Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
Yeah. That was the meeting when the Catholic church said that studying the nature of the universe was okay...as long as it didn't disprove the "unmoved mover." You know...God. Little did they know Mr. Hawking was coming up with a theory that time breaks down at the beginning of the universe and thus doesn't require an unmoved mover...or "God" as some like to refer to him.
You mean those people? Yeah. They're called creationists.
And yet, there's a world of difference, between a pope that says "Then that instance 'before' the big bang when the laws of physics as we know them is when God did his work", and the people here that says that "the earth is only six thousand years old (give or take) and evolution as we know it has not taken place."
Look, I realise that we're engaged in a semantic quible, and of course strictly speaking it's not illogical to define "creationist" as someone who belive god created the universe.
However, by grouping together two such extremes of view as those of the two groups of "creationists" as you do, something is irretrievably lost in the translation.
And to maintain that just because we Europeans have those "creationists" of the view of the pope (which has been considerably refined since Hawking's consultation, and Galileo's I might add) that it would be resonable to assume that we also were familiar with the arguments of "creationists" of the other kind is absurd.
And though I doubt that anyone really mistook my using "creationist" as a label solely refering to the latter version, let me state clearly that I did.
To reiterate, while there is no conflict between science and those that hold the (updated) view of the pope. I would say that there is an irreconcilable difference between the latter type "creationist" and the views of the natural sciences.
There, I've gone and defended the pope, it's wasnt 400 years ago that we started a 30 year war to try and kill him. That's progress;-)
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
To be truly scientific, one must separate the two questions:
Did evolution occur?
And...
Can evolution occur?
No matter the answer, until someone invents a time machine and goes back in time, the answer to the first question MUST be an "argument from silence", which is a formal logical falacy. Since science must be able to reproduce its results, history will NEVER be scientifically "proven."
The second question is an entirely different matter. This is something that can be reproducable in a lab environment. Results can be inferred to account for historical events, but they will never prove anything to the extent that a logical or mathmatical proof proves a theory.
Well, you're not discussing science here (and by that I mean natural science), but the philosophy of science. And that's a related but different animal (or beast perhaps?).
Not that I concur with your deductions. If you say that given a heap of evidence of things past and a theory to explain them, no sound scientific conclusion can be drawn. By your reasoning we could never prove murder either. All we have are a number of clues to what happened after the fact, and we cannot have the same person killed again, to determine how he died the first time, now can we? (Sure, we can kill other people after the fact, but that's not the same thing, and actually closely parallels your argument with regards to evolution then and now).
The natural sciences are based on observation. Sure, if we observe some kind of experiment, that can often (but perhaps paradoxically not always) strengthen our argument, because the experiments can be repeated. But by your reasoning, plate techtonics, most of geology and cosmology would fall also, since they also deal with events that are too slow to observe directly. We don't have to observe the outcome of experiements, it's equally valid to observe the outcome of natural occurrences.
I don't know of any current theory of the philosophy of science that would exclude geology et al, on basis of logic. But again, I'm not a philosopher.
Now, the rub of your argument is the dual use of the word "proof" as it is employed in mathematics/logic (which are formal systems, not based on observation/experiements in the natural world), and the natural science use, where they mean something different. Now, of course, we may not ever be able to "prove" evolution, in the mathematical sense, but we're quite frankly not trying to. Proof means something else in the natural sciences. (And I don't include mathematics, though there are some who do, though there may be language problem here also, english isn't my native tongue).
Now, it's interesting to note, that in practice, in mathematics the meaning of "proof" has come to slide more and more into the natural science one, i.e. how many other reasonable, sceptic experts (scholars) of your peers can you persuade your arguments are sound. There are even a few "back to basics" schools of thought in mathematics these days, to try and counter this trend. But as interesting as that may be, I digress, it's the topic of another discussion.
.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
You might want to look around Italy in a place called "the Vatican." I hear there's a bunch of creationists living there and are...*gasp*...European!
Well, I'm from northern europe, we threw out the catholics in the 1540:s, so I'm not expert on them (even though we've had religious freedom for quite some time, I think I may know one very secular catholic). But see my previous answer about Stephen Hawking and his consultation with the pope. There is even a quite famous astronomer who is a cardinal, though his name escapes me. There may be more, since the vatican has it's own observatory
Their form of creationism is wholly in line with scientific understanding, if their FAQ and other documents are to be belived. They do belive that there is a god that is everpresent and started it all, they are christians after all.
So, if that's the best you can come up with when it comes to european "creationists", it's still quite reasonable for me to say that there are no creationists here to speak of. Certainly none even beginning to come close to the view that has been presented here, and in the referenced links.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
Ah, OK I misread you as subscribing to another form of creationism. One that claimed that while evolution has (and is) taken place, somone/something (god) set the events in motion. Now, that you go further to claim that the earth is only 6000 years, well, that's a different brand of creationism, one that was much closer to the one I found on the net earlier. And one that doesn't fit well with evolutionary theories. There simply isn't time for anything useful to have happened in that time. I would call these views irreconcilable.
With the rest of your post, I'm at a loss for where to start. Permit me a few observations: I've spoken of science here (rather natural science) and while logic (and mathematics and the rest of philosophy) indeed is an important tool in science. That science would fall, doesn't (by logical reason) imply that logic and philosophy would. So while scientifically proving the existence of god would kill most of physics/chemistry/geology etc, (I'm fairly certain they could never recover from the shock), that doesn't necessarily mean that reason would. 1+1 could well still equal 2. Even though a truly omnipotent god could change that to... Which brings us back to square one.
Much of the rest of your argument deal with philosophy, and while that is both interesting and important, it's not science. Or even the philosophy of science. I do still claim though that for your beliefs to hold from a scientific point of view (miracles, 6000 year old earth etc), so much of the method and findings of the natural sciences so far would have to be thrown out, that they would cease to exist. If the pieces could be picked up and something new built that would resemble science, I'm not sure (very sceptic in fact) but my career as a scientist would be over. The philosophers would have to try and save that one. I'm not a philosopher, and cannot even begin to imagine how they could go about that. (And I'd sooner put my faith in god than for the philosophers to save us...;-)
To be honest; I don't see a lot of common ground here on which to go further. I clearly don't know enough philosophy to even begin to argue many of your points. It's been interesting though. Nice talking to you.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
In fact it surprises them that creationists also believe that natural selection occurs, and is quite natural. They think that we reject natural selection. One even suggested that I believed a different brand (one of many) of creationism to the rest. This is false, since the most recognised creationists all agree that natural selection occurs. It's a process, its maths, it simply happens.
Well, I spent an hour surfing the link that someone provided, and there seems to be other "creationists" around, that doesn't subscribe to your version of the theory...
However, I'm not expert enough to answer whether scientific evolutionists today completely rule out that the DNA structure today could have come from a single molecule (or a pair), so there may be a place there for a god hiding in the wings (as it were).
We scientists don't need a god behind it all for our theories to work. That's not to say that we necessarily rule out the posibility, indeed we couldn't. There's no way to prove the existence of a god, and likewise to way to prove his absence. He's god after all, can do whatever he pleases, including screwing up our experiments. And if we cannot make an experiement (not even in theory), we don't deal with it. (Or we don't call it science).
