Yes, thank you, I understand the difference between precedential and persuasive authority. Law school did that much for me, at least. While judges do not like to look stupid (which is a nice and succinct way of summing up a lot of judicial process), they also don't like to make other judges look stupid. Judge Jones has authored a careful and considered order that explains why ID isn't science, at least in the facts before his court. Another court, even in a different district, will almost certainly have to distinguish the cases if it wants to rule that ID is kosher in public schools.
There aren't many cases in this field, and Jones' ruling, like the Cobb County ruling, is significant in a political sense. Jones' ruling is also much broader, and more likely to shape the advocacy on this issue around the country, which will also encourage future courts to deal with his language, findings, and holdings.
That's a good summary. I'd only add that the 11th Circuit's questioning at oral argument wasn't quite as bad as it's been made out to be. Carnes definately seems to be leaning towards the "theory not a fact" crud that's unfortunately so persuasive to legal minds, but the bulk of his antagonism towards the appellees was over his misunderstanding of the facts; I think there was a mixup over the order of events, and the appellees' attorney was unable or unwilling to correct the judge. They had a chance to make a submission in writing correcting the timeline, so that entire line of questions should wind up being totally irrelevant.
True, but creationism cases are uncommon and therefore have higher-than-usual fluidity. This ruling discusses a Fifth Circuit case, for instance, because there aren't many precedential cases other than Edwards v. Aguillard. I think it's safe to say that Kitzmiller will be a serious factor in almost any future creationism case, even if it doesn't have precedential or traditionally persuasive weight.
That's not entirely accurate; the decision has weight in its own federal court, not school, district, which I believe is the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It would normally, and only roughly speaking, be persuasive in the rest of the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, and the Virgin Islands) only. But these creationism cases are (thankfully) few and far between, so it will be read as persuasive and influential in all future cases on the topic. For instance, this judgment includes a discussion of past creationism cases outside of the circuit. That influence will be magnified by the scope of this ruling, which is more detailed than I'd have expected.
This case won't be appealed. The school board that introduced Intelligent Design in Dover was unceremoniously dumped on its ass at the last election, and the incoming board has made it clear that it would not appeal a ruling in the ACLU's favor.
Nor, for that matter, would the main ID advocates want this case appealed. The Discovery Institute pulled its support early on, for instance. Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. The old Dover school board was unsophisticated, and much too blatant about its purely religious motivations.
ID advocates have seen Kitzmiller as a disastrous airing of their dirty laundry from fairly early on; the only thing surprising about this ruling is its refreshing breadth, depth, and clarity.
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
I understand, and largely agree with, your sentiment here, but your use of terminology is going to cause confusion. In my experience (I've done some published writing and a great deal of research on ID) what you're talking about is often referred to as "theistic evolution," or something else along those lines. It's a philosophical and spiritual complement to objective science, without imposing unrebuttable presuppositions on the field.
This is distinguished from ID, or how the term "ID" is usually used, especially by those who are its strongest advocates, such as the Discovery Institute. ID starts at theistic evolution, and then adds the critical claim that design not only exists, but can be objectively detected through scientific means.
It's all semantics, but I think it matters, especially because there are ID advocates who make the same arguments you're advancing here to make inroads with those who wouldn't accept the more radical (and more common) claims of the 'theory'.
You are absolutely wrong. ID is absolutely a form of creationism; its core assertion is that life was supernaturally created.
ID doesn't marginally differ from evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory operates on an entirely different set of assumptions - it is empirical, based on experimentation and observation, and proceeds according to the scientific method. ID is much closer to, and only marginally different from, six-day creationism because they proceed from the same philosophy: revealed truth trumps observed evidence, and the evidence must be finessed to fit the revealed truth.
You can observe this in the way ID shills like Behe handle their theories. Behe's pet "Irreducible Complexity" theory has been refuted many times, but rather than altering or abandoning the theory, he creates special exceptions - "Oh, THAT particular feature may have evolved, but this different thing over here is too complex to have arisen through evolution." The data has to fit the theory, not the other way around.
The core characteristic of ID isn't that it accepts an old earth. The core characteristic is that ID is about affirming religious faith rather than making discoveries about the natural world.
Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.
