Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain.
That's not true though. Creationism is not a theory in the sense that word is used in science, nor does it serve to explain the observable facts. Saying "this just happened to appear because of god" is not any more an explanation than saying "this just happened to appear". Less actually, since then you'd have to explain how god suddenly came to appear.
Well if you claim you are teaching science, then you should actually do that. If you alternatively want to teach religion, at least be honest about it. Sure you can teach alternative viewpoints - if they have any scientific merit. Failing that they should however not be taught as science, but as the religious views they are.
I think it would be a dramatic failure of an education system, if it taught children that any hypothesis is equally valid.
In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.
A theory is valid as long as there is no better theory available. If you can come up with a better theory, then that one will be valid. That doesn't mean that a hypothesis which explains nothing and is readily disproved was equally valid.
Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe, it also can't explain the "Why am I here question?".
This argument always surprises me - the religions I'm familiar with (not many, admittedly) don't provides an answer explanation to this either. An omnipotent god who needs to do something doesn't make sense, and saying "because god did it" or "because god wants it" is not technically an explanation.
I can't believe that enterprises and governments are willing to store critical archival documents in Microsoft Office format, and put them selves at risk of being unable to open these documents as little as 10 years hence.
It may not even take that long. I had this problem with Excel once - it used to be possible to embedd graphics into your spread sheet. I had created a large sheet, which embedded several graphics, right next to the cells which contained the data for it.
After an upgrade of Office I was quite surprised to find that Excel was now putting all these graphics on seperate pages. I didn't really need the data anymore in this case, so I didn't investigate whether there was a way to handle this. Still I'm glad I don't have a large archive of documents in proprietary formats.
It's the immigrant's responsibility to keep track of his legal status
You are right of course, but as a citizen you probably don't have much contact with your country's immigration laws and administration. The latter unfortunately is very overloaded and the former are less than clear.
To give a concrete example: I have a friend who wanted to become a US citizen - the way this usually works is to apply for a H1B, then apply for a greencard, then get naturalized. A greencard application typically takes between 2 and 10 years. For her it was more like the latter (sorry, I forgot how long it took exactly). At some point her H1B expired. My (and her) understanding of the law would have been that she'd have to leave the country at this point. The INS however told her that she would have to stay, otherwise she'd lose her position in the greencard queue. She would not be allowed to work, however. The INS did not provide her any intermediate status either.
So put yourself in her position - she just wants to comply with the law, she certainly would have left the country and waited for her greencard (it ended up taking another 6 months, but she had sufficient funds). Now imagine having a driver's license like that. What if the next cop interprets her situation differently than the INS?
Well, as far as I can tell there is nothing in climate research which is fundamentally different then in other scientific areas. Peer reviewed journals, statistical analysis, proposing theories and replacing them with better ones - all these methods are common scientific tools.
So are you proposing that these methods fail to find the truth in all of science, or is it some specific combination of factors which makes them fail in climate research?
I don't think the first case makes much sense, considering the successes which science has achieved. For the second case I think you would have to provide some evidence. It's not clear to me why the same method should work in e.g. physics, but totally fail in climate research. Sure, some scientists are driven by selfish motives, but science seems to overcome this in other areas. What would cause it to fail just in this field?
Isn't that becoming somewhat obsolete, now that browsers (like Mozilla) have password managers? I just have one master password for the password manager, and Mozilla remembers all the login info I need. Personally I much prefer that de-centralized approach to having something like Passport. I admit though, that this is not as convenient when you use multiple browsers (e.g. one for work, one for home or one in an internet cafe on vacation).
I think setting up a similar Linux environment just for a comparison would be prohibitively expensive. It will be very interesting though to see how the Linux project in Munich will go (the city administration is switching almost completely to Linux). If it works there (and saves money) then it will probably be useful for other administrations, too.
Now imagine that had been, say, a Linux deployment... Who could EDS have called then?
They could have called Novell or IBM.
Apart from that though - any setup can be screwed-up by an admin, no currently available OS can protect you from that. So for a TCO estimate at least we would have to look at the total loss due to screw-ups like this, and weigh them with the number of installations. Using a single data point can't be valid. That said, my gut feeling is that Linux provides considerably better TCO.
Well it seems the doctors are diagnosing him as having heart problems. They just don't agree with his observation that this is a new problem. I don't know what the right course of action is, in such a case - he suddenly felt pain, the doctors confirm it's a physiological cause, so he is not imagining things. Obviously he wants to feel better again. Asking around whether anyone can recommend a good doctor seems a reasonable thing to do.
Anyway, best wishes to him, some 10 years ago I greatly benefited from his work. I'm grateful.
What DVD John has done might be legally dubious, but it is certainly not immoral or unethical.