And this is incidentally where Occam comes in. Since it isn't necessary for our explanations, we don't put him in. If it were otherwise we'd actually be in trouble, if he was necessary, we'd have "proved" his existence (to a point), which would make science meaningless (well, very strictly speaking at least), we'd have to give up cause and effect (speaking of physics, not morals).
If you wish to find a place in science for a creator, I'm sure there'll always be room for one (at least for the foreseable future), but as I said, religion is what man turns to when he wants other questions answered, "why are we here, and what's the point of it all?" I'm pretty certain that science will never answer those questions (at least not in our lifetime) as fundamental as those may be. We're just trying to understand the mechanics of it all. Interesting, but perhaps not as soothing for the soul.
Occam's Razor, because it is so interpretive, opens itself up to annoying circles of semantic debate. This is why I remain wary of the lay person who uses it as their primary line of argument. When used properly, it is a powerful tool. But so is a chainsaw. Powerful tools should be treated with care.
Well, OK, I see your point. And couldn't agree more. Science is hard, there's no getting around that.
Though I cannot help but to observe, that yes, any proof of (i.e. anyone claiming to have made observations pertaining to) the existence of other intelligent beings in the universe has to be considered with the utmost scrutiny. Thus far the smart money is on mistake (remember quasars producing 1+1=2?) or hoax. It wouldn't be until those sources of errors had been dealt with, that a scientist would be satisfied.
I realise we've forgotten an important principle to go with Occam, and that's "disciplined, sceptic enquiery" (my own translation).
As a science student (well, computer science... ) *and* a Christian (yes, I *can* be both... read on), I prefer to see it as a combination answer between a) and b):
God set the rules that the Universe plays by and the Universe went and played by those rules... if God did not set the rules, who/what did? And since something must have set those rules, then couldn't that something be considered to be God?
Sure, I was mainly answering the "smaller" argument about the origin of the sun. Natural scientists does not (at least yet) have an answer to "how it all began", there may still be a vacant spot there for a creator. It could become occupied though, which is always problematic. Comapare Galileo.
According to Hawkings, that was the position of the pope when he sought consultation on the origin of the universe. Hawking then goes on with a more "advanced" theory that doesn't leave any room for a creator. I read it in "A brief history of time", his exact words (if memory serves) were "what place then for a creator?" It's in the very last chapter of the book, I think.
Now, that reference is getting long in the tooth, and I don't know where the scientific community stands on this issue today (and don't really have the inclination to dig much deeper) but it's a reference to go look for at least, should you be interested.
As I've said earlier, I don't really see the need for finding a place for a creator, in the strictest scientific sense. We're only trying to answer the "how", not the "why" or "What's the point of it all." Equally valid (some would say more valid) questions.
what is more likely, that an unseen force takes 100,000 years to pull hydrogen togetherinto a dence ball and then is ignighted by internal heat.....OR god just put a hot ball of fire there.
see, that is why Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb and should only be used to help deduce but not used as a litmus test for the plausability of theories phenomina. God creating something is always more simple to the faithful than are the tested theories of scientists.
Well, a scientist would answer a), that an unseen force, etc. Since that is a theory that can be tested, and that has predictive and explanatory power. God figuratively pulling stuff out of his cosmic hat, hasn't. It fails the "adequatly explains" of the "two theories that adequatly explains...".
If you're saying that, there's no convincing the irrational with rational arguments, I couldn't agree more. And if you're saying that there's nothing special about Occam's razor, other than as an esthetic argument, sure. Though there's no need for a more complex theory than absolutely necessary.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
However, those of us who are truly dedicated to Christianity don't take God entirely on faith. Rather we look at the design in the universe, and I believe rightly conclude, that this order could not have happened by mistake, nor that the universe is eternal. We look at what we call "Christian Evidences" to help solidify our faith. And Christian Evidences are another word for scientific facts we use from both creationists *AND* non-creationists scientists alike, to show that no other theories of the existence and organization of the universe can be valid or than the God of the Bible.
Well, this is the sort of argument that has a tendency to degenerate rather quickly, but I'll give it a shot. Not that I'm an expert on religion. I'm a bit intrigued by the beliefs held by you (and people like you) since as I said, they are not very common on this side of the pond. (I can think of a historic reason or two why this is so, but I digress).
What I cannot really understand is why faith isn't enough? Upon reading your post I get the feeling that you're reading moral statements where a scientific statement was intended. None of the astronomers I know (mostly radio astronomers but there you go) believe that the universe came to be by "mistake." Ranodom events play a large part in their models, that's for certain, but no moral judgement as to whether that was/is any worse or better than anything else.
Now, there isn't really any conflict between the natural sciences an religion as I see it. They deal with disjunct sets of questions. Since there is no way of proving scientifically whether there is a god or not, we're not even trying. We deal only with what can be observed and verified.
And even though I don't believe myself, I cannot see the point of a religion that leaves no place for doubt.) If indeed it is as you claim, that the earth's orbit couldn't have happened by chance, then all rational people must conclude that there is a (christian) god, right? What then of free will? That's severely restricted now that you only have the options of irrational, or believer? I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the very idea was to take god on faith? We as scientist doesn't deal with that. At all. So it's not a question of protestantism, versus catholicism versus science. The latter doesn't try to answer the questions that the former two try to. Science tries very hard to answer the question how we came to be, but not why. If you want to call that boring or limited, sure, I can agree up to a point.
Now, and here's the inflamatory part: When it comes to the hard observable facts, is where your argument disintegrates. Now, the statements as such aren't understandable, the earth doesn't move in a "straight line" around the sun, and hence cannot deviate a certain amount from it (other than the trivial, if it deviated more or less than what is required for the orbit to meet up, then of course the earth wouldn't stay in orbit). If you're saying that the exentricity of the earths orbit cannot deviate from a true circle more than a tenth of an inch, for all life to cease, that's patently false. The earths orbit is a lot more eccentric than that. As in several orders of magnitude more eccentric. Try the analemma site for a very readable (and nicely illustrated) introduction to the earths orbit around the sun, and how it give rise to the analemma and the equation of time. So, I'm sorry, but arguments such as these will only convince me that you're not doing good religion, but bad science.
As I don't know much religion, nicely done religion (addressing the problems of the field) would probably be interesting to me. As a person the questions that religion addresses interest me. However, bad science (and I do know a thing or two about that) doesn't interest me at all.
If you wish to correct my attemt at religion, as I've corrected your attempt at science, I'd be more than willing to listen. I don't profess to be an expert.;-)
It is a rule of thumb, and only a rule of thumb. --It is only a rule of thumb, because it is not always right. Every time something unexpectedly complex turns out to be the reality behind a phenomenon which might otherwise have been explained through simple means, Occam's Razor is blunted.
Well, I'm not sure I agree that your example invalidates Occams razor. In my version of it, it says something along the lines of: given two explanations that adequately explain a phenomenon, the simpler one is the correct (or at least preferrable). Now, I'm not comfortable with that being interpreted as: given that Bells telephone cannot work given our flawed assumptions about it's principles of operation, the simpler explanation is that Bell is wrong or lying or both. I wouldn't call that an application of Occam's razor.
In my view it's not an application of Occam's razor until you've at least agreed on the observations. "There is obviously sound coming out of the other end of the telephone". Then you can start and build theories as to why that is happening. And given competing theories Occam can help you chose.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't mean to be a troll, but I really want to ask this. Why is it so frowned upon to question evolution?