That's a little misleading. Bush is advocating teaching ID, he's only justifying it by saying that the purpose is to expose students to multiple theories. The problem is that, depending on your standards, there is either one valid theory--evolution, which is valid because it is supported by evidence and science--or many, many valid theories, such as Scientology, which would be valid because someone believes in it and would be offended to be taught facts that contradicted their beliefs.
It's very deceptive for someone in Bush's position to say, "Teach the controversy!" There is no controversy. None. ID has nothing to do with legitimate science, and whatever controversy exists is the result of an intentional effort to deceive laypeople.
IAAAL (I am an American lawyer) and I don't know much about British law, but in case you're interested, stateside the answer would be that the Fifth Amendment only protects you against testimonial self-incrimination.
That is, you don't have to give testimony about yourself, but anything else--including documents that you wrote or filled out, like tax forms or order forms--is physical evidence rather than testimony, and not covered.
By analogy, the courts would say that you have to give your password so that they can investigate the physical evidence, but even if there is incriminating material there, you aren't giving self-incriminating testimony.
There is a short article about the legal framework here.
Again, this is all American law. Not what the poster was asking about, but maybe the British answer is similar.
Re:A challenging read from a remarkable talent
on
Iron Council
·
· Score: 1
Am I missing something? The parent post seems like a very cogent analysis of the book - why was it modded to -1? Unless there's something grievous that I'm not seeing, mod it up! I'm not sure I agree that intervention is the central metaphor of the book, but it's a very interesting take.
In regards to your comment on how Mieville treats the brutality and prejudices of his revolutionaries, I agree that he treats them with admirable and impressive realism.
I assume, based on no knowledge of the man other than his novels, that he is sympathetic, at least, to the idea of a socialist revolution. A lot of authors in that position would gloss over the character flaws of revolutionary characters, whereas Mieville gives them recognizable failings from their real-world counterparts, without overdoing the comparison.
I would prefer that he focus on the more minor characters (I agree with another poster, who commented that the Rudgutter is one of the most interesting characters in the series, but gets very little page time), but I appreciate the fact that he doesn't play political favorites.
I agree. The most striking thing about his creativity is how *rare* it seems. He puts a lot more work into his novels than most of his contemporaries, and I think that's a side effect of his political interests. He's trying to *say* something, rather than just tell a quick story, and it encourages craftsmanship. That's my take, anyway. And while I'm offering unsolicited opinions, I'd say he's similar to David Gerrold and Iain M. Banks in that respect - they write meatier books because they're flexing more than just a creative muscle.
Iron Council is *not* self contained.
on
Iron Council
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The reviewer is wrong; Iron Council is not a self-contained work. All of this is only my opinion, of course, but the trilogy seems to be about the city of New Crobuzon as much as it's about any social or political themes. Even The Scar, which takes place entirely outside the city limits, revolves around New Crobuzon, its people, its culture, and its history. Each of the books builds on the backstory and moods set in the predecessors; the plots aren't interwoven so that you'd *need* to read the others, but you're definately missing a lot of the meat of Iron Council if you haven't read PSS or The Scar.
I did not enjoy Iron Council nearly as much as PSS or The Scar, not least because Mieville seemed to be shifting the focus more to less interesting characters and politics and away from the city itself. The external events were weak, in comparison to the city-centered parts of the plot, and the political themes seemed forced.
That's a small complaint, though, in the end. Mieville writes up a storm, and what we do see of New Crobuzon is as compelling and original as ever. I can't wait for his next work; I hope that it's set in the same universe, whether it's another NC exposition or set somewhere else entirely.
I should mention that I enjoy his non-Bas-Lag fiction as well. I liked King Rat much more than Gaiman's Neverwhere, which is roughly similar but less interesting. King Rat explored some of the same political themes as Iron Council, but in subtler and more interesting ways.
All in all, read Iron Council only if you're particularly interested in Mieville's political themes or are a dedicated fan of his settings. Given how he builds on the settings and moods of his prior works in the series, you'll enjoy and appreciate the next Bas Lag book more if you've read Iron Council, even if it doesn't float your boat all on its own.
The submitter's comment seemed familiar to me. Gizmodo posted this yesterday:
"Flat network cables aren't anything new, but I'm pretty sure ones like this are. Japanese accessory king Elecom today announced the "LD-VAPF/SV05" network cabling, coming in at 1.4mm thick."
