In the Christian worldview, God is a logical being, He created laws of logic and made us in His image. We are to be consistent and abide by these laws. In the Christian worldview, laws of logic exist.
To start with, you should realise this equation ( atheism == scientific belief ) is not true. Science deals with how, not why - that's not a flaw, that's just what it is. Personally, I think we'd be better off if religion stuck to the why, and stopped trying to decide the how - but that's for another day.
To be honest I'm at a loss as to whether religion really offers much on "why". Honestly, what exactly does religion bring to the table? It has stories handed down through the years from... someone... but what else does it offer to answer "why" any better than philosophy, which doesn't come pre-burdened with official dogma? Why are one persons religious stories describing why better than my religious stories involving an invisible tartan elephant? Unless you're going to point to religions that try not to burden themselves with such material (like, say, branches of Buddhism that don't go in for mysticism - i.e. not Tibetan Buddhism) which ultimately amount to philosphy anyway, then I don't see how religion brings anything to the table that philosophy doesn't aside from a whole heaping of unjustified certainty. The how questions are for science, the why questions are fo philosophy, and conveniently the two have a habit of stretching to overlap in the middle. Religion is just philosophy with un-challengeable pre-conceptions based on books of dubious origin.
You are simply asking the question of how rationalism and logic could arise without some magic intervention. I agree that we don't have all the answers (mostly because we are still working to understand how minds and consciousness work) but that's not a reason to leap across the false dichotomy and say that since there isn't a complete materialist explanation (yet!) then therefore there is an omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate being intervening in our daily lives.
You are still underselling the materialist viewpoint on mind and rationality however. It isn't hard to believe that biology could construct a mind capable of relfection of the real world - capable of doing the build and test work of evolution in the mind instead of in the real world: most birds and mammals, for instance, seem to have such a mind; they can "think" and reflect upon the world inside their heads and apply work done in that world to the external world. Rationality, and more importantly logic, could quite conceivably arise once the ability for the mind to reflect upon its own thoughts arises. In such a a scenario instead of mentally constructing and trying out different plans for a real world situation, one mentally constructs and tries out plans for "thoughts" (which is to say, mental plans about real world situations... or possibly plans about thoughts). Once you have that feedback loop going you can bootstrap yourself up to logic, which is, ultimately, the analysis of thought to determine which ways of thinking are most effective.
Why don't other animals have logic? The best answer I can give is that, to have the sort of reflective thinking - thinking about thoughts - ultimately requires a complex language, or some equivalent, so that thoughts can be suitably transformed into something to think about. While other animals do have language to varying degrees, humans are the only creature to have, so far, developed a complex grammatical language, and brains designed to parse and process it. That means other animals haven't yet got the feedback loop going, so can't (yet!) bootstrap themselves to rationality and logic.
Why doesn't everyone automatically "think rationally"? Thinking rationally amounts to having climbed up that feedback loop over several layers of abstraction and indirection. Certainly while human brains are capable of this, they aren't really designed for, or particularly good at it. Take a look at psychological studies of how many layers of indirection in thought people can sustain. After about 5 things just start breaking down - the hardware isn't up to the task. That means that thinking ratonally is hard work - it's not something out minds were "designed" to do, it is something they developed the minimal capability for and the software took over from there: the hardware limits, making logic hard work, are still in place.
The debate I am hearing is how we better turn power over to the activists and pretend that the economy is unimportant. Well, that is not going to go over very well, is it?
Then stop listening to pundits an start paying attention. No-one but pundits trying to be sensationlist for the sake of airtime is talking about "handing things over to activists", and to the contrary, the debate is considering the economy as vital.
Ask a real climate scientist about the solar influence question - their best answer is that it doesn't seem to be likely that a change 100 years ago can effect weather today. But that is exactly what CO2 will do, right? And the Earth is pretty big, maybe it takes a century or two to fully adjust to a solar input variation.
The problem is that your raising an "it is possible that..." scenario with nothing to back it up. It is possible that that's the case, but there simply isn't any evidence for it. The issue of solar variation has been carefully considered over the last decade and, despite a variety of interesting findings, the conclusion so far is that while it is responsible for some warming, we cannot find any explanation that would allow it to account for all the observed warming. It is possible that we will learn differently at some point in the future, but ultimately we have to go on what we know now; it is not like this question has been ignored and we know nothign about it - there have been lots of studies on solar variation and its effects.