By the nature of science, it is granted that theories and current "knowledge" may be overturned in light of future counter-evidence. However, evolutionists give the impression that they consider their views to be rock-solid, indisputable Truth that is impossible to disprove now and forevermore. Anyone who dares to disagree is dismissed out of hand as a kook. (See, I had to post as AC to even ask.)
Well, I don't know if it's really the case that evolutionists consider their views to be a "truth that is impossible to disprove" etc. (at least not the scientfically minded ones, for any theory there are supporters that one could do without).
Now let me start by saying that I'm not really an expert on evolution, since I'm european I've never had to be. There are no creationists here to speak of, and hence I'm not well versed in their way of thinking. I am a "scientist" however, so I'm somewhat qualified to speak about that.
Now, not to write an essay answering your question, but much of it boils down to what we mean by "wrong." First some preliminaries though. The strength of any scientific theory rests on its predictive powers, how well does it foresay and explain the outcome of experiments or observations (past of future). Any good scientific theory then is very specific (or strong), what we like to call "easily falsifiable", i.e. it is simple to detect when its predictive powers are failing. (Hence many of them in the natural sciences are formulated in some form of logic; "mathematics" since that provides for a stronger statement to be made). So, strong theory equals "easy to prove wrong" given contradictory evidence.
Now, then what does it mean to be "wrong" in the scientific sense? In short it's when there are observations made that cannot fit into the current theory. A prime example would be Newton's law of kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2. For a long time that was thought to be all there is to it, and all the experiments and observations that could be made corroborated that. Today we know that it's not "true". It's OK for lower speeds, but it completely fails to take relativistic effects into account (see previous posts in this thread), and hence has been relegated to the scrap heap of scientific theories, right?
Well, not quite. It's still a very good approximation for most macroscopic real world phenomena. It still explains them very well, and even post Einstein, it hasn't really lost any of it's predictive powers in the domain in which it was thought up. So even though it may now be thought "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word; it may not tell all of the truth to all people, it's still a pretty darn good theory if you're a bit more careful with it's application.
This is also true of Darwinian evolution. It's a very well tested theory (or "fact" if you will) by now, with wast predictive and explanatory powers. Any later theory that superseeds it must still explain all the observations with the same (or better) accuracy as Darwinistic evolution has to date. So even though evolution as a theory may be proven "wrong" at a later date, it'll still be mostly "right." As Newtons' laws still are.
Now, in order to completely close the sack, we also need Occam's razor. I.e. given two equally predictive theories, we prefer the simpler one. It's really a common sense argument. Why make things harder than they have to be. It's also the only scientific loophole that creationists can exploit. By invoking a "deus ex machina" in the form of an omnipotent God, that stacks the deck so that scientists cannot make correct observations (or make them correctly), you can of course invalidate any and every theory. And that's why science doesn't deal with that. If someone stacks the deck, we won't play! (Then we can continue various philosophical arguments, and in doing so rapidly leaving the natural sciences.)
And that's incidentally why science isn't "just another religion", science specifically is about absolutely minimising the things that have to be taken on faith (such as the existence of the rest of the world etc), while religion(s) are about systematising the things you take on faith. Often that means that science cannot say very much on a subject, and people having a natural tendency towards taking things on faith, often over interprets scientific statements (it takes practice to so thoroughly disiplining your subjectiveness as the scientist must do). This leads to "scientific" statements or belif in the general public, that really aren't. But that's not the fault of science, more a fault of the schooling system.
If you're specifically interested in evolution, I have it on good authority that you could do worse than studying talk origins. I haven't got any good references on the philosophy of science in english for you, but I'm sure that a few minutes of googling will turn up a multitude.
A more accurate one is that it is like telling Jews that it was perfectly just for the Nazis to steal Jewish property, businesses, homes, etc., and to sell lampshades and soaps made from the bodies of massacred Jews. After all, what was that other than "spoils of war"?
Well, even though there were limited experiments making soap from human fat, and at least one lamp shade survived the war, it's a stretch to claim that those items were mass produced and sold to the general public. Nizkor is a good source in these matters. (That the soap legend was widely believed during the war is another matter).
The reason that I pick these nits is that they're one of the inroads that the holocaust deniers have used to further their own agenda, i.e. setting up the straw man that "many people believed this, and it's wrong, so that must mean that everything else they're saying is wrong as well." The Nazi crimes don't really need any embelishment, the truth is both quite sufficient and necessary.
Not that I disagree in any way with your original point; "because we can" is only very seldom a morally justifiable defense.
Absolutely. I've tried to explain this to actual Trek fans who loved the movie, and failed miserably. "But... but they don't have a queen!" Heck, Q himself said it best in TNG 2x16, "Q Who":
Well, they didn't that we knew of (you'll have to ignore the omnipotent Q for a while, but bear with me). In all stories of good prevailing over evil, (or just "us" vs. "them"), the plotline that starts with the enemy being overwhelmingly powerful, seemingly unbeatable, and then our hero, through cunning and strategy finds a chink in their armour, and takes full advantage of it, is as old as writing. And probably older than that. It's as deeply engrained in the author/reader contract as anything.
If you'll go back to Homer and the Trojan horse, you'll see exactly the same pattern. (You can even see the same thing played out in history, to the Russians Hitler's advancing armies must have seen as unstoppable as the Borg, and yet we know how that ended.
Now, for there to be development in the Trek universe, of course, the Borg must be taken down a notch. When "we" first met them they had to seem unstoppable, setting up for the latter reversal. And then you vanquish them, and need another villain. (Just compare the Klingons between TOS and STTNG).
Also, going outside of the Trek universe itself, there was this noticable shift in American popular story telling with the fall of the Soviet union. All of a sudden, the old, east-west block propaganda inspired story lines couldn't be reused anymore (remember the opening of "The hunt for Red October", where they applogise for there not being any cold war anymore...) Most spy and other genres went looking for another villain than the "communist", drug lords and what-not (just witness James Bond of the era), but the Trek universe stuck to their guns, problematising (a very big word under the circumstances) the "communist" Borg, while still flying the flag of freedom. I like that they did that, instead of just abandoning the whole idea, but you could have a different opinion on that.
In summary. There had to be a queen, because the Borg needed to be taken down a notch. Perhaps unimaginatively they choose the analogy of the "centralised" Soviet state as the weakness, but there you go. "We" will prevail, and go on to meet another enemy. To do otherwise would have seriously broken the Star Trek contract with the viewers (turning the whole thing into some dark "you can run but never hide affair, familiar from the cold war post-nuclear-holocause plot, remember those?). Space ships or wooden horses, basically the same thing, always have, always will.
Firstly why don't you tell us what line of business that you're in blancolioni: I would like to tell you illicit ways that I can ruin your "business plan". You see that's why we have these little things called "laws", and if you believe that you can single handedly wave them away as just false protections of bad business plans then please tell me where you live and where you work: Maybe we could teach you about your own personal "business plan" and how it's just a bad plan.
