there's always been change in climate and we have dealt with it, changes which have been far more then small. it's just alarmist nonsense your pushing there.
You got your degree in climate science where? You've been studying this topic for how long?
I actually have friends doing research on the topic, both in the lab here in the US on the global climate model an in the field in the Antarctic. They are more alarmed about current trends than is filtering through to the media. The rate at which permafrost and glaciers have begun melting recently is sending shock waves through the scientific community. We are now only beginning to discover environmental feedback mechanisms that likely mean the scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the rate and impact of global warming, not overestimated it.
We used to talk about the climate problems our children and grandchildren will be dealing with. Guess what, the bill came early. Now YOU will likely be suffering the consequences. We are seeing the leading edge of it now with shifting weather patterns and encroachment of invasive species... just as the models predicted, only sooner. Because of climate deniers like you, it is probably now too late to stop it, but we still must do everything we can to slow the change and give our society and economy time to adapt.
Alarmist? Hardly. If anything the message from the scientist has been overly softened and toned down.
'm sure that the global warming hysteria will try to make this look like a bad thing, but it's a real boon to nautical industries like shipping and such. There just aren't that many ways around continents. Having an extra option is great.
Thats like saying an epidemic of flesh eating bacteria is really just an economic boon to the medical industry. The frighteningly rapid melting of arctic ice should be a major warning alarm of impending economic disasters that come with rapid climate change. The negative impacts of climate change completely outweigh the few silver linings like the opening of the northwest passage.
Sorry, no sale. Freedom doesn't come cheap. And it's not given, most of the time it has to be taken. And sometimes bloodshed is involved. Very true. Unfortunately, we seem intent on 'giving' freedom to Iraq at the point of gun, on our terms. As you say, it just does not work that way. It is not like we are trying to repel an occupying power from their land... we are dealing with an insurgency and a civil war made up primarily of Iraqis. Indeed, we are perceived as the occupying power. I am certain there are ways we can help Iraq become a free and stable country... but our current strategy is not it.
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
This is hilarious. Even while pointing out the evidence of Bush's attack on the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms, you grasp for the opposite conclusion. Better yet, your automatic assumption that a Democratic administration (regardless of the character of those staffing it) must certainly be worse belies the very partisan bias you would accuse others of. I can only assume you are joking, that this is a parody of some sort. Nevertheless, though I come to this thread somewhat late, I think I must respond. a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
The current climate of deregulation mostly benefits the largest corporations to the detriment of most small business owners. The best example I've run into is deregulation of the telecom industry wiping out many smaller phone and Internet companies, resulting in fewer choices, higher prices, and worse service for consumers. As a consultant and small business owner working in this industry, I've witnessed it first hand. You can find many similar examples in the energy sector, agriculture... almost anywhere you care to look.
Rolling back environmental regulations has certainly made it easier for many big real estate developers, but this often comes at a high cost to working people. In my home town a developer pulled political strings to build a massive subdivision of condos, destroying the natural watershed that would normally be protected as a wetland. After the inevitable flooding of neighboring areas, the taxpayers were stuck paying for a massive concrete and steel water management structure to fix the problem. It cost an order of magnitude more than the condo project.
And then there is the added medical costs we all carry as result of other environmental rollbacks. BTW, I am currently buying and renovating a Brownfield property, so I know a little bit about environmental regulations and business investment. 'Getting rid of government regulation' makes a great sound bite... but the attraction pales when the results turn up in your food or drinking water. b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
The right to bear arms is cool and all... but personally I'm a bit more concerned about my right to privacy, due process, and habeas corpus, all of which have been eliminated or seriously curtailed under Bush. Just recently in fact, Bush released an executive order saying he can seize the assets of anyone they feel are interfering with the administration's Iraq plans. No warrant necessary, no trial... gone. Yeah, I feel a lot more free. c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
Lower taxes are certainly nice, but never at the expense of higher deficits. That is unforgivably bad economic policy. Any benefit we might personally gain from those cuts is more than wiped out by the negative long term consequences (such as higher interest rates, inflation, and a weakening dollar... not to mention the obvious side effect that more
Most people see computers as appliances. They don't want to see the guts of the machine, they just want to see a browser, and software that will allow them to interoperate with other users.
How is Linux different than what you describe? I install an Ubuntu system, it auto-configures the network with DHCP and then presents a firefox icon prominently on. A bunch of applications are immediately available under the 'Applications' menu, and more are easily located and installed with the Applications->Add/Remove menu option. I've dropped a variety of non-geek users in front of Ubuntu and they have no problems getting right up to speed. What sort of problems should they have had?
The day I can walk into a shop that sells games, and find a section with "games for Linux PC's" containing all the cool new games, is the day I'll switch to Linux.
That is unlikely to happen, though I expect an increasing number of games might include a Linux version on the same CD (like Blizzard includes Mac and PC on the same disk). Its almost inevitable with the increasing Linux desktop market share that is ramping up.
And the fact that it has a reputation as being something only computer geeks "can" use. And the fact that if you want to use any programs on linux you usually have to compile the source yourself. And the fact that there are no human interface designers working on the linux project.
The 'geeks only' reputation of Linux might have been accurate 5 years ago but it is completely wrong now. Modern distros like Ubuntu are actually easier to use than Windows, and there is actually quite a few professional user interface people working on Linux (Sun, Red Hat, and others pay UI people to work on Gnome).
This idea that you need to download and compile code is particularly inaccurate. Ubuntu, for example, has a very attractive and easy to use point-n-click interface sitting on top of the apt package managing system. Just go to the Applications->Add/Remove menu, browse for the apps you want installed, check some boxes, hit Apply. Done. No web sites to visit, to trip to the store, no CD to load... Just click, click, done. Furthermore, once the apps are installed, they will automatically patched and upgraded. This is true for all third party apps as well as OS components (unlike Windows Update). You never need worry about software dependencies or loading a wrong version... apt sorts that all out automatically, even installing prerequisite libraries and apps for you when you install something else that needs them.
I've discussed these same issues in another Slashdot thread with another user with that old 'geeks only' misconception. He pointed to the sourceforge website for Gaim as an example of how difficumt it is to locate and install Linux apps. I pointed him at This Screen Shot to show how easy it is in Ubuntu.
As for the user interface issue... I've sat a bunch of computer newbs in front of Ubuntu and demonstrated how to customize and admin their system through the gnome System menu. They all do fine and many express that they like it better than Windows. Even Linux installs have become easier than Windows. More of the the third party hardware is found by default without needing extra driver disks, there are fewer screens to click through, and no software activation to worry about. With a live CD, you can even continue to use the system while it installs.