What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
The "completely resolve" is a little disingenuous. If you want a variety of mitigation plans, all carefully detailed and researched, then try the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report which does analysis on emissions scencarios to see what effects different scenarious will have.
How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?
The mitigation report has some basic estimates, but if you want detail then try the Stern Report which is a detailed (700 page) report specifically on the costs, both of solutions, and failure to apply solutions, from a world renowned economist. The time scale is to 2050. The costs of solution range, but would be as little as 1% of global GDP if action begins immediately. In comparison the unchecked effects of global warming were found to result in a 5% to 20% reduction in global GDP by 2050.
What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?
For confidence levels with regard to basic solutions like reducing emissions per the IPCC emissions scenarios then you should, again, refer to the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report. Of course the TAR is fro 2001 while the FAR will be out next year and that may have higher confidence levels. As for general consensus - I don't believe there is abslute consensus on how the problem should b dealt with. I believe there is consensus, however, as to basic minimum courses of action such as reducing emissions (preferrably in line with the IPC or Stern reports, which in general seek to have atmospheric CO2 level out at around 500ppm, up from 380ppm currently). As to the costs - the mitigation reports provide basic accounting, but the Stern Report is the first major report by an economist seriously looking at the costs, so no, I can't say there is yet consensus on costs: we've only just begun looking at that issue.
As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
That's a very context sensitive question. Realistically I think it is highly unlikely, especially given that many of the countries likely to be problematic on compliance are sufficiently large and militaised that this simply won't be an option. You might see various forms of economic sanctions, however, if the situation becomes both sufficiently clear and sufficiently grave. We haven't reached that point yet, however. Scientists have reached their conclusions, and are busy refining their confidence in their models of differing emissions scenarios. The work of economists to do a full accounting of costs one way or the other has just begun. Politicians are always the last to seriously commit, so it will likely be quite a while yet. Much will hang on how well received the Stern Report proves to be, and what the next round of similar follow up reports shows.
So it's a matter of following the NT. Fine. Sold everything you have and given the proceeds to the poor recently? No? So you don't want to be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven then?
I think you'll find that short legged lizards are indeed genetically different to long legged lizards. It may be a small difference, but it is enough. And once you have an altered gene pool based around short legged lizards the variation amongst the offspring will be recombination of shorter legged lizards. If there should happen to be a mutation that results in even shorter legs and that proves successful - well we've just shifted the gene pool even further in the direction of short legs (presuming there is a constant selection pressure removing the longest legged lizards around). We know that nothing but differential selection select dramatically different variation - just look at dog breeds. The simple fact is that sexual recombination and random mutation happen, and this introduces constant (albeit slow) variation into the gene pool. Variation exists.
Hear hear! When Aragorn went over the cliff, I was thinking WTF! The movie is already so long that parts of the story have beeen omitted. Why the hell is he adding new stuff?
That incident was, I suspect, added to provide something for Eowyn to react to - the point being to give clear indication of Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn. She can't say anything to him because anything that explicit just isn't going to work, and there's only so many longing looks you can include to make your point without something to hang it on. By having Aragorn presumed dead we get to see Eowyn's reaction thereto, and we also have her reaction to his return, along with Aragorn's reaction to her. In other words it provides something upon which to actually hang the Eowyn/Aragorn relationship visually. Whether it was the best way to do that is up for debate - it was, however, meaningful and done with reason.
I'm not sure I follow you. The story has Frodo being overcome by the power of the ring - indeed at the end he refuses to cast it into Mount Doom. Equally the story requires that the ring demonstrably corrupt even the most noble of bearers - or else there would be no reason to destroy it rather than wield it against Sauron. So the question is, how do you demonstrate the rings ability to corrupt? Certainly Boromir provides a beginning to that, but you need to demonstrate even noble people with the best of intentions can be corrupted. In a book you can do that easily by simply stating that such is happening which you simply can't do on film. The film will not work unless you make that corruption clear however. Hence in the film the corruption of noble individuals who we respect must be made explicit. Jackson chose to do this by having Faramir initially overcome but eventually struggling and making the right choice, and by having Frodo sufficently corrupted that he betrays Sam - this makes the rings ability to corrupt almost anyone quite clear. Whether this was the right way to make the rings true power clear is a subjective point that is open to debate. Whether the changes were there to make such a point clear is rather more apparent however - it was to make things clearer rather than just for the sake of changing the story.