Well, laws have been changed before. Prohibition in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) was ended just to destroy the bussiness plans of the mob. In fact, I'll think you'll find many parallels between prohibition and file sharing if you look at it. If enough people do it anyway, it cannot be the law, or at least not enforced as such. (It's interesting to note though that the tables are turned, prohibition was about illegaly gaining advantage of the double standards between prohibition, and people drinking anyway).
Laws that "artificially" regulate supply and demand situations such as these only really work when there is an underlying sense of ethics in the population on which to build them. If your bussiness plan depend on selling child pornography, then you have to watch out, you're not going to find a lot of public support for that (even though it's interesting to note that the internet has had a profound impact on that as well). When it comes to sharing music OTOH, there really isn't that much of an outcry, people in general treat that about the same as driving to fast; on balance, not a big deal.
If you're a SONY exec, that's what you should be afraid of. Technology is only really the enabler here, and as long as people view copyright infringement the way they do, there's fundamentally no way to change that. Given sufficiently unsophisticated technology, you can keep up an artificial supply shortage for a while, but people will find a way around that eventually. Shakespeare said it better: "The tide waits for no man." Not even a SONY exec. Whether you believe it is funtamentally right or wrong from an ethical perspective, if you're on the wrong side, they you either join them, or lose.
You're taking my remarks far too literally. I never suggested (or even remotely hinted) at a single global union. I did however suggest that by working at reducing the differences of wealth in the world, there would be no low wage countries to move production to. It's really the same basic argument that's behind the EU's move against tax havens. By stacking the deck they're shitting in everybodies nest. Same argument with environmental laws, if you're allowing dumping of toxic wastes, that'll create an uneven playing field as well, hence the need for global coordination.
And the way it's organised here is several unions working together under an umbrella organisation, with the sort of question they would have in common. Hence more general, far reaching, longer term questions the higher up the co-operation chain you go. What, you don't think the employer's are doing the same? (And what's socialising in the same group got to do with it. It's a union , not a social club.)
Furthermore, why in God's name would some poor bastard in India who has the chance to quadruple his earnings by working for a US company decide not to just to show "solidarity" with his US brethren?
Exactly my point. He shouldn't just quadrouple his earnings doing your/our dirty work, he should demand even more. And it's interesting to see that that's what's happening in most of the former NIC (well getting old now) countries, such as Japan, Korea etc. The people aren't longer satisfied with the raw end of the deal. They demand a greater share.
Individual human selfishness and greed is simply too powerful to overcome. Ironically its also the driving force of the American economy.
Well, you're the american, I'll have to take your word for it. It's interesting that you should mention selfishness and greed in the context of India though. They cast off the shackles of imperialism not long ago, at considerable expense and self sacrifice.
I guess its not such a bad virtue afterall.
There's some debate over that. I don't particularly agree myself. Which should come as no particular surprise.
About Sweeden, so there's no independent contractors for any industry in the entire nation? No self-employed people?
No, there's plenty of those. Though we do have a relatively smaller share of the fake self employed, i.e. people who are for all intents and purposes employees, but whom the employer tries to shaft out of fair compensation. You're too literal again, union membership is not compulsory, it's just that the overwhelming majority is a member of one. Or a similar professional organisation (really just a different kind of union).
Jesus that has to suck for the brilliant few.
You bet. I had a tentative offer of finishing my PhD in the states, but with the measly salary that PhD students earn there, it just wasn't possible. Especially since I took a leave of abscence from a fairly high paying job in industry. No, I had to stay here, and earn twice as much. Poor me. Granted, I won't make the same money having graduated, but I was never in research for the money anyway, and I suffer much less greed and selfishness than what your remark seems to indicate I would have had to.
Your direct job doesn't have to be lost to outsourcing. It may simply take time for your clients to realize they can get it done cheaper in another country. Over time you'll get less and less business until you're completely out of business. How exactly will the union prevent that?
By working together with unions all across the world, so that there's no place to "outsource" to. Workers of the world, unite! remember? Seriously, the entering into the EU did wonders for previous "low wage" countries such as Portugal. Their standard of living have increased accordingly.
But whilst waiting for utopia, which may not come until the day after tomorrow...;-) There are a few other things to strive for. One is negotiating for (re)training, so that your skills can stay competitive. Your employer has to pay for those. (There's even a national program afoot whereby you can get a year off for study, etc, keeping a large percentage of your pay.) Hence, so far we've addressed the problem by making our work force more skilled each time, the skills of the "low wage" countries have increased.
Now, of course, the situation here is quite different from the US (or the UK, being the notable exception in the EU), in that the unions are so powerful (everybody in Sweden belong to a union, even the officers of the army etc) that they have to actually act accordingly, wielding their power with some care. Hence there's very little of the picket line nonsense, and down right criminal activity one hears about from abroad. Instead we have free schooling etc, such that there is very little unskilled labour left.
IT is a unique industry. Not only can most forms of IT work be outsourced to other cities and other states, but also to other countries. A union is worthless in IT. You have no leverage as long as the work is so mobile.
Well, I have a master's in engineering (CS/CE), and I'm a member of the union. And in fact it works quite well, thank you. Our work was not outsourced to the US (or India), even given the telecoms disaster... In fact our US division was closed down, much easier to do after all, since you aren't organised. No pesky re-employment, programs and the like to pay for.
Lots of programs work better when installed as root in Unix too, especially when they need to be accessible to lots of users.
That's not exactly right. Many UNIX systems (notably) Linux ones are set up with 'root' file/directory access rights to libraries in the path, and hence you need 'root' rights in order to place the program files (executables/configuration files etc) there.
They'll run just the same, as if they were installed by any other user. (Excepting setUID programs, which can be a problem, and were considerable tightening has taken place in the last decade.)
Typical large UNIX installations will have several directory hierarchies (e.g./usr/local) where trusted users who are not root will install the majority of the software. And they'll run just as if root had did it.
The difference is really in the applications themselves, where a typical UNIX application will assume that it is to be used in a multi user enviroment, that it cannot write to publicly accessible directories, and save per user settings in user directories. The latter is more often than not not true of windows software.
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. When I said "penetration," I meant the bullet goes through a person and keeps going. So, for example, I shoot someone, the bullet keeps going, and hits the person behind him. And so on.
Well, the problem with this is that it is much more a fuction of bullet type and cross section than velocity or energy. You can easily make a rifle that will not penetrate a torso, and a handgun that will. A 9mm FMJ (full metal jacket) pistol round will more often than not penetrate. Given that it doesn't hit too much bone.
If you want the gory details about what a certain type of bullet does to a body, I suggest the journal "shock and trauma". I'm partial to the work by Marvin Fackler, but not everybody agrees with him.
Actually, no. A M60 fires 7.62mm NATO rounds, which is a 30 caliber round not unlike those used in 30-06 hunting rifles. You are correct about the M16 firing 5.56 however. There are 50 caliber machine guns, but the M60 is not one of them.
Minor nitpick. No the bullet of the.308 Winchester (as the 7.62x41 NATO is known in its civilian guise) is definately "not unlike" the venerable.30-06, since it is in fact the same.
When more modern powders were made available, the.30-06 case when loaded with it was only filled partially. This makes for poor accuracy (and bad economics, since you're draging extra casing along). So it was decicided to keep the bullet (which is of.308 calibre), and reduce the size of the case. The NATO 7.62x41 mm was born. This was in the fifties if memory serves. It was later introduced in the civilian market as the.308 Win.