At this point, the only thing Windows has over Linux is availability of various popular Windows apps and games. That is a show stopper for some, but for many other people Linux is great alternative that is powerful, easy to use, and free of malware. It is a great OS now, and just continues to improve. If your perception of Linux is still based on where it was a few years ago, I suggest you check out an modern distro like Ubuntu. I've installed it for a variety of friends, family, and business associates, and they are all very happy with it.
There are linux gamers, of course... but if I had to guess, there are probably very few linux only gamers. What I mean is people that will not dual boot and will rather go without a very good and popular game than buying it if it isn't linux native (I know several posters here are like that, but I doubt there are many people overall).
I'm certain more people would game on Linux if more of the popular games were available... but then the perceived lack of Linux gamers lowers the incentive to port to Linux. One of those chicken vs. egg things. I'm a casual gamer and full time Linux user (and developer). I run native Linux games from ID and GarageGames as well as Blizzard games under Wine. I've even played a few open source games that are surprisingly good (Cube, Tremulous, BZFlag). I expect more Linux games will arrive as Linux grows in popularity on the desktop (which it is). I know several gamers that would switch to Linux in a heartbeat if their favorite game were ported. Basically, serious gamers are loyal to their games, not their OS. Right now that works in favor of keeping more of the games on Windows only, but that could change as the Linux desktop grows and the 'casual' Linux gamer is targeted by an increasing number of publishers.
It seems we were arguing on different planes. No, I do not object to your statement that the Ubuntu repository is nice, or apt is great (in fact, I found in an article that the Linux dependency hell occurs less on Debian-based systems). My point is more like that the lack of a common packaging system and ABIs (yes,.so interfaces are still ABIs) cause many problems in the Linux world. You admitted too that the newer Windows systems tend to have less DLL problems. Debian/Ubuntu is not the standard on Linux (yet).
In the Linux world you essentially have two package management standards: apt and rpm. With those two you cover 99 percent of the market. While a single standard would seem to simplify things, this sort of differentiation and competition is just how innovation happens in the open source world. For a desktop system, I think a Debian/apt based systems is they way to go. It will give you the broadest coverage of software. Anything you can find in an RPM based distro is probably also available in apt.
I nearly exclusively use Firefox for surfing, except, well, some sites are IE-only. I do not think I am a big power user of Office, but OpenOffice is just not good enough for Chinese users:-(. Natural for the developing countries since people there are more occupied in earning our living instead of making contributions to free software--something idealists like RMS tend to ignore. That is one of the reasons why F/OSS does not work in some areas.
Yes, open source solutions like Linux and OpenOffice are not right for everyone; I simply encourage people to consider them along with the various commercial choices. Linux has matured a lot over the last few years, so basing the decision on older impressions of Linux as just a geeky hackers OS that needs lots of tweaking is really not accurate. I would never fault someone for trying Linux and deciding it was not for them. What I don't like, however, is people making decisions based on outdated information they heard repeated on an Internet forum.
Yes, DLL Hell has been mostly mitigated in newer versions of Windows. I was not trying to imply otherwise, which is why I pointed it out as an 'earlier' example of dependency issues in Windows. We were discussing the historical stability of the platforms interfaces after all. Yes, Linux has suffered from similar problems, and it lead to the development of the current apt repository architecture. I find apt is a far superior method for handling dependency issues. It provides a greater level of automation during installs, easier upgrading, and is open to third party software providers. Similar features in Windows extends only across Microsoft's software suite. Linux is way ahead of Microsoft in this area. See my earlier post about installing gaim to see what I mean.
While I appreciate much the work done in Ubuntu, I do not think a centralized repository works all the time.
Repositories are not necessarily centralized. You can easily add secondary and third party repositories. Simply go to the 'Software Sources' admin tool and click the 'Third Party' tab and enter the URL of the vendor's server. Now all of their software will show up in your list of available apps, and all their dependencies will be tracked along with the system dependencies. The apps will auto-upgrade along with all the others (if you so desire).
The only way I can imagine making it easier is to embed a tag in the vendor web site that automatically adds the repository when you click some widget on the web site... but I can imagine security concerns with that.
I do not want to argue with you that Vista is bad. However, most user-level applications are not affected. And I do not think 'DLL hell' is inherently a problem of Windows architecture (still, Microsoft may be to blame, or the other producers of DLLs).
All systems struggle with dependency problems (DLL hell in Windows). My point is that Linux has developed by far the best solution with apt and the like. Microsoft has done something similar with Windows Update, but it does not extend beyond the borders of their own software suite. With Linux, the update architecture is open to all software providers and can be extended to as many servers as you like. It also leaves the door open for continued third party support of legacy systems beyond the official support window (that has actually happened with older Fedora Core distros).
This is a really great example of the misconceptions many still have about Linux... the perception that installing software is a geeky struggle with downloading, configuring, compiling, etc. This is not necessary for most apps, certainly not after they reach the level of polish and popularity as Gaim. Want to know how I would install Gaim? Take a look at this screenshot to see how easy it is to install Gaim on Ubuntu with just a few mouse clicks. And once it is installed, it will be automatically upgraded and kept up to date until I remove it from the system.
Maybe maybe. However, there is some doubt even on surfing (there are still a lot of IE-only sites around). No, I can tell you clearly that OOo is not as good as Microsoft Office, though I like very much the PDF output of OOo--even that is not for technical reasons, I believe. And you would need a lot more to exist in a business environment, which is the biggest source of Windows sales....
I've been surfing exclusively with Firefox and using OpenOffice for home and business use for several years now with no troubles, so obviously mileage can vary. I recommend even my Windows using friends avoid IE in favor of Firefox for security reasons if nothing else. If you are a real power MS Office user and must trade those sophisticated documents with other MS Office users, then certainly you should stick with Windows; but I've found that most people don't push Office that hard and can get by with OpenOffice just fine. Heck, many home users don't even have Office. I would certainly encourage anyone needing an office suite try OpenOffice before shelling out money for MS Office.
Linux is a toy OS. That isn't to say that it can't do amazing things--of course it can, duh--but it is primarily used by people who don't need it to do all the little consumery things we like computers to do, or people who actually enjoy tinkering. Basically, for the home user, Linux is great for checking email and browsing the web. Granted, those are the main things people do with their computers, but it isn't all they do.
Considering Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry that has swept the server space, high end clustered computing, embedded, etc... I'm surprised you would characterize it as a 'toy' OS. Only a consumer OS can rise above that level? Currently the only thing I can't do with Linux is play most Windows video games... being a game playing OS seems closer to a 'toy' OS to me. I use Linux to run my business, both on the server and desktop. From serving my web pages to running office productivity apps, it does all I need, and it does it without ever crashing or being infected with malware.