As to whether it is being true to the story - that's a matter of which level you wish to be true to the story. At a high level it is working to preserve a key aspect of the story: that the ring will corrupt anyone - no one can resist it forever, and is thus truly evil and must be destroyed. The changes were an effort to be true to this more important and deeper aspect of ther story, at the expense of not being true to some details of the story. You can debate the means of execution (I suggest you provide an example of a different way in which the rings power could be demonstrated on screen to an audience that potentially has no knowledge of the books), but I think it is rather presumptuous to debate the intent; the intent seems pretty clear: to preserve deeper aspects of the story on screen at the expense of more shallow details. Yes it is a trade off, but it is a matter of "being true to the story" as best they could.
"Natural selection." Not sufficient on its own to produce evolution, since it is a filtering or limiting mechanism which culls variants rather than generating them.
And what exactly do you anticipate the distribution of leg lengths amongst the offspring of the shorter legged lizards will look like? Identical to the the distribution of leg lengths for offspring of longer legged lizards, or perhaps evenly distributed about the new, shorter, average leg length of the lizards? Mutation and sexual recombination produces the variation, natural selection simply selects from among that. By changing the distribution of leg lengths in the existing population you change the distribution of leg lengths in the following generation, thus introducing new variants, which are then differentially culled changing the distribution of leg lengths in the existing population which changes...
I'm confused - was there an increase in genetic information as a result of this experiment? More generally, has there EVER been an increase in genetic information?
Tell you what, next time you have a question like that do a quick google search for "site:talkorigins.org indexcc <distinctive phrase from question goes here>", for instance in this case we could try site:talkorigins.org indexcc "genetic information" which would lead us straight here which provides an easy answer to your question, along with references to follow up on if you're still interested in the details.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film?
My guess is that the issue here is with the portrayal of how the ring is eating away at Frodo's mind. In a book you can simply state it, and present internal dialogue - on film it needs to be visually portrayed in a way that makes it adequately clear to the audience exactly how deep an effect it is having. Whether having Frodo become so jealously protective of the ring that he'll betray Sam was necessary to do that, it certainly did help achieve the desired effect. Whether it was the right thing to do I can't say (film is subjective - it seemed okay to me, clearly not so to you) but certainly I can say that it was done with reason.
I think you missed my point, which is that yes, the whole thing is indeed complete bullshit - and they didn't even do a very good of trying hide it: their website and description of "how it works" is laughable. The least they could do is provide some pseudoscience explanation with a lot of big words in it, but they can't even manage that much.
How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?
Well I did some hunting and the company website has this to say under "How does the Vortex works":
By wearing 3D glasses you can turn many standard HDTV,plasma TVs, projector DLPs, CRTs on market today into a 3D displays. You can adjust the depth of 3D to your own comfort level without any confusing programming but simply clicking a button with the Vortex. The Vortex works either like a standard Windows based PC with mouse and keyboard or a gaming council with a video game controller. The Vortex takes the hassle out of making 3D work so you can easily enjoy 3D to its fullest.
so I'm guessing it "works" rather like this, or perhaps this or... well you get the idea. I've seen email business proposals from Nigeria that are more trustworthy and convincing than what this company is offering.
When you program a computer model to raise the temp when you increase CO2, the computer program will tell you the temp will go up when you raise CO2.
Or, to be a little more accurate as to how the process works, when you program a computer model with the currently established physics (including things like, say, the absorption spectra of atmospheric carbon dioxide) and various known positive and negative feedbacks etc., the computer program tells you that the temperature will increase when you raise CO2.
When you program a computer model to raise the temp when you increase CO2, the computer program will tell you the temp will go up when you raise CO2.