Since most Gizmodo entries aren't copied to Slashdot, I'm assuming it's not the same person. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I'm not, it's not that big a deal... but is it so hard to write your own copy? There's no excuse for stealing prose from another site.
That's more or less how SageTV (and probably Myth, although I haven't used it) handles conflicts. It's intuitive and very useful - I can't understand why TiVo doesn't follow suit. All that's needed is a "Conflicts" menu that shows you shows that won't be recorded due to a conflict, and lets you pick which one to weight in that instance or overall. It's much more user friendly than having to bounce in and out of menus or just change the season pass orders.
The same thing pertains to recording a few minutes into the next scheduled recording. Is there some technical reason why TiVo can't handle slightly odd recording times, or is it just a case of too little competition?
Quite impossible. All the peers who would review that paper are part of the Evil Darwinian Conspiracy Against Truth and the Love of Jesus(tm), and so actively conspire against the brave and noble champions of intelligent design.
Leaving them no other option, of course, than to write steamy potboilers full of two-dollar words and one kopeck ideas, and revel in the adoration of the modern-day Lysenkos.
I understand that it's a different view, and one honestly held, but I'm compelled by my own demons to point out that it's not a scientific view... ID in general is the province of a few pseudoscientific philosophers and some not-quite biologists who stopped publishing peer-reviewed objective science a long time ago. When a "scientist" abandons laboratories, research programs, journals, and all the trappings of actual research to hit the lecture circuit and write books pushing a social agenda, well, read the putative science stuff very carefully.
What you're arguing here is not very coherent. The inability of a scientist in a lab to manufacture an organelle with the technology at hand is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory doesn't argue that organelles or other complex biological machinery should be able to be manufactured in a lab - that's actually more of an ID argument. Experimental science overwhelmingly indicates that complex biological machinery arose over millions of years in an extremely gradual process that could not be more different than molecular biologists tinkering in a tube.
Moreover, irreducible complexity has never really been able to defend itself. Behe backtracks constantly - in the past, he's been forced to admit that certain of his examples, such as the fine structure of the ear or the eye, did evolve naturalistically. I think he's on to cilia now. When someone shows a plausible evolutionary model for cilia that he can't ignore, he'll move on to the next example. That's a symptom of bad science - it's not falsifiable. Any evidence of evolution is just a special exception to his theory that's never really discussed. There will always be some biological structure that we don't 100% understand, and Behe or someone like him will always be hawking a book or a lecture series saying, "We don't understand it! Therefore it can't be understood, and we should stop trying."
It's called "god of the gaps," and it's what all ID eventually boils down to - we don't currently understand how X happened, therefore it was a miracle. OK, great. Follow that train wherever it leads, my friend - via con los lobos. What gets my goat, and the goat of most objectivists/naturalists in general, is when step two is, "Therefore our children shouldn't be forced to learn the science behind the questions. Teach them that it was a miracle instead."
The hell with that. Freedom is the distance between church and state. Teach them that the behavior and biology of organisms, including primate, alter over time. Let the church, or the hack science lecture circuit, pump them full of dogma in their own time.
"We" don't 'generate what the cells that all life is built from.' It's not really clear what you're trying to say, but descent with modification is what generates the complexity that hacks like Behe pretend is so bewildering.
The article is absolutely not "premised" on being "evidence" of anything. It's an unusual observation that may be relevant to one theory of anthropoid evolution.
Evolution runs into trouble at the cellular level with the high level of complexity that has yet to be replicated from base chemicals by modern labs.
Just like astronomy runs into trouble at the gravitational level, with all those fairy-tale black holes that have yet to be replicated with radio telescopes in modern labs?
There are some legitimate scientific objections to macroevolutionary theory... perhaps more effort should be spent on matters such as irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is not a legitimate scientific anything. It has nothing to do with objective science in general or this article in particular.
I always thought Ground Control did a great job of focusing on the tactical game without involving too much in the way of resource management. Incorporated a lot of ideas from Myth, too, including persistant veteran units.
To me, what made Myth so great was the presentation of the story - even above the story itself. The voiceover work was maybe the finest I've ever heard. The narrator's voice is etched in my mind, now; the story borrows a *lot* from Glen Cook's Black Company books, and the narrator is the perfect voice for the narrator of the books, Croaker.
