as well. It has neither virture nor dignity. It is definately not worthy of reverence.
Microsoft always manages to turn the beautiful art of programming into the management of train wrecks.
However, happy to see the review was negative....and autonomy for teachers. Plus, school and district administration need to back teachers instead of placating noisy parents.
Here's a start:
Software is not so special. However, a full-powered platform unencumbered by patents and restrictive licensing is, and definately worth fighting for. Google for 'software patents' and you'll find better expressions of the argument than I could ever come up with.
Copyright and trade secrets legislation are more than adequate for the protection of software IP.
BTW, this, "Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant?," is a staw man. Don't accuse of a position that none has taken.I think the point the author's making here is that Macs are high retail, but if you want a reliable PC, you'll be spending comparable money. Bad security and mediocre robustness mean high retail Macs are a better deal. (I don't want to argue the truth of that, I just wanted to make the author's point--or at least elucidate a reasonable conclusion.)
Take my comment with a grain of salt. I cited you for bad manners. The subject line indicated--well, I guess failed to indicate--that I wasn't entirely serious.
However, let me elaborate. As your children's personalities emerge, does your appreciation of their value change? No, I suspect not. Their personalities develop, but I'm guessing you value them exactly the same. I'm also guessing you hold them in high, high esteem. I can tell from your post above.
The insult is that you've conditionalized the value of a child, and you've assoicated their value with that of a compiler! Perhaps a better phrase would have been, "we won't fully realize their personality until they've matured a bit." But that really doesn't work, either. We don't want a compiler with persoanlity as much as value.
But, hey, you're right. I nit-pick. Here's another peeve: I can't stand when people say, "I was babysitting my kids last night." Sorry, but you can't babysit your own children. Other people do that. You mind, watch, care for, or supervise your own children. You babysit for others.
I also can't tolerate the phrase, "the bottom line." It's such an insult to the other side of the conversation. It's saying, "I have the weight of rational economics on my side, and you just can't argue with that."
The truth is, you wrote a great review and you clearly know what your doing.You didn't mean it, but you've managed to insult all past, present, and future parents!
Otherwise, thanks for the review. Consider yourself appreciated. Really.It would be nice if a major vendor besides MS would endorse a functional language. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Points taken.
I guess I'm just a bit touchy about research at universities being maligned--which, granted, wasn't the point or even gist of your post. I agree, federal grants will have a burden of politics. Perhaps any significant sum of money will have a burden of politics, public money or otherwise.
Regarding Haliburton, it's true, I don't know much about them. (Was Dresser a spin-off or a purchase?) I'll bet, however, should they have to consolidate, they sell off Dresser and other subsidiaries before they give up their core business, which I'm guessing is getting federal contracts for large infrastructure and logistics projects. There's no bidding and little oversite.
Sorry, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing for a safer North America (world, really), not for the terrorists' cause.
You should understand your enemy, not kid yourself about their motives. The US would be safer if the administration would address the real problems, not gloss over with inane phrases like 'they hate our freedom'.
I recommend you watch 'The Fog of War'. In it, Robert McNamara, secretary of defense for Kennedy and Johnson, architect of the Vietnam war, says, amnong many other things, that you must know your enemy. You must understand their motivation.
Anyway, ok. Everyone loves freedom for themselves. Happy? Message not invalidated.
As for your post, you're still making straw man arguments. How can you align me with the terrorists (even if between the lines)? Perhaps you could read my original post more closely.
No, not all his propaganda, just this one area. You've made a straw man argument.
Everyone loves freedom. When people are desperate for it, they do crazy things. A lot of innocent people died on 9/11. The terrorists are repugnant. These two fact don't absolve the US of it's hegemonic activities.
I don't think Bin Laden was able to fund his operation and motivate people to do such awful things because they hate freedom. I think the administration is lying. Lying to hide truths it would rather not come to light. Lying for vested interests.They love research grants even more when no strings are attached. Do you really think private entities don't apply pressure when they fund research?
What about Haliburton? The love their federal contracts.
Say, does Haliburton make significant money from anything besides federal contracts? Do they make appliances or aeroplanes? Do they do medical research?
To be consistent, shouldn't you extend your disdain for anyone or group that gets a significant portion of their funds from the government? (And if Haliburton is a bad example, I know there are many, many "private" companies that make all or nearly all of their income from public money.)
There's a lot of fundamental research that happens at Universities that businesses have no interest in. Anthropology, paleontology, history, mathematics, physics, cosmology, geology, biology, etc. You just can't privatize it because no one envisions the payoff. But remember, your CDs and DVDs use error detection/correction mechanisms based on mathematics, specifically group and field theory, developed in the 1700s. This math was viewed as completely without practical application for centuries! Indeed, the founder, Galois I believe, revelled in the fact that his theory had no application but was completely esoteric....is paved with good intentions.