There is, of course, a vast difference between predicting immediate changes at a very local scale, and predicting general trends on a wide (in this case global) scale. I can't predict whether a particular line of chips will have more transistors packed onto it or not, but that doesn't mean Moore's law hasn't been quite effective over the last decade.
The future? Subscription based economics - they don't have to produce another OS - they just continually charge for the current one. That too goes for MS Office etc. Why the current turn by MS - because linux really does cause them difficulties in that business model. $30 per month for windows or $0 for a flavour of linux.
I don't think the issue is that linux is free, the problem for MS going to this sort of business model is that linux is already miles ahead on this front. Linux has been doing centralised repositories with regular updates and subscription based support for years and have got the technology and systems well honed. If it comes down to competing for subscription based services then linux already has a distinct tehcnological lead.
Because the traditional methods of influence and control are not standing up to what the web has made available. It's an easier and more effective mechanism for criticizing your leaders, as well as organizing against them.
It could, of course, be a powerful tool for organizing with them, but that would involve the politicians actually engaging with us. A good example of this sort of idea at work in the Green Party of Canada's policy wiki: they created a wiki for policy development, allowing anyone to come and suggest policy, edit policy and discuss policy. Core pages were locked (non-admin editing, where being a member of the Green Party gave you admin rights), and exactly what was drafted from the wiki as official party policy was voted on by Green Party members, but the effort to reach out an engage the public in active policy development is significant.
With regard to mathematics involvement in CS - I'm afraid it is fairly integral, though I agree that calculus is of little real help for the most part. Software engineering, on the other hand, will involve somewhat less mathematics. A trade school course in programming, which is the sort of course that is actually interested in equipping you with skills for a career in IT, can skip over almost all the math. To my mind a CS student complaining that there is too much math and it isn't relevant to his programming career is rather like a physics student complaining that there is too much math and it is relevant to his career in architecture and building construction: it mounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of the subject (which is not trying to teach you a career). That is not to say that I blame the student for the misunderstanding in the case of CS - things have gotten misrepresented and so many schools have CS courses that border on career training that it is not surprising that students are confused. Or, to put it another way, the confusion based on how different schools present CS results in people like you and me talking at somewhat cross purposes because when I say CS I am thinking one thing, but you hear CS and think something completely different, and vice versa.
On the subject of mathematics being taught poorly - I'm afraid I have to agree. For the most part mathematics is taught appallingly. Of coure how to teach math well is a rather trickier proposition. I'm currently (very slowly) working on a project to describe the research I'm currently doing in mathematics to a general audience. The downside is that becauses it requires so much mathematical scaffolding to get to the point where I can explain things that it is going to be a very long journey. So far I've just gotten started, trying to define what math is, and pointing the basic directions we'll be heading as the project progresses. You can find the first part here. Alternatively I've written a rather more "whirlwind tour" approach essay that gets to more interesting material faster, but is a little steeper to climb due to the brevity. Please feel free to add comments - feedback is most welcome.
Sure, use of physical property has some effects - however one could very reasonably argue that the constraint should be to cover the costs of these minor effects rather than an absolute bar on use of property. As I said elsewhere I am neither trying to promote or condemn this particular philosophy, just trying to properly explore the ramifications of arguing against intellectual property on an axiomatic basis.
Perhaps I should clarify that I am not trying to argue that ideas are property or should be treated like such, just that if you wish to try and make that argument axiomatically rather than pragmatically then there's more to consider, since the axiomatic argument you're proposing has implications not just for "intellectual property" but also for physical property. I'm neither claiming those implications are good or bad, merely exploring the results because I think they're interesting to observe. We end up with, instead of physical property laws, laws providing constraints on use.
In other words I'm pursuing this thread because I think it is interesting.
And my understanding of the other poster was that he was trying to point out that, using that logic, non-conflicting uses of physical property should be equally legal. As long as I'm there while you're out and clean up after myself thoroughly I should be able to come and use your pots, pans, dishes and cutlery to cook and serve myself a meal: you're out and everything is as you left it when you get back so its a non-conflicting use.
Note that I am not actually advocating such a philosophy, merely pointing out it is a reasonable inference from your arguments so far.