Nowdays, the.30-06 is of course loaded to higher preasures than previously, and the old.30-06 problems are no more.
Improvements in metalurgy continued, and a higher power civilian version of the.30-06 was designed, the.300 Winchester Magnum. Still the same bullet, but different case yet again (this time belted). The US army was looking for a new sniper caliber, since the 7.62x41 is lacking in the longer ranges, and choose the.300 WinMag. So this time the development was the other way around. First civilian, then military.
Today the.308 has the same energy at 150 meters, as the.30-06 has at 200m, and the.300 Win Mag at 300m. Quite a span for the exact same bullet. (Several different types of bullets are of course available today).
The 7.62x41 (the russian "AK-47" rather AKM, the original '47' has a machined receiver, the AKM has a stamped one. Without exception what are labeled AK-47:s today are AKM:s, or AK-74s) caliber is the 7.62x39mm, so the '41' is significant), is of course on the way out, and has been for the past 30-40 years or so, in the military, when it comes to rifles. You can still get a "battle rifle" such as the H&K G3, or the FN FAL, but 5.56mm NATO has all but taken over. The move to the smaller more manouverable rifles prompted the name "assault rifle", to mark the new class of weapon.
A.50 calibre machine gun is e.g. the Browning.50. The.50 round that goes with it was developed at the end of WWI by John Browning himself.
Take new hardware. put it together. install windows.
*BAM* everything works. onboard sound works.
Yeah right... Not even that new hardware, (Athlon 900, Nvidia MX2 graphics card). Redhat 7.3 with XFree86 and NVidia's driver works straight out of the box, complete with sound.
Windows XP on the other hand cannot drive the screen faster than 75 Hz, and drops down to 60 Hz when playing games. Known bug, that I cannot fix and still keep TV out. And this for a not too new, about as popular as they come piece of HW.
XFree86 gives me a nice steady 85 Hz no matter what.
Now, I cannot even force XP to do the right thing. Hardly superior.
And if your comparison is stability, I will just say one thing: Windows 2000. In fact, applications on my windows 2000 machine crash far less frequently than applications on my new red hat 8 machine.
Well, to be a fair comparison shouldn't you compare like with like? RH 8.0 is new, and win2k has had some time to shape up. In my personal experience, my new RH 8.0 is considerably better than my new XP, which worked great for about a month or so, and then started to behave like the windows we know and love, not.
And no, third party drivers is not the issue here. I only use one third party driver in both cases (Nvidia's graphics driver both for XP and Linux) so the situation should be the same for both systems, and the hardware is no aging (Athlon 900) so that's not the problem either. So far RH 8.0 is ahead by far.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, there's a world of difference, between a pope that says "Then that instance 'before' the big bang when the laws of physics as we know them is when God did his work", and the people here that says that "the earth is only six thousand years old (give or take) and evolution as we know it has not taken place."
Look, I realise that we're engaged in a semantic quible, and of course strictly speaking it's not illogical to define "creationist" as someone who belive god created the universe.
However, by grouping together two such extremes of view as those of the two groups of "creationists" as you do, something is irretrievably lost in the translation.
And to maintain that just because we Europeans have those "creationists" of the view of the pope (which has been considerably refined since Hawking's consultation, and Galileo's I might add) that it would be resonable to assume that we also were familiar with the arguments of "creationists" of the other kind is absurd.
And though I doubt that anyone really mistook my using "creationist" as a label solely refering to the latter version, let me state clearly that I did.
To reiterate, while there is no conflict between science and those that hold the (updated) view of the pope. I would say that there is an irreconcilable difference between the latter type "creationist" and the views of the natural sciences.
There, I've gone and defended the pope, it's wasnt 400 years ago that we started a 30 year war to try and kill him. That's progress ;-)
Well, you're not discussing science here (and by that I mean natural science), but the philosophy of science. And that's a related but different animal (or beast perhaps?).
Not that I concur with your deductions. If you say that given a heap of evidence of things past and a theory to explain them, no sound scientific conclusion can be drawn. By your reasoning we could never prove murder either. All we have are a number of clues to what happened after the fact, and we cannot have the same person killed again, to determine how he died the first time, now can we? (Sure, we can kill other people after the fact, but that's not the same thing, and actually closely parallels your argument with regards to evolution then and now).
The natural sciences are based on observation. Sure, if we observe some kind of experiment, that can often (but perhaps paradoxically not always) strengthen our argument, because the experiments can be repeated. But by your reasoning, plate techtonics, most of geology and cosmology would fall also, since they also deal with events that are too slow to observe directly. We don't have to observe the outcome of experiements, it's equally valid to observe the outcome of natural occurrences.
I don't know of any current theory of the philosophy of science that would exclude geology et al, on basis of logic. But again, I'm not a philosopher.
Now, the rub of your argument is the dual use of the word "proof" as it is employed in mathematics/logic (which are formal systems, not based on observation/experiements in the natural world), and the natural science use, where they mean something different. Now, of course, we may not ever be able to "prove" evolution, in the mathematical sense, but we're quite frankly not trying to. Proof means something else in the natural sciences. (And I don't include mathematics, though there are some who do, though there may be language problem here also, english isn't my native tongue).
Now, it's interesting to note, that in practice, in mathematics the meaning of "proof" has come to slide more and more into the natural science one, i.e. how many other reasonable, sceptic experts (scholars) of your peers can you persuade your arguments are sound. There are even a few "back to basics" schools of thought in mathematics these days, to try and counter this trend. But as interesting as that may be, I digress, it's the topic of another discussion.
.Well, I'm from northern europe, we threw out the catholics in the 1540:s, so I'm not expert on them (even though we've had religious freedom for quite some time, I think I may know one very secular catholic). But see my previous answer about Stephen Hawking and his consultation with the pope. There is even a quite famous astronomer who is a cardinal, though his name escapes me. There may be more, since the vatican has it's own observatory
Their form of creationism is wholly in line with scientific understanding, if their FAQ and other documents are to be belived. They do belive that there is a god that is everpresent and started it all, they are christians after all.
So, if that's the best you can come up with when it comes to european "creationists", it's still quite reasonable for me to say that there are no creationists here to speak of. Certainly none even beginning to come close to the view that has been presented here, and in the referenced links.
Ah, OK I misread you as subscribing to another form of creationism. One that claimed that while evolution has (and is) taken place, somone/something (god) set the events in motion. Now, that you go further to claim that the earth is only 6000 years, well, that's a different brand of creationism, one that was much closer to the one I found on the net earlier. And one that doesn't fit well with evolutionary theories. There simply isn't time for anything useful to have happened in that time. I would call these views irreconcilable.
With the rest of your post, I'm at a loss for where to start. Permit me a few observations: I've spoken of science here (rather natural science) and while logic (and mathematics and the rest of philosophy) indeed is an important tool in science. That science would fall, doesn't (by logical reason) imply that logic and philosophy would. So while scientifically proving the existence of god would kill most of physics/chemistry/geology etc, (I'm fairly certain they could never recover from the shock), that doesn't necessarily mean that reason would. 1+1 could well still equal 2. Even though a truly omnipotent god could change that to... Which brings us back to square one.