As far as I understand it's not legally dubious in his jurisdiction. He is not bound by US law in any way. Whether people in the US are allowed to use his work is another matter, but that's really not his problem.
Keys pressed are not connected to sending the email.
Uhmmm... no. No keys pressed, no email. Different keys pressed, different email. If there was no connection the key logger would be useless.
I could type this entire message without a keyboard attached to my computer.
On a typewriter? Or using a device which is similar to a keyboard in that that it lets you type text, but which you don't want to call a keyboard? Or using a mouse + cut&paste?
Possible, I suppose, but not applicable to this case - it wasn't done this way.
Also, you are claming that the keys captured from an email never sent is interstate commerce related.
I'm not claiming that, please don't invent. There is a possibility that this email would be interstate commerce related. This possibility is the construct that is used to make any of these laws apply. A somewhat dubious construct, I agree, but with lots of precedent.
Anyway, at least some of these emails were sent, and their content was captured. Even if you'd say that not-sent emails emails shouldn't apply, the ones which were sent would.
the act somehow retroactively becomes wiretapping.
Nope, it couldn't be - the conversation you taped wasn't interstate. The only way it could become interstate is, if somebody was intercepting what *you* play over the phone line.
Just a note to the hypotheticals: none of these apply to the actual case. There was no disconnect from the internet, there was no disconnect from the computer. Sure someone could go to the trouble to prevent this law (which benefits him) to apply. But I don't think that was the case, and there isn't even a motivation for someone to do that.
Use a sniffer, break the law. Log the keyboard, no problem.
As I said, yes your interpretation is possible, however it accomplishes nothing of value, and there is no compelling requirement to chose this interpretation. If you accept that legislature can't make laws as quickly as the world changes, and for every single aspect of the world, and you accept that judges should bridge that gap, then I think the judge's decision wasn't good.
If this interpretation is followed it means that the FBI will be able to spy on everybody without needing any kind of authorisation, provided they use the right technical means. Sure in this case the decision worked against them, but in general this could give them a lot of extra powers. The intent of the law was quite clearly not to give them these powers.
If you compose an email off-line, then log on and send it, then disconnect, your key strokes are not in any way related to the message sent. Try to think of it this way, if someone cuts their connection to all other computers, open Eudora, composes an email, then replaces the connection, then sends the email, what part of the communication is "interstate?"
The email is interstate, it was sent from the user via an interstate network. The keylogger has been used to intercept that information.
I don't think your position is indefensible - you could take that stance, however once you are willing to accept technicalities like that you can also argue your way around other restrictions. What if someone doesn't except "codecs and such"? Or if you just put a bug in the phone - the direction the information flows (mouthpiece to bug to wireless transmitter to spy's receiver) doesn't have to be interstate. Some judge might argue that point, too.
Still this was an interstate communication and it was intercepted. I don't think the approach taken by the judge is useful.
Yes, but I think companies like Novel or IBM could well compete in that market. Sure they don't make Linux themselves, and they don't make all the hardware (drives, memory, screens etc) but they can certify and support the whole solution. SUN is essentially in the same position - many components they use in their equipment are supplied by third parties.
it only intercepted signals traveling between the CPU and the keyboard.
Well, but if you apply the same reasoning to telephones, you should be able to wiretap any phone as long as the wire is between the actual telephone and the first switch. After all, any information through that wire will only go from the switch to the phone and vise versa. It won't be transmitted directly either - it will be digitized, encoded, stored in packets and embedded in T1 and SDH frames.
Yeah, I think the idea is that you have a choice to use this distribution. People who want an office-oriented PC which automatically updates would chose this.
Asking for cellphone reception so that my calls come through is wrong?
Yeah mate, that's what everybody has been telling you. No theoretically it doesn't matter if your cell phone is on, but never rings - if that was the case you wouldn't want reception, though. You want to get calls which are important to you, at everbody else's expense. Everybody else feels that the expense should be yours, since the gain is yours. Do you understand it now?
I don't think your phone would be just jammed - there would be a sign clearly indicating that there is no reception in that theatre. So you could chose whether you want to see a movie there or not. It seems there is considerable interest in cellphone-free theatres, so jamming reception could be good for business.
This system would block the sitter's call to me, yet that is no less valid as an emergency than a 999 call is.
It's a lot less important, actually. The reason for letting emergency calls through, is that there may be an emergency right there in the theatre (e.g. someone has a heart attack) - in this case there may be no other way to reach help, but to place a call. However the fact that your sitter can call you, also guarantees that there is another way to reach help - the sitter could call someone else.
No individuals or (relatively) small groups will ever win any case no matter how valid, if it reduces the control, power or profitability of large companies.