Until there are many, many more native games and a native MS Office, Linux is kind of a joke.
The MS Office compatibility is not as big an empediment as some people think (but that could be a huge thread on its own). I've been using OpenOffice for years. I send out resumes, work estimates, consulting contracts, etc, and have no problems with my MS Office using clients. Games are a real issue, and if you use your system primarily for that then definitely stick with Windows for now, but for just about everything other common use (and quite a few uncommon ones) Linux can be a good fit. You may think its a joke, but a hell of a lot of business people and a growing number of home users think otherwise.
What is the business to do with Ubuntu? Does Ubuntu carry all the Linux applications on the planet?
Very nearly so. Via apt repositories, most refined and stable applications (certainly the most popular ones) are available with a click. Furthermore, all the dependencies are automatically sorted out. That is a Really Big Thing when it comes to ease of use for the non-technical user. This is one of the main reasons I consider Ubuntu 'easier to use' than Windows. The other is that the naming of menu items and layout of admin UI components is more intuitive IMHO.
The lack of a stable ABI means lack of commercial applications, and a big waste of open-source debelopers' time on unnecessary porting and building. I still can run the Win32 applications published ten years ago, and even DOS applications published fifteen or more years ago--I call that an advantage.
I've been using both Windows and Linux almost since the origins of both, and my experience just does not match yours. The Linux API and ABI have remained very stable, usually more so than Windows. Just look at how much Vista breaks backwards compatibility to see what I mean. Do google search on the term 'DLL hell' for earlier examples. Even when Linux libraries do rev and break compatibility with binaries, it is often easily fixed by installing a 'legacy support' package (easily done with the point and click package management. But of course the whole point with Linux is that you don't have to run old binaries anyway; your package manager handles dependencies and keeps everything in sync as upgrades become available.
Sure, if you live on the bleeding edge and compile apps from source, you can run into troubles, but the whole point here is that the typical user is not going to do that (nor do the have to anymore). They can stick with the apps within the repositories and still have a huge library of to choose from, all easily installed and upgraded with a mouse click. Commercial software vendor that want their stuff to reach customers just need to put them in an apt repository or CNR or some such. This is the new model for software distribution, and Linux is way ahead of the game here.
Furthermore, this is not just my opinion as a computer guru; I've dropped Ubuntu in front of newbies and gotten very favorable responses. Yes, you have to make sure you select compatible hardware, and yes, you can't just run to to Best Buy and grab any old shrinkwrap software to run on it... but the same is true of a Mac and yet people still manage fine with those.
As long as there is not a free alternative to Windows (and I doubt its possibility, given the technical and legal obstacles), I do not see the decline of Microsoft Windows in the near future.
Perhaps not, but Windows does not have to tank for Linux to be a viable desktop. For a great many people, it is a better option than what they have now. Perhaps not if you play a lot of games, but certainly for Internet surfing and office productivity and such it is a stable, friendly, virus free alternative.
I'm not saying Ubuntu Linux is problem free, but lets be honest here, neither is Windows (there certainly seems to be plenty of problems reported with Vista). Linux has a few areas where it really shines compared to Windows. That includes security, stability, software installation, and now days even ease of use. But, hey, its free to try out, so I encourage people to be their own judge on this. Maybe it won't be for you... but then again you might be pleasantly surprised.
No one wants to have to worry about distro, GUI, etc. and compatibility issues, hunting for drivers,etc.
Have you tried Ubuntu? Your argument might have been true at one time, but it doesn't hold water anymore. Ubuntu is actually easier to install and manage than Windows, and installing software is waaaaay easier with their point and click Add/Remove Applications interface. It even trumps Vista in the eye candy department when you install Beryl. The only advantage Windows has at this point is availability of various popular applications and games, and that gap is steadily narrowing.
The truth is, most users have no loyalty to Windows; their loyalty is to applications. As the Linux application market matures (and it is, rapidly), arguments against migration dissolve.
If I were a lawyer, AND evil, I would argue that by working in the same field, you're necessarily using information gathered at your previous employer, because you ulimately draw on those experiences to improve what you do.
There is actually already a body of case law about exactly this issue. Non-compete agreements are often found to be over broad and unenforceable. In general, it is expected that you will carry skills and knowledge that you learned on one job over to the next... hell, its why we list our employment history on our resume after all.
The real issue is whether they actually carted off some sort of proprietary trade secret rather than just general knowledge/skill. That can be difficult to prove, and if these guys are smart they will counter-sue for loss of wages and professional reputation. Its a dangerous business when you decide to start suing someone for choosing to work in their chosen field of expertise. Judges often look unkindly on that.
While most of us fussy Linux geeks would be happy with Linux certified hardware with no OS, a smart vendor would cater to our fussiness. Here is an idea...
Choose the latest versions of the top few distros. Make them available as a pulldown on the order page. Also include options for customizing the partition sizes and installed software (within reasonable limits). Heck you could even include fields for customizing the network configuration so all you need to do when it arrives is plug it in and turn it on. All of this is fully automated so the labor cost after developing the initial web app and install engine is almost zero. This could be easily built from existing software components. Even the certification and testing of install permutations could be mostly automated.
Are you listening Dell? Tell you what, give me $50,000 and a month, and I'll build you a turnkey system that does this. It would be EASY.
You cannot honestly think the level of Windows support necessary for the average computer user is ANYWHERE near comparable to the level of support that would be necessary for Linux, can you? The first time a technician has to explain to grandma how to manually edit a.conf file is the last time anyone in that person's sphere of influence would ever buy from that company. Linux is simply not ready to be a widespread desktop OS.
You haven't tried Ubuntu, have you. Its actually easier to use than Windows. I have not found any common admin task that is not accessible via a very friendly pointy-clicky interace, no config file editing necessary. I find the interface actually easier and more user friendly than Windows, and you can't get any more easy than their Add/Remove feature for adding third party software. Lack of popular commercial apps is still a viable complaint for some users, but ease of use arguments just don't hold water anymore.
And yes, I've set up Ubuntu systems for several very happy computer noobs that wanted desperatly to get off the Widows malware/reinstall/upgrade treadmill. No complaints or support problems so far.
And how do we know that the prinout matches whatever counter is incremented within the computer?