I really recommend the books, by the way. From the relatively detached military perspective to the squabbling villainous lieutenants (and don't forget the wonderful names), it's a great literary companion to the games.
So that's my recommendation. Ground Control and The Black Company.
I was one of the law students in attendance...
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I tried submitting the notice and the address for the live webcast a few days in advance, but it got rejected by the editors. Better late than never, I guess. You can watch the speech at the Journal of Law and Technology's archive.
JOLT's presentation of the event was very odd. They made a few comments at the start that made it sound like they were only grudgingly admitting non-Harvard Law students, which is a shame, because the MIT people really came to play. Their questions were good, and the kept it all professional and on-message. (JOLT does and always has, as far as I know, made their events open off-campus; the editor's comments just made it sound like he wasn't all that happy to have a room packed with non-HLS kids.)
Darl was also impressive, to be honest. He was more than a little bit evasive in his answers, but he was very good about going back to the MIT students for questions, even though there were some obviously more sympathetic law students with their hands up. He also stayed around for a bit after the presentation to talk to a small knot of students, presumably including the author of the linked piece.
While he didn't convince me that SCO has a case, he did a fairly good job of convincing me that he *believes* they have a case, and that it's not a scam. He did, after the speech in the small discussion, address the "pump and dump" allegations; he denies selling any significant stock, and claimed any internal sell-offs have been minor and insignificant. I was just on the periphery of that conversation though, so take my report with a grain of salt.
A couple of people have commented on McBride's bodyguard. He did, in fact, have a bodyguard there; I was told it was because he's received death threats. The other guy (the one who actually looks like a bodyguard) was a Harvard police officer; university policy forbids guest speakers from bringing bodyguards on campus without a peace officer in attendance, apparently.
1. Almost certainly, it's not the individuals who are gaining, but the corporations. 2. That's not the purpose of copyright & patents according to the consitution. The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, which copyright & patents are now going against.
Sort of.
1. This isn't actually clear. Corporations like Disney are the most visible beneficiaries of modern IP law, but I've never seen research looking at what the share of individual IP rights holders is in comparison. Pretty sizable, I'd bet.
More importantly, though, it doesn't matter. Why? First, because the law doesn't care if the rights holders are "natural people" or corporations - the rights are still valid in the eyes of the law.
2. You're right about the Constitutional purpose of IP law, but again, it doesn't really apply here. You have to ask how the Constitution expects IP to promote the progress of science and useful arts (and that's just the patent standard anyway, if I remember correctly) - it's through incentives. People make money off of their IP, so they make more. It's the ostensible justification behind the current ridiculously long copyright term - people will make more art if they know their children will benefit from it.
This also doesn't necessarily rule out corporate rights holders. Congress and the courts have no problem with the (probably correct) argument that there are tons of potentially profitable works that individuals just can't leverage to the maximum. So those IP creators benefit by selling the rights, and extending the term (as in the case of the recent extensions) or strengthening the back-end protection (as in this case) increases the value of those rights to corporate buyers, benefitting the creators through higher prices.
So saying "it's all for the benefit of corporations" is (A) fun (B) exciting and (C) maybe correct, but (D) doesn't make a damned bit of difference. And saying, "Hey, this isn't the original purpose of IP law!" isn't much more useful. The answer will pretty much always be, "Well, it is the purpose now, and besides, it's how we reach the original purpose."
Well, that's sort of the point of intellectual property today. It imposes limits on the liberties of everyone other than the creator/rights holder, in order to protect that individual's rights. Most people would say that that isn't inherently a bad thing.
There are two problems below the surface, though. The first is a sort of teleological point - whatever the practical purpose of IP today, there's an ongoing debate about what that purpose SHOULD be. What is the best balance between using IP law to protect the rights holders and using it to encourage the creation of new works? There is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same goal - there are a lot of nuances that have huge impacts on consumers.
And that's the second problem, and where I think your frustration is coming from. Congresscritters, regulators, and judges don't seem to be doing a very good job of finding a good balance - the incentives of influential rights holders (not necessarily IP creators) are leading further and further down the path of commoditization of intellectual property, and those holding the reins aren't doing enough to look beyond those short-term goals to either the basic premises behind IP law or the eventual effects of the curent trends.