Much of the rest of your argument deal with philosophy, and while that is both interesting and important, it's not science. Or even the philosophy of science. I do still claim though that for your beliefs to hold from a scientific point of view (miracles, 6000 year old earth etc), so much of the method and findings of the natural sciences so far would have to be thrown out, that they would cease to exist. If the pieces could be picked up and something new built that would resemble science, I'm not sure (very sceptic in fact) but my career as a scientist would be over. The philosophers would have to try and save that one. I'm not a philosopher, and cannot even begin to imagine how they could go about that. (And I'd sooner put my faith in god than for the philosophers to save us... ;-)
To be honest; I don't see a lot of common ground here on which to go further. I clearly don't know enough philosophy to even begin to argue many of your points. It's been interesting though. Nice talking to you.
Well, I spent an hour surfing the link that someone provided, and there seems to be other "creationists" around, that doesn't subscribe to your version of the theory...
However, I'm not expert enough to answer whether scientific evolutionists today completely rule out that the DNA structure today could have come from a single molecule (or a pair), so there may be a place there for a god hiding in the wings (as it were).
We scientists don't need a god behind it all for our theories to work. That's not to say that we necessarily rule out the posibility, indeed we couldn't. There's no way to prove the existence of a god, and likewise to way to prove his absence. He's god after all, can do whatever he pleases, including screwing up our experiments. And if we cannot make an experiement (not even in theory), we don't deal with it. (Or we don't call it science).
And this is incidentally where Occam comes in. Since it isn't necessary for our explanations, we don't put him in. If it were otherwise we'd actually be in trouble, if he was necessary, we'd have "proved" his existence (to a point), which would make science meaningless (well, very strictly speaking at least), we'd have to give up cause and effect (speaking of physics, not morals).
If you wish to find a place in science for a creator, I'm sure there'll always be room for one (at least for the foreseable future), but as I said, religion is what man turns to when he wants other questions answered, "why are we here, and what's the point of it all?" I'm pretty certain that science will never answer those questions (at least not in our lifetime) as fundamental as those may be. We're just trying to understand the mechanics of it all. Interesting, but perhaps not as soothing for the soul.
Well, OK, I see your point. And couldn't agree more. Science is hard, there's no getting around that.
Though I cannot help but to observe, that yes, any proof of (i.e. anyone claiming to have made observations pertaining to) the existence of other intelligent beings in the universe has to be considered with the utmost scrutiny. Thus far the smart money is on mistake (remember quasars producing 1+1=2?) or hoax. It wouldn't be until those sources of errors had been dealt with, that a scientist would be satisfied.
I realise we've forgotten an important principle to go with Occam, and that's "disciplined, sceptic enquiery" (my own translation).
Sure, I was mainly answering the "smaller" argument about the origin of the sun. Natural scientists does not (at least yet) have an answer to "how it all began", there may still be a vacant spot there for a creator. It could become occupied though, which is always problematic. Comapare Galileo.
According to Hawkings, that was the position of the pope when he sought consultation on the origin of the universe. Hawking then goes on with a more "advanced" theory that doesn't leave any room for a creator. I read it in "A brief history of time", his exact words (if memory serves) were "what place then for a creator?" It's in the very last chapter of the book, I think.
Now, that reference is getting long in the tooth, and I don't know where the scientific community stands on this issue today (and don't really have the inclination to dig much deeper) but it's a reference to go look for at least, should you be interested.
As I've said earlier, I don't really see the need for finding a place for a creator, in the strictest scientific sense. We're only trying to answer the "how", not the "why" or "What's the point of it all." Equally valid (some would say more valid) questions.
Well, a scientist would answer a), that an unseen force, etc. Since that is a theory that can be tested, and that has predictive and explanatory power. God figuratively pulling stuff out of his cosmic hat, hasn't. It fails the "adequatly explains" of the "two theories that adequatly explains...".
If you're saying that, there's no convincing the irrational with rational arguments, I couldn't agree more. And if you're saying that there's nothing special about Occam's razor, other than as an esthetic argument, sure. Though there's no need for a more complex theory than absolutely necessary.
Well, this is the sort of argument that has a tendency to degenerate rather quickly, but I'll give it a shot. Not that I'm an expert on religion. I'm a bit intrigued by the beliefs held by you (and people like you) since as I said, they are not very common on this side of the pond. (I can think of a historic reason or two why this is so, but I digress).
What I cannot really understand is why faith isn't enough? Upon reading your post I get the feeling that you're reading moral statements where a scientific statement was intended. None of the astronomers I know (mostly radio astronomers but there you go) believe that the universe came to be by "mistake." Ranodom events play a large part in their models, that's for certain, but no moral judgement as to whether that was/is any worse or better than anything else.
Now, there isn't really any conflict between the natural sciences an religion as I see it. They deal with disjunct sets of questions. Since there is no way of proving scientifically whether there is a god or not, we're not even trying. We deal only with what can be observed and verified.
And even though I don't believe myself, I cannot see the point of a religion that leaves no place for doubt.) If indeed it is as you claim, that the earth's orbit couldn't have happened by chance, then all rational people must conclude that there is a (christian) god, right? What then of free will? That's severely restricted now that you only have the options of irrational, or believer? I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the very idea was to take god on faith? We as scientist doesn't deal with that. At all. So it's not a question of protestantism, versus catholicism versus science. The latter doesn't try to answer the questions that the former two try to. Science tries very hard to answer the question how we came to be, but not why. If you want to call that boring or limited, sure, I can agree up to a point.
Now, and here's the inflamatory part: When it comes to the hard observable facts, is where your argument disintegrates. Now, the statements as such aren't understandable, the earth doesn't move in a "straight line" around the sun, and hence cannot deviate a certain amount from it (other than the trivial, if it deviated more or less than what is required for the orbit to meet up, then of course the earth wouldn't stay in orbit). If you're saying that the exentricity of the earths orbit cannot deviate from a true circle more than a tenth of an inch, for all life to cease, that's patently false. The earths orbit is a lot more eccentric than that. As in several orders of magnitude more eccentric. Try the analemma site for a very readable (and nicely illustrated) introduction to the earths orbit around the sun, and how it give rise to the analemma and the equation of time. So, I'm sorry, but arguments such as these will only convince me that you're not doing good religion, but bad science.
As I don't know much religion, nicely done religion (addressing the problems of the field) would probably be interesting to me. As a person the questions that religion addresses interest me. However, bad science (and I do know a thing or two about that) doesn't interest me at all.
If you wish to correct my attemt at religion, as I've corrected your attempt at science, I'd be more than willing to listen. I don't profess to be an expert. ;-)
Well, I'm not sure I agree that your example invalidates Occams razor. In my version of it, it says something along the lines of: given two explanations that adequately explain a phenomenon, the simpler one is the correct (or at least preferrable). Now, I'm not comfortable with that being interpreted as: given that Bells telephone cannot work given our flawed assumptions about it's principles of operation, the simpler explanation is that Bell is wrong or lying or both. I wouldn't call that an application of Occam's razor.
In my view it's not an application of Occam's razor until you've at least agreed on the observations. "There is obviously sound coming out of the other end of the telephone". Then you can start and build theories as to why that is happening. And given competing theories Occam can help you chose.
Well, I don't know if it's really the case that evolutionists consider their views to be a "truth that is impossible to disprove" etc. (at least not the scientfically minded ones, for any theory there are supporters that one could do without).