Actually, the count of voters will also be tracked independent of the machine. Voter registration is checked before you vote. They check in a hardcopy voter registration book that your name shows up at the address you claim to be living at. You need to show ID or something else with your address. They then check you off as having voted by writing a sequence number next your name. The number is not reliable for determining how you voted because their are multiple voting stations at each polling place and no way to know which one you went to after making it through the registration queue. Nevertheless, the total recorded in the book must match the totals recorded in the machines at the end of the night. It would be impossible for the voting machine to add phantom votes to the paper tape without it showing up when you check the registration books.
I live in Wisconsin and have actually been a volunteer poll observer. I am very happy to see this law, though I still think optical scan machines are better for a variety of reasons.
I (and many other visiters of slashdot) would be very interesting in seeing some documentation of this - code would be even better...
I don't have the source code because it wasn't code I wrote. It was the pHd research project of a friend of a friend... I simply loaned server resources and provided some computer consulting. I'll do some google searching and try and dig up a reference. In brief, though, the simulation consisted of cubic 'cells' that were linked at the corners with simulated 'muscles'. The number, arrangement, and rules governing the action of the cells would be randomly 'mutate' from generation to generation. The simulation treated the cells as if they were suspended in liquid and calculated the distance the bundle of cells would move from their starting point. The organisms that moved the farthest would be more likely to 'survive' and pass their genetic makeup on to the next generation.
The simulation started with a simple one or two cell organism and was then run for many thousands of generations. At the end, it had evolved creatures that looked and swam much like fish.
This was not a unique project by the way, the guy was basing his research on an earlier, similar study. I think the earlier study was even mentioned in a documentary (or so my friend claims), so it should be easy to find with some digging. I'll google on it and see what I can find.
> Religion has an explanation for the origin of > life and science has an explanation for the > origin of life. If you cannot see why it is > foolish to discuss either explanation without > mentioning the other, your intellectual > capacity and desire to find the truth is so > low that your opinion doesn't matter anyway. > Thanks for trolling.
The problem is that only one explanation is a scientific theory. Intelligent Design does not stand up to the basic principles of evidence and testability that evolution does, and thus should not be discussed in a science class. If it were discussed, it could best be held up as an example of something that fails to be a scientific theory... probably not the way most ID proponents would want it handled.
I would welcome a discussion of Intelligent Design and Creationism in school, as well as other religious beliefs, areas of philosophy, art, etc. just not in science class. If you don't understand why, I don't think you really understand what 'science' is.
> So, no OSS supported has ever "hacked" proprietary > software? No one has ever used OSS support as a > rationale to spread malicious code?
I have never encountered anyone like that. In my experience, people who hack proprietary software do so because they want to use proprietary software. People who spread malicious code do so for many reasons (building spam networks, stealing credit card info, ego gratification)... I suppose it is statistically possible that some fringe element might do it 'in the cause of OSS', but I have never ran into that and would hardly consider such behavior as representative of the OSS communitity. The closest I can come up with is supposed dDos attack on SCO, but even then the evidence was very thin that the attack even happened, or what the motives were if it did.
> Like introducing OSS into the computer science > classrooms isn't fundamental change? When I was in > high school we ONLY had traditional proprietary > software, and never knew there was anything else.
I would not consider that a fundimental change. As long as the basic theory and concepts of programming are still taught, it does not matter wether the platform is proprietary or open. I do feel that open platforms are a better fit for most schools, but that has more to do with the cost of operation and administrative issues, not the classroom content.
> OK. As much as I agree with your basic premise that > software disagreements are not identical to > religious disagreements, my point is that you could > have chosen better examples.
Probably, but I was trying to work within the constraints of the post I was replying to.
> One place where software ideology disagreements are > very like this ID non-ID debate, is that there are > a LOT more than two opinions/sides in the debate.
I am interested in your statement "It isn't a proven fact nor is it even supported by a tremendous weight of evidence." When you say it is not a fact, are you refering to micro-evolution or macro evolution? Evolution as a force within nature is a proven fact. We have witnessed it in nature, reproduced it in the labratory, and modeled it on computers. I personally have ran a simulation in which simple one cell organisms evolved into fish based entirely on random mutation.
The part of evolution we still call a 'theory' is the macro-evolution side in which animals as we know them today evolved from various common ancestors in the past. Barring the invention of time travel, we are inevitably working with incomplete information here, but there is still a HUGE body of evidence in the fossil record and more importantly in the genetics of animals themselves. As we decode the genome of more and more animals, we find the footprints of evolution everwhere we look.
The problem with Intelligent Design advocates is that they take the inevitable areas where the science is incomplete and using it as 'evidence' for unsupported conlcusions (i.e. we don't know how animal X evolved, so it must have been created 'as is' by an intelligent designer). That is as silly as saying, I don't know how that car was constructed, so Ford must created it with magic pixy dust. Science is about what we can test and prove. Evolution fits that model, Intelligent Design does not. Perhaps God did create the world 'as is' a few thousand years ago... but if he did, he sure made it look like it was billions of years old and that he used evolution in his toolbox of creation. That is what all the available evidence points to anyway. To try and place Intelligent Design next to Evolution in the classroom is to missunderstand and misrepresent what science is. It does a disservice to both science and faith.
The problem with your comparison is that the OSS crowd is not trying to force our view onto everyone else, and we are certainly not trying to force fundimental changes in highschool science curriculums. I have no problem with ID proponents believing what they believe or even teaching it to their own children, but I do have a problem with them trying to force their view into the science classroom. ID is not a scientific theory. It is not supported by a body of evidence, it is not testable in a scientific way, and it requires a leap of faith to accept. In short, it is not science. It is fine if you want to teach it in a comparative religion course, but to assume it deserves equal weight in science class just because a group of people call it a 'theory' reveals a fundimental lack of understanfin about what science really is.
Karl Rove didn't have a security clearance?? That's gotta be BS. I've got a security clearance for lark's sake.
Yes, but does your security clearance give you access to CIA NOC identities? I am thinking it does not, nor would Rove's... his position does not require that level of clearance. That may seem incidental, but it is a critical point when you examine the 1982 law that people suggest Rove might broken.
I sure wish there was this sort of outrage when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents in his socks and (yech) underwear last year. Where was the outrage then?
Actually, while he did misappropriate documents, the 'whole stuffing them in his underwear' rumor was discredited. Anne Coulter and other psuedo-journalists had a lot of fun with it, but the truth was that the document went out in his briefcase.
I won't split hairs about which is worse: breaking the cover of an active agent and forcing the roll-up of CIA assets working on WMDs, or trashing a few documents that could be politically damaging to a former President (or his Senator wife). Wrong is still wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
there's always been change in climate and we have dealt with it, changes which have been far more then small.
it's just alarmist nonsense your pushing there.
You got your degree in climate science where? You've been studying this topic for how long?