I think you are mistaken, have a look at the list of EFF victories for reference.
Linux is still asking questions that aren't dumb, but still frighten anyone who isn't very familiar with computers. Modeline and resolution? Swap space? What are ext2, ext3, and reiser!? Does my keyboard have 104 keys or 105?
The last few Linux installations I did, asked none of these questions. In fact you can use something like Knoppix and just pop it into the CD drive without any manual configuration. It finds all your hardware etc and brings up a KDE desktop - a great tool e.g. if you have a broken Windows installation and you need to repair/back up data etc.
Sad thing is, if OS X were released for the x86 platform, half of the Linux users I know would switch the next day.
I suspect that's a specific property of the group of Linux users you know.:-)
I think the initial plan was that the states select electors and that these electors come together, argue and decide on the best president. That is not the way it works today.
So considering that the system was already changed so dramatically - what's the value of tradition in this context?
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true though. Creationism is not a theory in the sense that word is used in science, nor does it serve to explain the observable facts. Saying "this just happened to appear because of god" is not any more an explanation than saying "this just happened to appear". Less actually, since then you'd have to explain how god suddenly came to appear.
I think it would be a dramatic failure of an education system, if it taught children that any hypothesis is equally valid.
A theory is valid as long as there is no better theory available. If you can come up with a better theory, then that one will be valid. That doesn't mean that a hypothesis which explains nothing and is readily disproved was equally valid.
Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe, it also can't explain the "Why am I here question?".
This argument always surprises me - the religions I'm familiar with (not many, admittedly) don't provides an answer explanation to this either. An omnipotent god who needs to do something doesn't make sense, and saying "because god did it" or "because god wants it" is not technically an explanation.
It may not even take that long. I had this problem with Excel once - it used to be possible to embedd graphics into your spread sheet. I had created a large sheet, which embedded several graphics, right next to the cells which contained the data for it.
After an upgrade of Office I was quite surprised to find that Excel was now putting all these graphics on seperate pages. I didn't really need the data anymore in this case, so I didn't investigate whether there was a way to handle this. Still I'm glad I don't have a large archive of documents in proprietary formats.
You are right of course, but as a citizen you probably don't have much contact with your country's immigration laws and administration. The latter unfortunately is very overloaded and the former are less than clear.
To give a concrete example: I have a friend who wanted to become a US citizen - the way this usually works is to apply for a H1B, then apply for a greencard, then get naturalized. A greencard application typically takes between 2 and 10 years. For her it was more like the latter (sorry, I forgot how long it took exactly). At some point her H1B expired. My (and her) understanding of the law would have been that she'd have to leave the country at this point. The INS however told her that she would have to stay, otherwise she'd lose her position in the greencard queue. She would not be allowed to work, however. The INS did not provide her any intermediate status either.
So put yourself in her position - she just wants to comply with the law, she certainly would have left the country and waited for her greencard (it ended up taking another 6 months, but she had sufficient funds). Now imagine having a driver's license like that. What if the next cop interprets her situation differently than the INS?
So are you proposing that these methods fail to find the truth in all of science, or is it some specific combination of factors which makes them fail in climate research?
I don't think the first case makes much sense, considering the successes which science has achieved. For the second case I think you would have to provide some evidence. It's not clear to me why the same method should work in e.g. physics, but totally fail in climate research. Sure, some scientists are driven by selfish motives, but science seems to overcome this in other areas. What would cause it to fail just in this field?
Isn't that becoming somewhat obsolete, now that browsers (like Mozilla) have password managers? I just have one master password for the password manager, and Mozilla remembers all the login info I need. Personally I much prefer that de-centralized approach to having something like Passport. I admit though, that this is not as convenient when you use multiple browsers (e.g. one for work, one for home or one in an internet cafe on vacation).
I think setting up a similar Linux environment just for a comparison would be prohibitively expensive. It will be very interesting though to see how the Linux project in Munich will go (the city administration is switching almost completely to Linux). If it works there (and saves money) then it will probably be useful for other administrations, too.
They could have called Novell or IBM.
Apart from that though - any setup can be screwed-up by an admin, no currently available OS can protect you from that. So for a TCO estimate at least we would have to look at the total loss due to screw-ups like this, and weigh them with the number of installations. Using a single data point can't be valid. That said, my gut feeling is that Linux provides considerably better TCO.
Anyway, best wishes to him, some 10 years ago I greatly benefited from his work. I'm grateful.
Also Smart is owned by Daimler-Chrysler (Mercedes) they hold 100% of the company.
As far as I understand it's not legally dubious in his jurisdiction. He is not bound by US law in any way. Whether people in the US are allowed to use his work is another matter, but that's really not his problem.