Now let me start by saying that I'm not really an expert on evolution, since I'm european I've never had to be. There are no creationists here to speak of, and hence I'm not well versed in their way of thinking. I am a "scientist" however, so I'm somewhat qualified to speak about that.
Now, not to write an essay answering your question, but much of it boils down to what we mean by "wrong." First some preliminaries though. The strength of any scientific theory rests on its predictive powers, how well does it foresay and explain the outcome of experiments or observations (past of future). Any good scientific theory then is very specific (or strong), what we like to call "easily falsifiable", i.e. it is simple to detect when its predictive powers are failing. (Hence many of them in the natural sciences are formulated in some form of logic; "mathematics" since that provides for a stronger statement to be made). So, strong theory equals "easy to prove wrong" given contradictory evidence.
Now, then what does it mean to be "wrong" in the scientific sense? In short it's when there are observations made that cannot fit into the current theory. A prime example would be Newton's law of kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2. For a long time that was thought to be all there is to it, and all the experiments and observations that could be made corroborated that. Today we know that it's not "true". It's OK for lower speeds, but it completely fails to take relativistic effects into account (see previous posts in this thread), and hence has been relegated to the scrap heap of scientific theories, right?
Well, not quite. It's still a very good approximation for most macroscopic real world phenomena. It still explains them very well, and even post Einstein, it hasn't really lost any of it's predictive powers in the domain in which it was thought up. So even though it may now be thought "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word; it may not tell all of the truth to all people, it's still a pretty darn good theory if you're a bit more careful with it's application.
This is also true of Darwinian evolution. It's a very well tested theory (or "fact" if you will) by now, with wast predictive and explanatory powers. Any later theory that superseeds it must still explain all the observations with the same (or better) accuracy as Darwinistic evolution has to date. So even though evolution as a theory may be proven "wrong" at a later date, it'll still be mostly "right." As Newtons' laws still are.
Now, in order to completely close the sack, we also need Occam's razor. I.e. given two equally predictive theories, we prefer the simpler one. It's really a common sense argument. Why make things harder than they have to be. It's also the only scientific loophole that creationists can exploit. By invoking a "deus ex machina" in the form of an omnipotent God, that stacks the deck so that scientists cannot make correct observations (or make them correctly), you can of course invalidate any and every theory. And that's why science doesn't deal with that. If someone stacks the deck, we won't play! (Then we can continue various philosophical arguments, and in doing so rapidly leaving the natural sciences.)
And that's incidentally why science isn't "just another religion", science specifically is about absolutely minimising the things that have to be taken on faith (such as the existence of the rest of the world etc), while religion(s) are about systematising the things you take on faith. Often that means that science cannot say very much on a subject, and people having a natural tendency towards taking things on faith, often over interprets scientific statements (it takes practice to so thoroughly disiplining your subjectiveness as the scientist must do). This leads to "scientific" statements or belif in the general public, that really aren't. But that's not the fault of science, more a fault of the schooling system.
If you're specifically interested in evolution, I have it on good authority that you could do worse than studying talk origins. I haven't got any good references on the philosophy of science in english for you, but I'm sure that a few minutes of googling will turn up a multitude.
Well, even though there were limited experiments making soap from human fat, and at least one lamp shade survived the war, it's a stretch to claim that those items were mass produced and sold to the general public. Nizkor is a good source in these matters. (That the soap legend was widely believed during the war is another matter).
The reason that I pick these nits is that they're one of the inroads that the holocaust deniers have used to further their own agenda, i.e. setting up the straw man that "many people believed this, and it's wrong, so that must mean that everything else they're saying is wrong as well." The Nazi crimes don't really need any embelishment, the truth is both quite sufficient and necessary.
Not that I disagree in any way with your original point; "because we can" is only very seldom a morally justifiable defense.
Well, they didn't that we knew of (you'll have to ignore the omnipotent Q for a while, but bear with me). In all stories of good prevailing over evil, (or just "us" vs. "them"), the plotline that starts with the enemy being overwhelmingly powerful, seemingly unbeatable, and then our hero, through cunning and strategy finds a chink in their armour, and takes full advantage of it, is as old as writing. And probably older than that. It's as deeply engrained in the author/reader contract as anything.
If you'll go back to Homer and the Trojan horse, you'll see exactly the same pattern. (You can even see the same thing played out in history, to the Russians Hitler's advancing armies must have seen as unstoppable as the Borg, and yet we know how that ended.
Now, for there to be development in the Trek universe, of course, the Borg must be taken down a notch. When "we" first met them they had to seem unstoppable, setting up for the latter reversal. And then you vanquish them, and need another villain. (Just compare the Klingons between TOS and STTNG).
Also, going outside of the Trek universe itself, there was this noticable shift in American popular story telling with the fall of the Soviet union. All of a sudden, the old, east-west block propaganda inspired story lines couldn't be reused anymore (remember the opening of "The hunt for Red October", where they applogise for there not being any cold war anymore...) Most spy and other genres went looking for another villain than the "communist", drug lords and what-not (just witness James Bond of the era), but the Trek universe stuck to their guns, problematising (a very big word under the circumstances) the "communist" Borg, while still flying the flag of freedom. I like that they did that, instead of just abandoning the whole idea, but you could have a different opinion on that.
In summary. There had to be a queen, because the Borg needed to be taken down a notch. Perhaps unimaginatively they choose the analogy of the "centralised" Soviet state as the weakness, but there you go. "We" will prevail, and go on to meet another enemy. To do otherwise would have seriously broken the Star Trek contract with the viewers (turning the whole thing into some dark "you can run but never hide affair, familiar from the cold war post-nuclear-holocause plot, remember those?). Space ships or wooden horses, basically the same thing, always have, always will.
No we don't! ;-)
Well, laws have been changed before. Prohibition in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) was ended just to destroy the bussiness plans of the mob. In fact, I'll think you'll find many parallels between prohibition and file sharing if you look at it. If enough people do it anyway, it cannot be the law, or at least not enforced as such. (It's interesting to note though that the tables are turned, prohibition was about illegaly gaining advantage of the double standards between prohibition, and people drinking anyway).
Laws that "artificially" regulate supply and demand situations such as these only really work when there is an underlying sense of ethics in the population on which to build them. If your bussiness plan depend on selling child pornography, then you have to watch out, you're not going to find a lot of public support for that (even though it's interesting to note that the internet has had a profound impact on that as well). When it comes to sharing music OTOH, there really isn't that much of an outcry, people in general treat that about the same as driving to fast; on balance, not a big deal.
If you're a SONY exec, that's what you should be afraid of. Technology is only really the enabler here, and as long as people view copyright infringement the way they do, there's fundamentally no way to change that. Given sufficiently unsophisticated technology, you can keep up an artificial supply shortage for a while, but people will find a way around that eventually. Shakespeare said it better: "The tide waits for no man." Not even a SONY exec. Whether you believe it is funtamentally right or wrong from an ethical perspective, if you're on the wrong side, they you either join them, or lose.
You're taking my remarks far too literally. I never suggested (or even remotely hinted) at a single global union. I did however suggest that by working at reducing the differences of wealth in the world, there would be no low wage countries to move production to. It's really the same basic argument that's behind the EU's move against tax havens. By stacking the deck they're shitting in everybodies nest. Same argument with environmental laws, if you're allowing dumping of toxic wastes, that'll create an uneven playing field as well, hence the need for global coordination.