Final result? Who knows. I tend to think that once these restrictions start to bite down on regular consumers (as in, not early adopters or techno-fetishists) there will be more push back towards consumers' freedom to use and enjoy the IP of others. If not, well, I'll buy the rights to some starving artist's masterpiece and live off the proceeds in perpetuity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, thank you, I understand the difference between precedential and persuasive authority. Law school did that much for me, at least. While judges do not like to look stupid (which is a nice and succinct way of summing up a lot of judicial process), they also don't like to make other judges look stupid. Judge Jones has authored a careful and considered order that explains why ID isn't science, at least in the facts before his court. Another court, even in a different district, will almost certainly have to distinguish the cases if it wants to rule that ID is kosher in public schools.
There aren't many cases in this field, and Jones' ruling, like the Cobb County ruling, is significant in a political sense. Jones' ruling is also much broader, and more likely to shape the advocacy on this issue around the country, which will also encourage future courts to deal with his language, findings, and holdings.
That's a good summary. I'd only add that the 11th Circuit's questioning at oral argument wasn't quite as bad as it's been made out to be. Carnes definately seems to be leaning towards the "theory not a fact" crud that's unfortunately so persuasive to legal minds, but the bulk of his antagonism towards the appellees was over his misunderstanding of the facts; I think there was a mixup over the order of events, and the appellees' attorney was unable or unwilling to correct the judge. They had a chance to make a submission in writing correcting the timeline, so that entire line of questions should wind up being totally irrelevant.
True, but creationism cases are uncommon and therefore have higher-than-usual fluidity. This ruling discusses a Fifth Circuit case, for instance, because there aren't many precedential cases other than Edwards v. Aguillard. I think it's safe to say that Kitzmiller will be a serious factor in almost any future creationism case, even if it doesn't have precedential or traditionally persuasive weight.
That's not entirely accurate; the decision has weight in its own federal court, not school, district, which I believe is the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It would normally, and only roughly speaking, be persuasive in the rest of the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, and the Virgin Islands) only. But these creationism cases are (thankfully) few and far between, so it will be read as persuasive and influential in all future cases on the topic. For instance, this judgment includes a discussion of past creationism cases outside of the circuit. That influence will be magnified by the scope of this ruling, which is more detailed than I'd have expected.
This case won't be appealed. The school board that introduced Intelligent Design in Dover was unceremoniously dumped on its ass at the last election, and the incoming board has made it clear that it would not appeal a ruling in the ACLU's favor.
Nor, for that matter, would the main ID advocates want this case appealed. The Discovery Institute pulled its support early on, for instance. Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. The old Dover school board was unsophisticated, and much too blatant about its purely religious motivations.
ID advocates have seen Kitzmiller as a disastrous airing of their dirty laundry from fairly early on; the only thing surprising about this ruling is its refreshing breadth, depth, and clarity.
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
I understand, and largely agree with, your sentiment here, but your use of terminology is going to cause confusion. In my experience (I've done some published writing and a great deal of research on ID) what you're talking about is often referred to as "theistic evolution," or something else along those lines. It's a philosophical and spiritual complement to objective science, without imposing unrebuttable presuppositions on the field.
This is distinguished from ID, or how the term "ID" is usually used, especially by those who are its strongest advocates, such as the Discovery Institute. ID starts at theistic evolution, and then adds the critical claim that design not only exists, but can be objectively detected through scientific means.
It's all semantics, but I think it matters, especially because there are ID advocates who make the same arguments you're advancing here to make inroads with those who wouldn't accept the more radical (and more common) claims of the 'theory'.
You are absolutely wrong. ID is absolutely a form of creationism; its core assertion is that life was supernaturally created.
ID doesn't marginally differ from evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory operates on an entirely different set of assumptions - it is empirical, based on experimentation and observation, and proceeds according to the scientific method. ID is much closer to, and only marginally different from, six-day creationism because they proceed from the same philosophy: revealed truth trumps observed evidence, and the evidence must be finessed to fit the revealed truth.
You can observe this in the way ID shills like Behe handle their theories. Behe's pet "Irreducible Complexity" theory has been refuted many times, but rather than altering or abandoning the theory, he creates special exceptions - "Oh, THAT particular feature may have evolved, but this different thing over here is too complex to have arisen through evolution." The data has to fit the theory, not the other way around.
The core characteristic of ID isn't that it accepts an old earth. The core characteristic is that ID is about affirming religious faith rather than making discoveries about the natural world.
Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.
That's a little misleading. Bush is advocating teaching ID, he's only justifying it by saying that the purpose is to expose students to multiple theories. The problem is that, depending on your standards, there is either one valid theory--evolution, which is valid because it is supported by evidence and science--or many, many valid theories, such as Scientology, which would be valid because someone believes in it and would be offended to be taught facts that contradicted their beliefs.
It's very deceptive for someone in Bush's position to say, "Teach the controversy!" There is no controversy. None. ID has nothing to do with legitimate science, and whatever controversy exists is the result of an intentional effort to deceive laypeople.
IAAAL (I am an American lawyer) and I don't know much about British law, but in case you're interested, stateside the answer would be that the Fifth Amendment only protects you against testimonial self-incrimination.
That is, you don't have to give testimony about yourself, but anything else--including documents that you wrote or filled out, like tax forms or order forms--is physical evidence rather than testimony, and not covered.
By analogy, the courts would say that you have to give your password so that they can investigate the physical evidence, but even if there is incriminating material there, you aren't giving self-incriminating testimony.
There is a short article about the legal framework here.
Again, this is all American law. Not what the poster was asking about, but maybe the British answer is similar.
Am I missing something? The parent post seems like a very cogent analysis of the book - why was it modded to -1? Unless there's something grievous that I'm not seeing, mod it up! I'm not sure I agree that intervention is the central metaphor of the book, but it's a very interesting take.
In regards to your comment on how Mieville treats the brutality and prejudices of his revolutionaries, I agree that he treats them with admirable and impressive realism.
I assume, based on no knowledge of the man other than his novels, that he is sympathetic, at least, to the idea of a socialist revolution. A lot of authors in that position would gloss over the character flaws of revolutionary characters, whereas Mieville gives them recognizable failings from their real-world counterparts, without overdoing the comparison.
I would prefer that he focus on the more minor characters (I agree with another poster, who commented that the Rudgutter is one of the most interesting characters in the series, but gets very little page time), but I appreciate the fact that he doesn't play political favorites.
I agree. The most striking thing about his creativity is how *rare* it seems. He puts a lot more work into his novels than most of his contemporaries, and I think that's a side effect of his political interests. He's trying to *say* something, rather than just tell a quick story, and it encourages craftsmanship. That's my take, anyway. And while I'm offering unsolicited opinions, I'd say he's similar to David Gerrold and Iain M. Banks in that respect - they write meatier books because they're flexing more than just a creative muscle.
The reviewer is wrong; Iron Council is not a self-contained work. All of this is only my opinion, of course, but the trilogy seems to be about the city of New Crobuzon as much as it's about any social or political themes. Even The Scar, which takes place entirely outside the city limits, revolves around New Crobuzon, its people, its culture, and its history. Each of the books builds on the backstory and moods set in the predecessors; the plots aren't interwoven so that you'd *need* to read the others, but you're definately missing a lot of the meat of Iron Council if you haven't read PSS or The Scar.
I did not enjoy Iron Council nearly as much as PSS or The Scar, not least because Mieville seemed to be shifting the focus more to less interesting characters and politics and away from the city itself. The external events were weak, in comparison to the city-centered parts of the plot, and the political themes seemed forced.
That's a small complaint, though, in the end. Mieville writes up a storm, and what we do see of New Crobuzon is as compelling and original as ever. I can't wait for his next work; I hope that it's set in the same universe, whether it's another NC exposition or set somewhere else entirely.
I should mention that I enjoy his non-Bas-Lag fiction as well. I liked King Rat much more than Gaiman's Neverwhere, which is roughly similar but less interesting. King Rat explored some of the same political themes as Iron Council, but in subtler and more interesting ways.
All in all, read Iron Council only if you're particularly interested in Mieville's political themes or are a dedicated fan of his settings. Given how he builds on the settings and moods of his prior works in the series, you'll enjoy and appreciate the next Bas Lag book more if you've read Iron Council, even if it doesn't float your boat all on its own.
The submitter's comment seemed familiar to me. Gizmodo posted this yesterday:
h ick-gigabit-ethernet-cable-035823.php
"Flat network cables aren't anything new, but I'm pretty sure ones like this are. Japanese accessory king Elecom today announced the "LD-VAPF/SV05" network cabling, coming in at 1.4mm thick."