Uhmmm... no. No keys pressed, no email. Different keys pressed, different email. If there was no connection the key logger would be useless.
I could type this entire message without a keyboard attached to my computer.
On a typewriter? Or using a device which is similar to a keyboard in that that it lets you type text, but which you don't want to call a keyboard? Or using a mouse + cut&paste?
Possible, I suppose, but not applicable to this case - it wasn't done this way.
Also, you are claming that the keys captured from an email never sent is interstate commerce related.
I'm not claiming that, please don't invent. There is a possibility that this email would be interstate commerce related. This possibility is the construct that is used to make any of these laws apply. A somewhat dubious construct, I agree, but with lots of precedent.
Anyway, at least some of these emails were sent, and their content was captured. Even if you'd say that not-sent emails emails shouldn't apply, the ones which were sent would.
the act somehow retroactively becomes wiretapping.
Nope, it couldn't be - the conversation you taped wasn't interstate. The only way it could become interstate is, if somebody was intercepting what *you* play over the phone line.
Just a note to the hypotheticals: none of these apply to the actual case. There was no disconnect from the internet, there was no disconnect from the computer. Sure someone could go to the trouble to prevent this law (which benefits him) to apply. But I don't think that was the case, and there isn't even a motivation for someone to do that.
Use a sniffer, break the law. Log the keyboard, no problem.
As I said, yes your interpretation is possible, however it accomplishes nothing of value, and there is no compelling requirement to chose this interpretation. If you accept that legislature can't make laws as quickly as the world changes, and for every single aspect of the world, and you accept that judges should bridge that gap, then I think the judge's decision wasn't good.
If this interpretation is followed it means that the FBI will be able to spy on everybody without needing any kind of authorisation, provided they use the right technical means. Sure in this case the decision worked against them, but in general this could give them a lot of extra powers. The intent of the law was quite clearly not to give them these powers.
The email is interstate, it was sent from the user via an interstate network. The keylogger has been used to intercept that information.
I don't think your position is indefensible - you could take that stance, however once you are willing to accept technicalities like that you can also argue your way around other restrictions. What if someone doesn't except "codecs and such"? Or if you just put a bug in the phone - the direction the information flows (mouthpiece to bug to wireless transmitter to spy's receiver) doesn't have to be interstate. Some judge might argue that point, too.
Still this was an interstate communication and it was intercepted. I don't think the approach taken by the judge is useful.
Yes, but I think companies like Novel or IBM could well compete in that market. Sure they don't make Linux themselves, and they don't make all the hardware (drives, memory, screens etc) but they can certify and support the whole solution. SUN is essentially in the same position - many components they use in their equipment are supplied by third parties.
Well, but if you apply the same reasoning to telephones, you should be able to wiretap any phone as long as the wire is between the actual telephone and the first switch. After all, any information through that wire will only go from the switch to the phone and vise versa. It won't be transmitted directly either - it will be digitized, encoded, stored in packets and embedded in T1 and SDH frames.
Yeah, I think the idea is that you have a choice to use this distribution. People who want an office-oriented PC which automatically updates would chose this.
Yeah mate, that's what everybody has been telling you. No theoretically it doesn't matter if your cell phone is on, but never rings - if that was the case you wouldn't want reception, though. You want to get calls which are important to you, at everbody else's expense. Everybody else feels that the expense should be yours, since the gain is yours. Do you understand it now?
I don't think your phone would be just jammed - there would be a sign clearly indicating that there is no reception in that theatre. So you could chose whether you want to see a movie there or not. It seems there is considerable interest in cellphone-free theatres, so jamming reception could be good for business.
Unfortunately the interested people were unable to reach the church for some reason. :-)
It's a lot less important, actually. The reason for letting emergency calls through, is that there may be an emergency right there in the theatre (e.g. someone has a heart attack) - in this case there may be no other way to reach help, but to place a call. However the fact that your sitter can call you, also guarantees that there is another way to reach help - the sitter could call someone else.
I don't use GNOME, so I can't comment on the quality but I know that SuSE provides GNOME, too. KDE is the default, however.
I think you are mistaken, have a look at the list of EFF victories for reference.
The last few Linux installations I did, asked none of these questions. In fact you can use something like Knoppix and just pop it into the CD drive without any manual configuration. It finds all your hardware etc and brings up a KDE desktop - a great tool e.g. if you have a broken Windows installation and you need to repair/back up data etc.
Sad thing is, if OS X were released for the x86 platform, half of the Linux users I know would switch the next day.
I suspect that's a specific property of the group of Linux users you know. :-)
So considering that the system was already changed so dramatically - what's the value of tradition in this context?