And the way it's organised here is several unions working together under an umbrella organisation, with the sort of question they would have in common. Hence more general, far reaching, longer term questions the higher up the co-operation chain you go. What, you don't think the employer's are doing the same? (And what's socialising in the same group got to do with it. It's a union , not a social club.)
Exactly my point. He shouldn't just quadrouple his earnings doing your/our dirty work, he should demand even more. And it's interesting to see that that's what's happening in most of the former NIC (well getting old now) countries, such as Japan, Korea etc. The people aren't longer satisfied with the raw end of the deal. They demand a greater share.
Well, you're the american, I'll have to take your word for it. It's interesting that you should mention selfishness and greed in the context of India though. They cast off the shackles of imperialism not long ago, at considerable expense and self sacrifice.
There's some debate over that. I don't particularly agree myself. Which should come as no particular surprise.
No, there's plenty of those. Though we do have a relatively smaller share of the fake self employed, i.e. people who are for all intents and purposes employees, but whom the employer tries to shaft out of fair compensation. You're too literal again, union membership is not compulsory, it's just that the overwhelming majority is a member of one. Or a similar professional organisation (really just a different kind of union).
You bet. I had a tentative offer of finishing my PhD in the states, but with the measly salary that PhD students earn there, it just wasn't possible. Especially since I took a leave of abscence from a fairly high paying job in industry. No, I had to stay here, and earn twice as much. Poor me. Granted, I won't make the same money having graduated, but I was never in research for the money anyway, and I suffer much less greed and selfishness than what your remark seems to indicate I would have had to.
By working together with unions all across the world, so that there's no place to "outsource" to. Workers of the world, unite! remember? Seriously, the entering into the EU did wonders for previous "low wage" countries such as Portugal. Their standard of living have increased accordingly.
But whilst waiting for utopia, which may not come until the day after tomorrow... ;-) There are a few other things to strive for. One is negotiating for (re)training, so that your skills can stay competitive. Your employer has to pay for those. (There's even a national program afoot whereby you can get a year off for study, etc, keeping a large percentage of your pay.) Hence, so far we've addressed the problem by making our work force more skilled each time, the skills of the "low wage" countries have increased.
Now, of course, the situation here is quite different from the US (or the UK, being the notable exception in the EU), in that the unions are so powerful (everybody in Sweden belong to a union, even the officers of the army etc) that they have to actually act accordingly, wielding their power with some care. Hence there's very little of the picket line nonsense, and down right criminal activity one hears about from abroad. Instead we have free schooling etc, such that there is very little unskilled labour left.
Well, I have a master's in engineering (CS/CE), and I'm a member of the union. And in fact it works quite well, thank you. Our work was not outsourced to the US (or India), even given the telecoms disaster... In fact our US division was closed down, much easier to do after all, since you aren't organised. No pesky re-employment, programs and the like to pay for.
That's not exactly right. Many UNIX systems (notably) Linux ones are set up with 'root' file/directory access rights to libraries in the path, and hence you need 'root' rights in order to place the program files (executables/configuration files etc) there.
They'll run just the same, as if they were installed by any other user. (Excepting setUID programs, which can be a problem, and were considerable tightening has taken place in the last decade.)
Typical large UNIX installations will have several directory hierarchies (e.g. /usr/local) where trusted users who are not root will install the majority of the software. And they'll run just as if root had did it.
The difference is really in the applications themselves, where a typical UNIX application will assume that it is to be used in a multi user enviroment, that it cannot write to publicly accessible directories, and save per user settings in user directories. The latter is more often than not not true of windows software.
So technically (and nitpicklingly), the "windows" part doesn't enter into it.
Well, the problem with this is that it is much more a fuction of bullet type and cross section than velocity or energy. You can easily make a rifle that will not penetrate a torso, and a handgun that will. A 9mm FMJ (full metal jacket) pistol round will more often than not penetrate. Given that it doesn't hit too much bone.
If you want the gory details about what a certain type of bullet does to a body, I suggest the journal "shock and trauma". I'm partial to the work by Marvin Fackler, but not everybody agrees with him.
Minor nitpick. No the bullet of the .308 Winchester (as the 7.62x41 NATO is known in its civilian guise) is definately "not unlike" the venerable .30-06, since it is in fact the same.
When more modern powders were made available, the .30-06 case when loaded with it was only filled partially. This makes for poor accuracy (and bad economics, since you're draging extra casing along). So it was decicided to keep the bullet (which is of .308 calibre), and reduce the size of the case. The NATO 7.62x41 mm was born. This was in the fifties if memory serves. It was later introduced in the civilian market as the .308 Win.
Nowdays, the .30-06 is of course loaded to higher preasures than previously, and the old .30-06 problems are no more.
Improvements in metalurgy continued, and a higher power civilian version of the .30-06 was designed, the .300 Winchester Magnum. Still the same bullet, but different case yet again (this time belted). The US army was looking for a new sniper caliber, since the 7.62x41 is lacking in the longer ranges, and choose the .300 WinMag. So this time the development was the other way around. First civilian, then military.
Today the .308 has the same energy at 150 meters, as the .30-06 has at 200m, and the .300 Win Mag at 300m. Quite a span for the exact same bullet. (Several different types of bullets are of course available today).
The 7.62x41 (the russian "AK-47" rather AKM, the original '47' has a machined receiver, the AKM has a stamped one. Without exception what are labeled AK-47:s today are AKM:s, or AK-74s) caliber is the 7.62x39mm, so the '41' is significant), is of course on the way out, and has been for the past 30-40 years or so, in the military, when it comes to rifles. You can still get a "battle rifle" such as the H&K G3, or the FN FAL, but 5.56mm NATO has all but taken over. The move to the smaller more manouverable rifles prompted the name "assault rifle", to mark the new class of weapon.
A .50 calibre machine gun is e.g. the Browning .50. The .50 round that goes with it was developed at the end of WWI by John Browning himself.
Well, there's always the library. Do you have access to one of those? I read Knuth in my high school years via inter library loan. And Brooks as well.
Now, that I can afford to, I own them
Yeah right... Not even that new hardware, (Athlon 900, Nvidia MX2 graphics card). Redhat 7.3 with XFree86 and NVidia's driver works straight out of the box, complete with sound.
Windows XP on the other hand cannot drive the screen faster than 75 Hz, and drops down to 60 Hz when playing games. Known bug, that I cannot fix and still keep TV out. And this for a not too new, about as popular as they come piece of HW.
XFree86 gives me a nice steady 85 Hz no matter what.
Now, I cannot even force XP to do the right thing. Hardly superior.
Well, to be a fair comparison shouldn't you compare like with like? RH 8.0 is new, and win2k has had some time to shape up. In my personal experience, my new RH 8.0 is considerably better than my new XP, which worked great for about a month or so, and then started to behave like the windows we know and love, not.
And no, third party drivers is not the issue here. I only use one third party driver in both cases (Nvidia's graphics driver both for XP and Linux) so the situation should be the same for both systems, and the hardware is no aging (Athlon 900) so that's not the problem either. So far RH 8.0 is ahead by far.