I actually have friends doing research on the topic, both in the lab here in the US on the global climate model an in the field in the Antarctic. They are more alarmed about current trends than is filtering through to the media. The rate at which permafrost and glaciers have begun melting recently is sending shock waves through the scientific community. We are now only beginning to discover environmental feedback mechanisms that likely mean the scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the rate and impact of global warming, not overestimated it.
We used to talk about the climate problems our children and grandchildren will be dealing with. Guess what, the bill came early. Now YOU will likely be suffering the consequences. We are seeing the leading edge of it now with shifting weather patterns and encroachment of invasive species... just as the models predicted, only sooner. Because of climate deniers like you, it is probably now too late to stop it, but we still must do everything we can to slow the change and give our society and economy time to adapt.
Alarmist? Hardly. If anything the message from the scientist has been overly softened and toned down.
BTW, the friends I mentioned work at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and on the global climate model at Argonne National Laboratories, in case anyone is curious.
'm sure that the global warming hysteria will try to make this look like a bad thing, but it's a real boon to nautical industries like shipping and such. There just aren't that many ways around continents. Having an extra option is great.
Thats like saying an epidemic of flesh eating bacteria is really just an economic boon to the medical industry. The frighteningly rapid melting of arctic ice should be a major warning alarm of impending economic disasters that come with rapid climate change. The negative impacts of climate change completely outweigh the few silver linings like the opening of the northwest passage.
Sorry, no sale. Freedom doesn't come cheap. And it's not given, most of the time it has to be taken. And sometimes bloodshed is involved.
Very true. Unfortunately, we seem intent on 'giving' freedom to Iraq at the point of gun, on our terms. As you say, it just does not work that way. It is not like we are trying to repel an occupying power from their land... we are dealing with an insurgency and a civil war made up primarily of Iraqis. Indeed, we are perceived as the occupying power. I am certain there are ways we can help Iraq become a free and stable country... but our current strategy is not it.
Thad
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
This is hilarious. Even while pointing out the evidence of Bush's attack on the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms, you grasp for the opposite conclusion. Better yet, your automatic assumption that a Democratic administration (regardless of the character of those staffing it) must certainly be worse belies the very partisan bias you would accuse others of. I can only assume you are joking, that this is a parody of some sort. Nevertheless, though I come to this thread somewhat late, I think I must respond.
a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
The current climate of deregulation mostly benefits the largest corporations to the detriment of most small business owners. The best example I've run into is deregulation of the telecom industry wiping out many smaller phone and Internet companies, resulting in fewer choices, higher prices, and worse service for consumers. As a consultant and small business owner working in this industry, I've witnessed it first hand. You can find many similar examples in the energy sector, agriculture... almost anywhere you care to look.
Rolling back environmental regulations has certainly made it easier for many big real estate developers, but this often comes at a high cost to working people. In my home town a developer pulled political strings to build a massive subdivision of condos, destroying the natural watershed that would normally be protected as a wetland. After the inevitable flooding of neighboring areas, the taxpayers were stuck paying for a massive concrete and steel water management structure to fix the problem. It cost an order of magnitude more than the condo project.
And then there is the added medical costs we all carry as result of other environmental rollbacks. BTW, I am currently buying and renovating a Brownfield property, so I know a little bit about environmental regulations and business investment. 'Getting rid of government regulation' makes a great sound bite... but the attraction pales when the results turn up in your food or drinking water.
b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
The right to bear arms is cool and all... but personally I'm a bit more concerned about my right to privacy, due process, and habeas corpus, all of which have been eliminated or seriously curtailed under Bush. Just recently in fact, Bush released an executive order saying he can seize the assets of anyone they feel are interfering with the administration's Iraq plans. No warrant necessary, no trial... gone. Yeah, I feel a lot more free.
c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
Lower taxes are certainly nice, but never at the expense of higher deficits. That is unforgivably bad economic policy. Any benefit we might personally gain from those cuts is more than wiped out by the negative long term consequences (such as higher interest rates, inflation, and a weakening dollar... not to mention the obvious side effect that more
Most people see computers as appliances. They don't want to see the guts of the machine, they just want to see a browser, and software that will allow them to interoperate with other users.
How is Linux different than what you describe? I install an Ubuntu system, it auto-configures the network with DHCP and then presents a firefox icon prominently on. A bunch of applications are immediately available under the 'Applications' menu, and more are easily located and installed with the Applications->Add/Remove menu option. I've dropped a variety of non-geek users in front of Ubuntu and they have no problems getting right up to speed. What sort of problems should they have had?
The day I can walk into a shop that sells games, and find a section with "games for Linux PC's" containing all the cool new games, is the day I'll switch to Linux.
That is unlikely to happen, though I expect an increasing number of games might include a Linux version on the same CD (like Blizzard includes Mac and PC on the same disk). Its almost inevitable with the increasing Linux desktop market share that is ramping up.
And the fact that it has a reputation as being something only computer geeks "can" use. And the fact that if you want to use any programs on linux you usually have to compile the source yourself. And the fact that there are no human interface designers working on the linux project.
The 'geeks only' reputation of Linux might have been accurate 5 years ago but it is completely wrong now. Modern distros like Ubuntu are actually easier to use than Windows, and there is actually quite a few professional user interface people working on Linux (Sun, Red Hat, and others pay UI people to work on Gnome).
This idea that you need to download and compile code is particularly inaccurate. Ubuntu, for example, has a very attractive and easy to use point-n-click interface sitting on top of the apt package managing system. Just go to the Applications->Add/Remove menu, browse for the apps you want installed, check some boxes, hit Apply. Done. No web sites to visit, to trip to the store, no CD to load... Just click, click, done. Furthermore, once the apps are installed, they will automatically patched and upgraded. This is true for all third party apps as well as OS components (unlike Windows Update). You never need worry about software dependencies or loading a wrong version... apt sorts that all out automatically, even installing prerequisite libraries and apps for you when you install something else that needs them.
I've discussed these same issues in another Slashdot thread with another user with that old 'geeks only' misconception. He pointed to the sourceforge website for Gaim as an example of how difficumt it is to locate and install Linux apps. I pointed him at This Screen Shot to show how easy it is in Ubuntu.
As for the user interface issue... I've sat a bunch of computer newbs in front of Ubuntu and demonstrated how to customize and admin their system through the gnome System menu. They all do fine and many express that they like it better than Windows. Even Linux installs have become easier than Windows. More of the the third party hardware is found by default without needing extra driver disks, there are fewer screens to click through, and no software activation to worry about. With a live CD, you can even continue to use the system while it installs.