May I refer you to this post then, from a poster who gives an elegant description of various ways in which category theory can be effectively applied to computer science in a practical way, and as more than just a model of abstraction. As to what abstraction is I just wrote an essay on that, and my point would be that while abstraction is, indeed, to reduce an idea to the pertinent details, there is the question of which details are pertinent. I would suggest your particular abstraction is leaving out some rather important ones.
I believe the other posters point is that property can indeed be used simultaneously as long as the uses are orthgonal an don't interfere with one another. His cornfield example is quite reasonable: his sleeping in your cornfield for a night has no impact on your simultaneous use of growing corn (presuming, of course, that he doesn't damage the corn, which presumably he is assuming is the case). Thus the cornfield can indeed be used simultaneously - it just can't be used for conflicting purposes simultaneously.
Let me refer you to this post by someone with a good explanation for why, for instance, category theory makes good sense for a CS student to learn. It provides the framework upon which to hang much of CS theory allowing you to have a much better big picture understanding of the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
So there are immutable, absolute, and correct laws of logic - nice to know. Out of curiosity which ones would those be? Intuitionistic logic? Modal logic? Classical logic? Relevance logic? Some Paraconsistent logic? Computability logic? Fuzzy logic (as a particular specialisation of Intuitionistic logic)? Free logic? Tense logic? Linear logic? Quantum logic? If there's an absolute logic that is true, then all these others must be wrong - so which one is the true one? Or is it perhaps possible that logic is simply a human construction based on reflection of thought - the application of analysis to itself to determine the most effective ways of thinking? That would certainly provide good reason for the profusion of logics - each serves a different purpose depending on the sorts of results one wishes to determine with their thoughts. One last thing - is the Continuum Hypothesis true, or false?
To be honest I'm at a loss as to whether religion really offers much on "why". Honestly, what exactly does religion bring to the table? It has stories handed down through the years from
You are simply asking the question of how rationalism and logic could arise without some magic intervention. I agree that we don't have all the answers (mostly because we are still working to understand how minds and consciousness work) but that's not a reason to leap across the false dichotomy and say that since there isn't a complete materialist explanation (yet!) then therefore there is an omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate being intervening in our daily lives.
... or possibly plans about thoughts). Once you have that feedback loop going you can bootstrap yourself up to logic, which is, ultimately, the analysis of thought to determine which ways of thinking are most effective.
You are still underselling the materialist viewpoint on mind and rationality however. It isn't hard to believe that biology could construct a mind capable of relfection of the real world - capable of doing the build and test work of evolution in the mind instead of in the real world: most birds and mammals, for instance, seem to have such a mind; they can "think" and reflect upon the world inside their heads and apply work done in that world to the external world. Rationality, and more importantly logic, could quite conceivably arise once the ability for the mind to reflect upon its own thoughts arises. In such a a scenario instead of mentally constructing and trying out different plans for a real world situation, one mentally constructs and tries out plans for "thoughts" (which is to say, mental plans about real world situations
Why don't other animals have logic? The best answer I can give is that, to have the sort of reflective thinking - thinking about thoughts - ultimately requires a complex language, or some equivalent, so that thoughts can be suitably transformed into something to think about. While other animals do have language to varying degrees, humans are the only creature to have, so far, developed a complex grammatical language, and brains designed to parse and process it. That means other animals haven't yet got the feedback loop going, so can't (yet!) bootstrap themselves to rationality and logic.
Why doesn't everyone automatically "think rationally"? Thinking rationally amounts to having climbed up that feedback loop over several layers of abstraction and indirection. Certainly while human brains are capable of this, they aren't really designed for, or particularly good at it. Take a look at psychological studies of how many layers of indirection in thought people can sustain. After about 5 things just start breaking down - the hardware isn't up to the task. That means that thinking ratonally is hard work - it's not something out minds were "designed" to do, it is something they developed the minimal capability for and the software took over from there: the hardware limits, making logic hard work, are still in place.
Then stop listening to pundits an start paying attention. No-one but pundits trying to be sensationlist for the sake of airtime is talking about "handing things over to activists", and to the contrary, the debate is considering the economy as vital.