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/14mm-t
Since most Gizmodo entries aren't copied to Slashdot, I'm assuming it's not the same person. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I'm not, it's not that big a deal... but is it so hard to write your own copy? There's no excuse for stealing prose from another site.
That's more or less how SageTV (and probably Myth, although I haven't used it) handles conflicts. It's intuitive and very useful - I can't understand why TiVo doesn't follow suit. All that's needed is a "Conflicts" menu that shows you shows that won't be recorded due to a conflict, and lets you pick which one to weight in that instance or overall. It's much more user friendly than having to bounce in and out of menus or just change the season pass orders.
The same thing pertains to recording a few minutes into the next scheduled recording. Is there some technical reason why TiVo can't handle slightly odd recording times, or is it just a case of too little competition?
Quite impossible. All the peers who would review that paper are part of the Evil Darwinian Conspiracy Against Truth and the Love of Jesus(tm), and so actively conspire against the brave and noble champions of intelligent design.
Leaving them no other option, of course, than to write steamy potboilers full of two-dollar words and one kopeck ideas, and revel in the adoration of the modern-day Lysenkos.
I see. That does clarify what you meant.
I understand that it's a different view, and one honestly held, but I'm compelled by my own demons to point out that it's not a scientific view... ID in general is the province of a few pseudoscientific philosophers and some not-quite biologists who stopped publishing peer-reviewed objective science a long time ago. When a "scientist" abandons laboratories, research programs, journals, and all the trappings of actual research to hit the lecture circuit and write books pushing a social agenda, well, read the putative science stuff very carefully.
What you're arguing here is not very coherent. The inability of a scientist in a lab to manufacture an organelle with the technology at hand is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory doesn't argue that organelles or other complex biological machinery should be able to be manufactured in a lab - that's actually more of an ID argument. Experimental science overwhelmingly indicates that complex biological machinery arose over millions of years in an extremely gradual process that could not be more different than molecular biologists tinkering in a tube.
Moreover, irreducible complexity has never really been able to defend itself. Behe backtracks constantly - in the past, he's been forced to admit that certain of his examples, such as the fine structure of the ear or the eye, did evolve naturalistically. I think he's on to cilia now. When someone shows a plausible evolutionary model for cilia that he can't ignore, he'll move on to the next example. That's a symptom of bad science - it's not falsifiable. Any evidence of evolution is just a special exception to his theory that's never really discussed. There will always be some biological structure that we don't 100% understand, and Behe or someone like him will always be hawking a book or a lecture series saying, "We don't understand it! Therefore it can't be understood, and we should stop trying."
It's called "god of the gaps," and it's what all ID eventually boils down to - we don't currently understand how X happened, therefore it was a miracle. OK, great. Follow that train wherever it leads, my friend - via con los lobos. What gets my goat, and the goat of most objectivists/naturalists in general, is when step two is, "Therefore our children shouldn't be forced to learn the science behind the questions. Teach them that it was a miracle instead."
The hell with that. Freedom is the distance between church and state. Teach them that the behavior and biology of organisms, including primate, alter over time. Let the church, or the hack science lecture circuit, pump them full of dogma in their own time.
"We" don't 'generate what the cells that all life is built from.' It's not really clear what you're trying to say, but descent with modification is what generates the complexity that hacks like Behe pretend is so bewildering.
The article is absolutely not "premised" on being "evidence" of anything. It's an unusual observation that may be relevant to one theory of anthropoid evolution.
Evolution runs into trouble at the cellular level with the high level of complexity that has yet to be replicated from base chemicals by modern labs.
Just like astronomy runs into trouble at the gravitational level, with all those fairy-tale black holes that have yet to be replicated with radio telescopes in modern labs?
No, you get that from chickens.
Irreducible complexity is not a legitimate scientific anything. It has nothing to do with objective science in general or this article in particular.
I always thought Ground Control did a great job of focusing on the tactical game without involving too much in the way of resource management. Incorporated a lot of ideas from Myth, too, including persistant veteran units.
To me, what made Myth so great was the presentation of the story - even above the story itself. The voiceover work was maybe the finest I've ever heard. The narrator's voice is etched in my mind, now; the story borrows a *lot* from Glen Cook's Black Company books, and the narrator is the perfect voice for the narrator of the books, Croaker.