At this point, the only thing Windows has over Linux is availability of various popular Windows apps and games. That is a show stopper for some, but for many other people Linux is great alternative that is powerful, easy to use, and free of malware. It is a great OS now, and just continues to improve. If your perception of Linux is still based on where it was a few years ago, I suggest you check out an modern distro like Ubuntu. I've installed it for a variety of friends, family, and business associates, and they are all very happy with it.
There are linux gamers, of course... but if I had to guess, there are probably very few linux only gamers. What I mean is people that will not dual boot and will rather go without a very good and popular game than buying it if it isn't linux native (I know several posters here are like that, but I doubt there are many people overall).
I'm certain more people would game on Linux if more of the popular games were available... but then the perceived lack of Linux gamers lowers the incentive to port to Linux. One of those chicken vs. egg things. I'm a casual gamer and full time Linux user (and developer). I run native Linux games from ID and GarageGames as well as Blizzard games under Wine. I've even played a few open source games that are surprisingly good (Cube, Tremulous, BZFlag). I expect more Linux games will arrive as Linux grows in popularity on the desktop (which it is). I know several gamers that would switch to Linux in a heartbeat if their favorite game were ported. Basically, serious gamers are loyal to their games, not their OS. Right now that works in favor of keeping more of the games on Windows only, but that could change as the Linux desktop grows and the 'casual' Linux gamer is targeted by an increasing number of publishers.
It seems we were arguing on different planes. No, I do not object to your statement that the Ubuntu repository is nice, or apt is great (in fact, I found in an article that the Linux dependency hell occurs less on Debian-based systems). My point is more like that the lack of a common packaging system and ABIs (yes, .so interfaces are still ABIs) cause many problems in the Linux world. You admitted too that the newer Windows systems tend to have less DLL problems. Debian/Ubuntu is not the standard on Linux (yet).
:-(. Natural for the developing countries since people there are more occupied in earning our living instead of making contributions to free software--something idealists like RMS tend to ignore. That is one of the reasons why F/OSS does not work in some areas.
In the Linux world you essentially have two package management standards: apt and rpm. With those two you cover 99 percent of the market. While a single standard would seem to simplify things, this sort of differentiation and competition is just how innovation happens in the open source world. For a desktop system, I think a Debian/apt based systems is they way to go. It will give you the broadest coverage of software. Anything you can find in an RPM based distro is probably also available in apt.
I nearly exclusively use Firefox for surfing, except, well, some sites are IE-only. I do not think I am a big power user of Office, but OpenOffice is just not good enough for Chinese users
Yes, open source solutions like Linux and OpenOffice are not right for everyone; I simply encourage people to consider them along with the various commercial choices. Linux has matured a lot over the last few years, so basing the decision on older impressions of Linux as just a geeky hackers OS that needs lots of tweaking is really not accurate. I would never fault someone for trying Linux and deciding it was not for them. What I don't like, however, is people making decisions based on outdated information they heard repeated on an Internet forum.
Cheers.
Did you google for 'DLL hell' yourself? I did, and found http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/DLL+hell :
Yes, DLL Hell has been mostly mitigated in newer versions of Windows. I was not trying to imply otherwise, which is why I pointed it out as an 'earlier' example of dependency issues in Windows. We were discussing the historical stability of the platforms interfaces after all. Yes, Linux has suffered from similar problems, and it lead to the development of the current apt repository architecture. I find apt is a far superior method for handling dependency issues. It provides a greater level of automation during installs, easier upgrading, and is open to third party software providers. Similar features in Windows extends only across Microsoft's software suite. Linux is way ahead of Microsoft in this area. See my earlier post about installing gaim to see what I mean.
While I appreciate much the work done in Ubuntu, I do not think a centralized repository works all the time.
Repositories are not necessarily centralized. You can easily add secondary and third party repositories. Simply go to the 'Software Sources' admin tool and click the 'Third Party' tab and enter the URL of the vendor's server. Now all of their software will show up in your list of available apps, and all their dependencies will be tracked along with the system dependencies. The apps will auto-upgrade along with all the others (if you so desire).
The only way I can imagine making it easier is to embed a tag in the vendor web site that automatically adds the repository when you click some widget on the web site... but I can imagine security concerns with that.
I do not want to argue with you that Vista is bad. However, most user-level applications are not affected. And I do not think 'DLL hell' is inherently a problem of Windows architecture (still, Microsoft may be to blame, or the other producers of DLLs).
All systems struggle with dependency problems (DLL hell in Windows). My point is that Linux has developed by far the best solution with apt and the like. Microsoft has done something similar with Windows Update, but it does not extend beyond the borders of their own software suite. With Linux, the update architecture is open to all software providers and can be extended to as many servers as you like. It also leaves the door open for continued third party support of legacy systems beyond the official support window (that has actually happened with older Fedora Core distros).
On the other hand, have a look at http://gaim.sourceforge.net/downloads.php to see how many packages are there for x86 Linus! That is what I think as bad as hell.
This is a really great example of the misconceptions many still have about Linux... the perception that installing software is a geeky struggle with downloading, configuring, compiling, etc. This is not necessary for most apps, certainly not after they reach the level of polish and popularity as Gaim. Want to know how I would install Gaim? Take a look at this screenshot to see how easy it is to install Gaim on Ubuntu with just a few mouse clicks. And once it is installed, it will be automatically upgraded and kept up to date until I remove it from the system.
Maybe maybe. However, there is some doubt even on surfing (there are still a lot of IE-only sites around). No, I can tell you clearly that OOo is not as good as Microsoft Office, though I like very much the PDF output of OOo--even that is not for technical reasons, I believe. And you would need a lot more to exist in a business environment, which is the biggest source of Windows sales....
I've been surfing exclusively with Firefox and using OpenOffice for home and business use for several years now with no troubles, so obviously mileage can vary. I recommend even my Windows using friends avoid IE in favor of Firefox for security reasons if nothing else. If you are a real power MS Office user and must trade those sophisticated documents with other MS Office users, then certainly you should stick with Windows; but I've found that most people don't push Office that hard and can get by with OpenOffice just fine. Heck, many home users don't even have Office. I would certainly encourage anyone needing an office suite try OpenOffice before shelling out money for MS Office.
Linux is a toy OS. That isn't to say that it can't do amazing things--of course it can, duh--but it is primarily used by people who don't need it to do all the little consumery things we like computers to do, or people who actually enjoy tinkering. Basically, for the home user, Linux is great for checking email and browsing the web. Granted, those are the main things people do with their computers, but it isn't all they do.