The problem is that your raising an "it is possible that..." scenario with nothing to back it up. It is possible that that's the case, but there simply isn't any evidence for it. The issue of solar variation has been carefully considered over the last decade and, despite a variety of interesting findings, the conclusion so far is that while it is responsible for some warming, we cannot find any explanation that would allow it to account for all the observed warming. It is possible that we will learn differently at some point in the future, but ultimately we have to go on what we know now; it is not like this question has been ignored and we know nothign about it - there have been lots of studies on solar variation and its effects.
The "completely resolve" is a little disingenuous. If you want a variety of mitigation plans, all carefully detailed and researched, then try the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report which does analysis on emissions scencarios to see what effects different scenarious will have.
The mitigation report has some basic estimates, but if you want detail then try the Stern Report which is a detailed (700 page) report specifically on the costs, both of solutions, and failure to apply solutions, from a world renowned economist. The time scale is to 2050. The costs of solution range, but would be as little as 1% of global GDP if action begins immediately. In comparison the unchecked effects of global warming were found to result in a 5% to 20% reduction in global GDP by 2050.
For confidence levels with regard to basic solutions like reducing emissions per the IPCC emissions scenarios then you should, again, refer to the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report. Of course the TAR is fro 2001 while the FAR will be out next year and that may have higher confidence levels. As for general consensus - I don't believe there is abslute consensus on how the problem should b dealt with. I believe there is consensus, however, as to basic minimum courses of action such as reducing emissions (preferrably in line with the IPC or Stern reports, which in general seek to have atmospheric CO2 level out at around 500ppm, up from 380ppm currently). As to the costs - the mitigation reports provide basic accounting, but the Stern Report is the first major report by an economist seriously looking at the costs, so no, I can't say there is yet consensus on costs: we've only just begun looking at that issue.
That's a very context sensitive question. Realistically I think it is highly unlikely, especially given that many of the countries likely to be problematic on compliance are sufficiently large and militaised that this simply won't be an option. You might see various forms of economic sanctions, however, if the situation becomes both sufficiently clear and sufficiently grave. We haven't reached that point yet, however. Scientists have reached their conclusions, and are busy refining their confidence in their models of differing emissions scenarios. The work of economists to do a full accounting of costs one way or the other has just begun. Politicians are always the last to seriously commit, so it will likely be quite a while yet. Much will hang on how well received the Stern Report proves to be, and what the next round of similar follow up reports shows.
So it's a matter of following the NT. Fine. Sold everything you have and given the proceeds to the poor recently? No? So you don't want to be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven then?
I think you'll find that short legged lizards are indeed genetically different to long legged lizards. It may be a small difference, but it is enough. And once you have an altered gene pool based around short legged lizards the variation amongst the offspring will be recombination of shorter legged lizards. If there should happen to be a mutation that results in even shorter legs and that proves successful - well we've just shifted the gene pool even further in the direction of short legs (presuming there is a constant selection pressure removing the longest legged lizards around). We know that nothing but differential selection select dramatically different variation - just look at dog breeds. The simple fact is that sexual recombination and random mutation happen, and this introduces constant (albeit slow) variation into the gene pool. Variation exists.
That incident was, I suspect, added to provide something for Eowyn to react to - the point being to give clear indication of Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn. She can't say anything to him because anything that explicit just isn't going to work, and there's only so many longing looks you can include to make your point without something to hang it on. By having Aragorn presumed dead we get to see Eowyn's reaction thereto, and we also have her reaction to his return, along with Aragorn's reaction to her. In other words it provides something upon which to actually hang the Eowyn/Aragorn relationship visually. Whether it was the best way to do that is up for debate - it was, however, meaningful and done with reason.
I'm not sure I follow you. The story has Frodo being overcome by the power of the ring - indeed at the end he refuses to cast it into Mount Doom. Equally the story requires that the ring demonstrably corrupt even the most noble of bearers - or else there would be no reason to destroy it rather than wield it against Sauron. So the question is, how do you demonstrate the rings ability to corrupt? Certainly Boromir provides a beginning to that, but you need to demonstrate even noble people with the best of intentions can be corrupted. In a book you can do that easily by simply stating that such is happening which you simply can't do on film. The film will not work unless you make that corruption clear however. Hence in the film the corruption of noble individuals who we respect must be made explicit. Jackson chose to do this by having Faramir initially overcome but eventually struggling and making the right choice, and by having Frodo sufficently corrupted that he betrays Sam - this makes the rings ability to corrupt almost anyone quite clear. Whether this was the right way to make the rings true power clear is a subjective point that is open to debate. Whether the changes were there to make such a point clear is rather more apparent however - it was to make things clearer rather than just for the sake of changing the story.