I really recommend the books, by the way. From the relatively detached military perspective to the squabbling villainous lieutenants (and don't forget the wonderful names), it's a great literary companion to the games.
So that's my recommendation. Ground Control and The Black Company.
JOLT's presentation of the event was very odd. They made a few comments at the start that made it sound like they were only grudgingly admitting non-Harvard Law students, which is a shame, because the MIT people really came to play. Their questions were good, and the kept it all professional and on-message. (JOLT does and always has, as far as I know, made their events open off-campus; the editor's comments just made it sound like he wasn't all that happy to have a room packed with non-HLS kids.)
Darl was also impressive, to be honest. He was more than a little bit evasive in his answers, but he was very good about going back to the MIT students for questions, even though there were some obviously more sympathetic law students with their hands up. He also stayed around for a bit after the presentation to talk to a small knot of students, presumably including the author of the linked piece.
While he didn't convince me that SCO has a case, he did a fairly good job of convincing me that he *believes* they have a case, and that it's not a scam. He did, after the speech in the small discussion, address the "pump and dump" allegations; he denies selling any significant stock, and claimed any internal sell-offs have been minor and insignificant. I was just on the periphery of that conversation though, so take my report with a grain of salt.
A couple of people have commented on McBride's bodyguard. He did, in fact, have a bodyguard there; I was told it was because he's received death threats. The other guy (the one who actually looks like a bodyguard) was a Harvard police officer; university policy forbids guest speakers from bringing bodyguards on campus without a peace officer in attendance, apparently.
Except
1. Almost certainly, it's not the individuals who are gaining, but the corporations.
2. That's not the purpose of copyright & patents according to the consitution. The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, which copyright & patents are now going against.
Sort of.
1. This isn't actually clear. Corporations like Disney are the most visible beneficiaries of modern IP law, but I've never seen research looking at what the share of individual IP rights holders is in comparison. Pretty sizable, I'd bet.
More importantly, though, it doesn't matter. Why? First, because the law doesn't care if the rights holders are "natural people" or corporations - the rights are still valid in the eyes of the law.
2. You're right about the Constitutional purpose of IP law, but again, it doesn't really apply here. You have to ask how the Constitution expects IP to promote the progress of science and useful arts (and that's just the patent standard anyway, if I remember correctly) - it's through incentives. People make money off of their IP, so they make more. It's the ostensible justification behind the current ridiculously long copyright term - people will make more art if they know their children will benefit from it.
This also doesn't necessarily rule out corporate rights holders. Congress and the courts have no problem with the (probably correct) argument that there are tons of potentially profitable works that individuals just can't leverage to the maximum. So those IP creators benefit by selling the rights, and extending the term (as in the case of the recent extensions) or strengthening the back-end protection (as in this case) increases the value of those rights to corporate buyers, benefitting the creators through higher prices.
So saying "it's all for the benefit of corporations" is (A) fun (B) exciting and (C) maybe correct, but (D) doesn't make a damned bit of difference. And saying, "Hey, this isn't the original purpose of IP law!" isn't much more useful. The answer will pretty much always be, "Well, it is the purpose now, and besides, it's how we reach the original purpose."
Colin
Well, that's sort of the point of intellectual property today. It imposes limits on the liberties of everyone other than the creator/rights holder, in order to protect that individual's rights. Most people would say that that isn't inherently a bad thing.
There are two problems below the surface, though. The first is a sort of teleological point - whatever the practical purpose of IP today, there's an ongoing debate about what that purpose SHOULD be. What is the best balance between using IP law to protect the rights holders and using it to encourage the creation of new works? There is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same goal - there are a lot of nuances that have huge impacts on consumers.
And that's the second problem, and where I think your frustration is coming from. Congresscritters, regulators, and judges don't seem to be doing a very good job of finding a good balance - the incentives of influential rights holders (not necessarily IP creators) are leading further and further down the path of commoditization of intellectual property, and those holding the reins aren't doing enough to look beyond those short-term goals to either the basic premises behind IP law or the eventual effects of the curent trends.
Final result? Who knows. I tend to think that once these restrictions start to bite down on regular consumers (as in, not early adopters or techno-fetishists) there will be more push back towards consumers' freedom to use and enjoy the IP of others. If not, well, I'll buy the rights to some starving artist's masterpiece and live off the proceeds in perpetuity.