Considering Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry that has swept the server space, high end clustered computing, embedded, etc... I'm surprised you would characterize it as a 'toy' OS. Only a consumer OS can rise above that level? Currently the only thing I can't do with Linux is play most Windows video games... being a game playing OS seems closer to a 'toy' OS to me. I use Linux to run my business, both on the server and desktop. From serving my web pages to running office productivity apps, it does all I need, and it does it without ever crashing or being infected with malware.
Until there are many, many more native games and a native MS Office, Linux is kind of a joke.
The MS Office compatibility is not as big an empediment as some people think (but that could be a huge thread on its own). I've been using OpenOffice for years. I send out resumes, work estimates, consulting contracts, etc, and have no problems with my MS Office using clients. Games are a real issue, and if you use your system primarily for that then definitely stick with Windows for now, but for just about everything other common use (and quite a few uncommon ones) Linux can be a good fit. You may think its a joke, but a hell of a lot of business people and a growing number of home users think otherwise.
What is the business to do with Ubuntu? Does Ubuntu carry all the Linux applications on the planet?
Very nearly so. Via apt repositories, most refined and stable applications (certainly the most popular ones) are available with a click. Furthermore, all the dependencies are automatically sorted out. That is a Really Big Thing when it comes to ease of use for the non-technical user. This is one of the main reasons I consider Ubuntu 'easier to use' than Windows. The other is that the naming of menu items and layout of admin UI components is more intuitive IMHO.
The lack of a stable ABI means lack of commercial applications, and a big waste of open-source debelopers' time on unnecessary porting and building. I still can run the Win32 applications published ten years ago, and even DOS applications published fifteen or more years ago--I call that an advantage.
I've been using both Windows and Linux almost since the origins of both, and my experience just does not match yours. The Linux API and ABI have remained very stable, usually more so than Windows. Just look at how much Vista breaks backwards compatibility to see what I mean. Do google search on the term 'DLL hell' for earlier examples. Even when Linux libraries do rev and break compatibility with binaries, it is often easily fixed by installing a 'legacy support' package (easily done with the point and click package management. But of course the whole point with Linux is that you don't have to run old binaries anyway; your package manager handles dependencies and keeps everything in sync as upgrades become available.
Sure, if you live on the bleeding edge and compile apps from source, you can run into troubles, but the whole point here is that the typical user is not going to do that (nor do the have to anymore). They can stick with the apps within the repositories and still have a huge library of to choose from, all easily installed and upgraded with a mouse click. Commercial software vendor that want their stuff to reach customers just need to put them in an apt repository or CNR or some such. This is the new model for software distribution, and Linux is way ahead of the game here.
Furthermore, this is not just my opinion as a computer guru; I've dropped Ubuntu in front of newbies and gotten very favorable responses. Yes, you have to make sure you select compatible hardware, and yes, you can't just run to to Best Buy and grab any old shrinkwrap software to run on it... but the same is true of a Mac and yet people still manage fine with those.
As long as there is not a free alternative to Windows (and I doubt its possibility, given the technical and legal obstacles), I do not see the decline of Microsoft Windows in the near future.
Perhaps not, but Windows does not have to tank for Linux to be a viable desktop. For a great many people, it is a better option than what they have now. Perhaps not if you play a lot of games, but certainly for Internet surfing and office productivity and such it is a stable, friendly, virus free alternative.
I'm not saying Ubuntu Linux is problem free, but lets be honest here, neither is Windows (there certainly seems to be plenty of problems reported with Vista). Linux has a few areas where it really shines compared to Windows. That includes security, stability, software installation, and now days even ease of use. But, hey, its free to try out, so I encourage people to be their own judge on this. Maybe it won't be for you... but then again you might be pleasantly surprised.
Have you tried Ubuntu? Your argument might have been true at one time, but it doesn't hold water anymore. Ubuntu is actually easier to install and manage than Windows, and installing software is waaaaay easier with their point and click Add/Remove Applications interface. It even trumps Vista in the eye candy department when you install Beryl. The only advantage Windows has at this point is availability of various popular applications and games, and that gap is steadily narrowing.
The truth is, most users have no loyalty to Windows; their loyalty is to applications. As the Linux application market matures (and it is, rapidly), arguments against migration dissolve.
Thad
If I were a lawyer, AND evil, I would argue that by working in the same field, you're necessarily using information gathered at your previous employer, because you ulimately draw on those experiences to improve what you do.
There is actually already a body of case law about exactly this issue. Non-compete agreements are often found to be over broad and unenforceable. In general, it is expected that you will carry skills and knowledge that you learned on one job over to the next... hell, its why we list our employment history on our resume after all.
The real issue is whether they actually carted off some sort of proprietary trade secret rather than just general knowledge/skill. That can be difficult to prove, and if these guys are smart they will counter-sue for loss of wages and professional reputation. Its a dangerous business when you decide to start suing someone for choosing to work in their chosen field of expertise. Judges often look unkindly on that.
Cheers,
Thad
While most of us fussy Linux geeks would be happy with Linux certified hardware with no OS, a smart vendor would cater to our fussiness. Here is an idea...
Choose the latest versions of the top few distros. Make them available as a pulldown on the order page. Also include options for customizing the partition sizes and installed software (within reasonable limits). Heck you could even include fields for customizing the network configuration so all you need to do when it arrives is plug it in and turn it on. All of this is fully automated so the labor cost after developing the initial web app and install engine is almost zero. This could be easily built from existing software components. Even the certification and testing of install permutations could be mostly automated.
Are you listening Dell? Tell you what, give me $50,000 and a month, and I'll build you a turnkey system that does this. It would be EASY.
You cannot honestly think the level of Windows support necessary for the average computer user is ANYWHERE near comparable to the level of support that would be necessary for Linux, can you? The first time a technician has to explain to grandma how to manually edit a
You haven't tried Ubuntu, have you. Its actually easier to use than Windows. I have not found any common admin task that is not accessible via a very friendly pointy-clicky interace, no config file editing necessary. I find the interface actually easier and more user friendly than Windows, and you can't get any more easy than their Add/Remove feature for adding third party software. Lack of popular commercial apps is still a viable complaint for some users, but ease of use arguments just don't hold water anymore.
And yes, I've set up Ubuntu systems for several very happy computer noobs that wanted desperatly to get off the Widows malware/reinstall/upgrade treadmill. No complaints or support problems so far.
And how do we know that the prinout matches whatever counter is
incremented within the computer?
Actually, the count of voters will also be tracked
independent of the machine. Voter registration is
checked before you vote. They check in a hardcopy
voter registration book that your name shows up
at the address you claim to be living at. You
need to show ID or something else with your address.