As to whether it is being true to the story - that's a matter of which level you wish to be true to the story. At a high level it is working to preserve a key aspect of the story: that the ring will corrupt anyone - no one can resist it forever, and is thus truly evil and must be destroyed. The changes were an effort to be true to this more important and deeper aspect of ther story, at the expense of not being true to some details of the story. You can debate the means of execution (I suggest you provide an example of a different way in which the rings power could be demonstrated on screen to an audience that potentially has no knowledge of the books), but I think it is rather presumptuous to debate the intent; the intent seems pretty clear: to preserve deeper aspects of the story on screen at the expense of more shallow details. Yes it is a trade off, but it is a matter of "being true to the story" as best they could.
And what exactly do you anticipate the distribution of leg lengths amongst the offspring of the shorter legged lizards will look like? Identical to the the distribution of leg lengths for offspring of longer legged lizards, or perhaps evenly distributed about the new, shorter, average leg length of the lizards? Mutation and sexual recombination produces the variation, natural selection simply selects from among that. By changing the distribution of leg lengths in the existing population you change the distribution of leg lengths in the following generation, thus introducing new variants, which are then differentially culled changing the distribution of leg lengths in the existing population which changes...
Tell you what, next time you have a question like that do a quick google search for "site:talkorigins.org indexcc <distinctive phrase from question goes here>", for instance in this case we could try site:talkorigins.org indexcc "genetic information" which would lead us straight here which provides an easy answer to your question, along with references to follow up on if you're still interested in the details.
My guess is that the issue here is with the portrayal of how the ring is eating away at Frodo's mind. In a book you can simply state it, and present internal dialogue - on film it needs to be visually portrayed in a way that makes it adequately clear to the audience exactly how deep an effect it is having. Whether having Frodo become so jealously protective of the ring that he'll betray Sam was necessary to do that, it certainly did help achieve the desired effect. Whether it was the right thing to do I can't say (film is subjective - it seemed okay to me, clearly not so to you) but certainly I can say that it was done with reason.
Well yes, it must be reputable: I mean it was posted to the front page of Slashdot. I presume it works by using 25x compression encrypted with quasar one time pads powered by free energy, or possibly quantum physics disproving cold fusion from blacklight power. Or, well, something like that. And ultimately that's a very limited sampling (based on what I could remember, or find with a few minutes searching) of the pure pseudoscientific bullshit slashdot so eagerly posts.
I think you missed my point, which is that yes, the whole thing is indeed complete bullshit - and they didn't even do a very good of trying hide it: their website and description of "how it works" is laughable. The least they could do is provide some pseudoscience explanation with a lot of big words in it, but they can't even manage that much.
Well I did some hunting and the company website has this to say under "How does the Vortex works":
so I'm guessing it "works" rather like this, or perhaps this or... well you get the idea. I've seen email business proposals from Nigeria that are more trustworthy and convincing than what this company is offering.
Or, to be a little more accurate as to how the process works, when you program a computer model with the currently established physics (including things like, say, the absorption spectra of atmospheric carbon dioxide) and various known positive and negative feedbacks etc., the computer program tells you that the temperature will increase when you raise CO2.
There is, of course, a vast difference between predicting immediate changes at a very local scale, and predicting general trends on a wide (in this case global) scale. I can't predict whether a particular line of chips will have more transistors packed onto it or not, but that doesn't mean Moore's law hasn't been quite effective over the last decade.
I don't think the issue is that linux is free, the problem for MS going to this sort of business model is that linux is already miles ahead on this front. Linux has been doing centralised repositories with regular updates and subscription based support for years and have got the technology and systems well honed. If it comes down to competing for subscription based services then linux already has a distinct tehcnological lead.
It could, of course, be a powerful tool for organizing with them, but that would involve the politicians actually engaging with us. A good example of this sort of idea at work in the Green Party of Canada's policy wiki: they created a wiki for policy development, allowing anyone to come and suggest policy, edit policy and discuss policy. Core pages were locked (non-admin editing, where being a member of the Green Party gave you admin rights), and exactly what was drafted from the wiki as official party policy was voted on by Green Party members, but the effort to reach out an engage the public in active policy development is significant.
With regard to mathematics involvement in CS - I'm afraid it is fairly integral, though I agree that calculus is of little real help for the most part. Software engineering, on the other hand, will involve somewhat less mathematics. A trade school course in programming, which is the sort of course that is actually interested in equipping you with skills for a career in IT, can skip over almost all the math. To my mind a CS student complaining that there is too much math and it isn't relevant to his programming career is rather like a physics student complaining that there is too much math and it is relevant to his career in architecture and building construction: it mounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of the subject (which is not trying to teach you a career). That is not to say that I blame the student for the misunderstanding in the case of CS - things have gotten misrepresented and so many schools have CS courses that border on career training that it is not surprising that students are confused. Or, to put it another way, the confusion based on how different schools present CS results in people like you and me talking at somewhat cross purposes because when I say CS I am thinking one thing, but you hear CS and think something completely different, and vice versa.
On the subject of mathematics being taught poorly - I'm afraid I have to agree. For the most part mathematics is taught appallingly. Of coure how to teach math well is a rather trickier proposition. I'm currently (very slowly) working on a project to describe the research I'm currently doing in mathematics to a general audience. The downside is that becauses it requires so much mathematical scaffolding to get to the point where I can explain things that it is going to be a very long journey. So far I've just gotten started, trying to define what math is, and pointing the basic directions we'll be heading as the project progresses. You can find the first part here. Alternatively I've written a rather more "whirlwind tour" approach essay that gets to more interesting material faster, but is a little steeper to climb due to the brevity. Please feel free to add comments - feedback is most welcome.
Sure, use of physical property has some effects - however one could very reasonably argue that the constraint should be to cover the costs of these minor effects rather than an absolute bar on use of property. As I said elsewhere I am neither trying to promote or condemn this particular philosophy, just trying to properly explore the ramifications of arguing against intellectual property on an axiomatic basis.
Perhaps I should clarify that I am not trying to argue that ideas are property or should be treated like such, just that if you wish to try and make that argument axiomatically rather than pragmatically then there's more to consider, since the axiomatic argument you're proposing has implications not just for "intellectual property" but also for physical property. I'm neither claiming those implications are good or bad, merely exploring the results because I think they're interesting to observe. We end up with, instead of physical property laws, laws providing constraints on use.
In other words I'm pursuing this thread because I think it is interesting.
And my understanding of the other poster was that he was trying to point out that, using that logic, non-conflicting uses of physical property should be equally legal. As long as I'm there while you're out and clean up after myself thoroughly I should be able to come and use your pots, pans, dishes and cutlery to cook and serve myself a meal: you're out and everything is as you left it when you get back so its a non-conflicting use.
Note that I am not actually advocating such a philosophy, merely pointing out it is a reasonable inference from your arguments so far.
May I refer you to this post then, from a poster who gives an elegant description of various ways in which category theory can be effectively applied to computer science in a practical way, and as more than just a model of abstraction. As to what abstraction is I just wrote an essay on that, and my point would be that while abstraction is, indeed, to reduce an idea to the pertinent details, there is the question of which details are pertinent. I would suggest your particular abstraction is leaving out some rather important ones.
I believe the other posters point is that property can indeed be used simultaneously as long as the uses are orthgonal an don't interfere with one another. His cornfield example is quite reasonable: his sleeping in your cornfield for a night has no impact on your simultaneous use of growing corn (presuming, of course, that he doesn't damage the corn, which presumably he is assuming is the case). Thus the cornfield can indeed be used simultaneously - it just can't be used for conflicting purposes simultaneously.
Let me refer you to this post by someone with a good explanation for why, for instance, category theory makes good sense for a CS student to learn. It provides the framework upon which to hang much of CS theory allowing you to have a much better big picture understanding of the subject.