They then check you off as having voted by writing a
sequence number next your name. The number is not reliable
for determining how you voted because their are multiple
voting stations at each polling place and no way to
know which one you went to after making it through the
registration queue. Nevertheless, the total recorded
in the book must match the totals recorded in the
machines at the end of the night. It would be impossible
for the voting machine to add phantom votes to the paper
tape without it showing up when you check the registration
books.
I live in Wisconsin and have actually been a volunteer
poll observer. I am very happy to see this law, though
I still think optical scan machines are better for a
variety of reasons.
Later,
Thad
I don't have the source code because it wasn't code I wrote. It was the pHd research project of a friend of a friend... I simply loaned server resources and provided some computer consulting. I'll do some google searching and try and dig up a reference. In brief, though, the simulation consisted of cubic 'cells' that were linked at the corners with simulated 'muscles'. The number, arrangement, and rules governing the action of the cells would be randomly 'mutate' from generation to generation. The simulation treated the cells as if they were suspended in liquid and calculated the distance the bundle of cells would move from their starting point. The organisms that moved the farthest would be more likely to 'survive' and pass their genetic makeup on to the next generation.
The simulation started with a simple one or two cell organism and was then run for many thousands of generations. At the end, it had evolved creatures that looked and swam much like fish.
This was not a unique project by the way, the guy was basing his research on an earlier, similar study. I think the earlier study was even mentioned in a documentary (or so my friend claims), so it should be easy to find with some digging. I'll google on it and see what I can find.
This paper here looks related.
Cheers,
Thad
> Religion has an explanation for the origin of
> life and science has an explanation for the
> origin of life. If you cannot see why it is
> foolish to discuss either explanation without
> mentioning the other, your intellectual
> capacity and desire to find the truth is so
> low that your opinion doesn't matter anyway.
> Thanks for trolling.
The problem is that only one explanation is a
scientific theory. Intelligent Design does not
stand up to the basic principles of evidence and
testability that evolution does, and thus should
not be discussed in a science class. If it were
discussed, it could best be held up as an example
of something that fails to be a scientific
theory... probably not the way most ID proponents
would want it handled.
I would welcome a discussion of Intelligent
Design and Creationism in school, as well as
other religious beliefs, areas of philosophy,
art, etc. just not in science class. If you
don't understand why, I don't think you
really understand what 'science' is.
Peace,
Thad
> So, no OSS supported has ever "hacked" proprietary
> software? No one has ever used OSS support as a
> rationale to spread malicious code?
I have never encountered anyone like that. In my
experience, people who hack proprietary software do
so because they want to use proprietary software.
People who spread malicious code do so for many
reasons (building spam networks, stealing credit
card info, ego gratification)... I suppose it is
statistically possible that some fringe element
might do it 'in the cause of OSS', but I have
never ran into that and would hardly consider
such behavior as representative of the OSS
communitity. The closest I can come up with is
supposed dDos attack on SCO, but even then the
evidence was very thin that the attack even
happened, or what the motives were if it did.
> Like introducing OSS into the computer science
> classrooms isn't fundamental change? When I was in
> high school we ONLY had traditional proprietary
> software, and never knew there was anything else.
I would not consider that a fundimental change.
As long as the basic theory and concepts of
programming are still taught, it does not matter
wether the platform is proprietary or open. I
do feel that open platforms are a better fit for
most schools, but that has more to do with the
cost of operation and administrative issues, not
the classroom content.
> OK. As much as I agree with your basic premise that
> software disagreements are not identical to
> religious disagreements, my point is that you could
> have chosen better examples.
Probably, but I was trying to work within the
constraints of the post I was replying to.
> One place where software ideology disagreements are
> very like this ID non-ID debate, is that there are
> a LOT more than two opinions/sides in the debate.
How true.
Cheers,
Thad
I am interested in your statement "It isn't a
proven fact nor is it even supported by a
tremendous weight of evidence." When you say it
is not a fact, are you refering to micro-evolution
or macro evolution? Evolution as a force within
nature is a proven fact. We have witnessed it in
nature, reproduced it in the labratory, and modeled
it on computers. I personally have ran a simulation in
which simple one cell organisms evolved into fish
based entirely on random mutation.
The part of evolution we still call a 'theory' is
the macro-evolution side in which animals as we
know them today evolved from various common
ancestors in the past. Barring the invention of
time travel, we are inevitably working with
incomplete information here, but there is still
a HUGE body of evidence in the fossil record and
more importantly in the genetics of animals
themselves. As we decode the genome of more and
more animals, we find the footprints of evolution
everwhere we look.
The problem with Intelligent Design advocates is
that they take the inevitable areas where the
science is incomplete and using it as 'evidence'
for unsupported conlcusions (i.e. we don't know how
animal X evolved, so it must have been created
'as is' by an intelligent designer). That is as
silly as saying, I don't know how that car was
constructed, so Ford must created it with magic
pixy dust. Science is about what we can test and
prove. Evolution fits that model, Intelligent
Design does not. Perhaps God did create the
world 'as is' a few thousand years ago... but if
he did, he sure made it look like it was billions
of years old and that he used evolution in his
toolbox of creation. That is what all the
available evidence points to anyway. To try and
place Intelligent Design next to Evolution in the
classroom is to missunderstand and misrepresent
what science is. It does a disservice to both
science and faith.
The problem with your comparison is that the OSS
crowd is not trying to force our view onto
everyone else, and we are certainly not trying to
force fundimental changes in highschool science
curriculums. I have no problem with ID proponents
believing what they believe or even teaching it to
their own children, but I do have a problem with
them trying to force their view into the science
classroom. ID is not a scientific theory. It is
not supported by a body of evidence, it is not testable
in a scientific way, and it requires a leap of
faith to accept. In short, it is not science. It is
fine if you want to teach it in a comparative religion
course, but to assume it deserves equal weight in
science class just because a group of people call
it a 'theory' reveals a fundimental lack of
understanfin about what science really is.
That's gotta be BS. I've got a security clearance for lark's sake.
Yes, but does your security clearance give you access to CIA NOC identities? I am thinking it does not, nor would Rove's... his position does not require that level of clearance. That may seem incidental, but it is a critical point when you examine the 1982 law that people suggest Rove might broken.
Actually, while he did misappropriate documents, the 'whole stuffing them in his underwear' rumor was discredited. Anne Coulter and other psuedo-journalists had a lot of fun with it, but the truth was that the document went out in his briefcase.
I won't split hairs about which is worse: breaking the cover of an active agent and forcing the roll-up of CIA assets working on WMDs, or trashing a few documents that could be politically damaging to a former President (or his Senator wife). Wrong is still wrong.