The real problem is people refuse to believe/understand evolution for whatever reason. They come up with supposed proofs for flaws in evolution that really don't prove anything. It's almost like trying to disprove 1 + 1 = 2. Evolution is so basic, so fundamental that you could never really disprove the concept of evolution.
I agree with you 100%. The idea of natural selection is so simple, yet very powerful. There is even a book on this by Dennet "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
.. and to my shock a large group of honors students where arguing for the 'science' of creationism. I came to realize just how blind I had been to the problem.
I supposed there is hope, in the fact that they would like their dogma to be "scientific". That means they do understand the advantages of science.
This more or less explicitely lays out the Scientific Method (thus neatly ruling out faith-based beliefs). Note also that it specifies "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building..." - to my mind, this means that any approach which excludes one of more of these isn't Science. Were this not the case, it would be "... logical argument or theory building".
Except it bothers me that they dropped the "seeking natural explainations" phrase...
The key will be "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" since Evolution is based entirely on observation and theory building and has no hypothesis testing beyond showing simple species-specific traits can be passed along
You don't know much about evolution, do you? Before you dismiss the entire field you should study it little more.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
Why are there 10 species of zebra in Africa, but none in Australia?
Why are there mammals?
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
This is instead of natural explanation. How do you define "adequate"? Evolution by natural selection will be deemed "inadequate" and ID will take it's place.
Why don't they speak against the Theory of Electricity? After all the Bible does not mention it. Scientists can't agree on what it is - "an electron" is it a particle or wave? Has anyone actually observed an eletron moving?
iTunes is pretty bad. It insists on keeping the files in one directory. My music files are spread across several computers.
Instead I set up a server with Jamdb running. I drop my files on one of several disks, and every night a script runs to update the database of what I have.
With a web UI I can search and play whatever I want. By opening some ports on my firewall, I get access to my music from the office too.
Apparently, they have plans for 600 software engineers on this ship. Their major point of having them on the ship appears to be that they can maintain low costs to produce software, while only being 3.1 miles off the coast of Los Angeles. I am assuming they don't have to pay corporate taxes to any entity.
I heard about this on NPR yesterday. They are incorporated in California, so in fact they will be paying California and US taxes. However, they don't have to pay for their employees health care, social security or unemployment insurance...
Minor technicality - it is possible to prove (mathematically) a design meets all (functional) requirements before the implementation (and hence testing) stages using formal methods.
Actually this is untrue. The general problem of showing that a program meets its specs is equivalent to the Halting Problem. That is it is undecidable (eg. my spec is that a given program halts - it's impossible to show which programs meet this spec in general).
Furthermore, you need to have the spec written precisely enough, so a formal proof is possible. In practice no one writes such specs, except for some toy problems.
Finally, if the proof is automatic - i.e. performed by a computer program - how do you verify that that you proving program is correct?
Proving that a proving program is correct sounds to me like another undecidable problem.
For all the evidence presented by popular media and through the education system, there seem to be a lot of people, including scientists, who can't accept evolutionary theory [...]
I like to ask people who do not believe that evolution is true, why they are not afraid to go on elevators.
Because, if all the physics and chemistry that supports theory of evolution is false, then there is no way that elevators would work.:)
Wow. Sounds like those children have some really crappy parents. My brother would never let his daughter play a game like Grand Theft Auto.
I let my kids play GTA. When I asked them about this issue, they said "How stupid do you think we are? It's just a game!". My kids are 17 and 13 now.
One could argue that games provide a cathartic effect for your more violent impulses. In fact if you look at the crime statistics (rather than front page of tabloids) you'll notice that violent crime has been diminishing steadily over the past 20 or so years.
You need to re-read the constitution again. that or get a copy that isn't abridged with the liberal perspective. The constitution clearly states it applies to american citizens and the citizens of the teritories it posesses.
Really! Here, for example, is the V amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note "no person". You can go here to read the entire Bill of Rights, or go to Washington and read the original. It does not mention anywhere that it applies to U.S. Citizens only.
At a Linux user's group meeting, maybe two or three years ago, we had a lawyer talk about IP, patents etc. He said that there are law firms paying premium ($50K startup bonus), for lawyers with technical degrees.
Why aren't the 25-50 million Americans who routinely speed into the criminal range in jail? For the same reason why Napster users weren't rounded up. No law is designed with the intent of catching 100% of infringers.
Which is what I meant when I said that the law is not really enforcable.
When you are listening on the radio, the song is not the product. YOU are the product, that the radio station sells to advertisers. When you listen to music on the radio it is an impetus to buy more music. When you download and retain a copy, it is very very often a substitute for buying the music. That is why the artists freak out.
I don't care what radio sells. A p2p client can show ads too.
When I download, sometimes it is to avoid buying something I may not want. Because of limited selection of what is played on the radio, it's hard for me to find out about artists I like. I don't think that artists really mind - this is free publicity.
The artist is looking for fans, if they don't get radio play they'll never find anyone. Internet distribution frees the artist from the tyranny of the record companies (check out CDBaby.com)
Look, Metallica doesn't want you downloading thier music without authorization or payment being made to them.
I certainly respect Metallica's wishes. In fact I wouldn't waste my disk space (or my time) on their files.;-)
You either respect what the creators want, or you don't.
I do. But the act of creation is not some holy thing that happens in the mind of the artist. Each artist is part of a culture which influences him. He copies from others that came before.
I just don't want such influence locked up - as it is happening today. If I make a documentary and talk to someone, while they are drinking Coke and have an episode of Simpsons is playing on TV in the background, I need to get permission from Coke and from FOX to show my movie. This is ridiculous!
Ultimately, this is a question about respect for artists...
What do I do if the artist is dead? Eg. Charlie Parker? What if the rights are no longer owned by the artist?
Sometimes laws are not just (insert an obligatory reference to slavery here:)).
Technology changes things. In fact recording technology destroyed the livelihood of many musicians in the 20th century. Think about that next time you are at a party with a DJ, instead of a live band.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you 100%. The idea of natural selection is so simple, yet very powerful. There is even a book on this by Dennet "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
I supposed there is hope, in the fact that they would like their dogma to be "scientific". That means they do understand the advantages of science.
Except it bothers me that they dropped the "seeking natural explainations" phrase...
You don't know much about evolution, do you? Before you dismiss the entire field you should study it little more.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
This is instead of natural explanation. How do you define "adequate"? Evolution by natural selection will be deemed "inadequate" and ID will take it's place.
Beacause it doesn't matter in their actual life.
Why don't they speak against the Theory of Electricity? After all the Bible does not mention it. Scientists can't agree on what it is - "an electron" is it a particle or wave? Has anyone actually observed an eletron moving?
Instead I set up a server with Jamdb running. I drop my files on one of several disks, and every night a script runs to update the database of what I have.
With a web UI I can search and play whatever I want. By opening some ports on my firewall, I get access to my music from the office too.
Do your parents or Uncle Bob really need BitTorrent? :)
I heard about this on NPR yesterday. They are incorporated in California, so in fact they will be paying California and US taxes. However, they don't have to pay for their employees health care, social security or unemployment insurance...
Actually this is untrue. The general problem of showing that a program meets its specs is equivalent to the Halting Problem. That is it is undecidable (eg. my spec is that a given program halts - it's impossible to show which programs meet this spec in general).
Furthermore, you need to have the spec written precisely enough, so a formal proof is possible. In practice no one writes such specs, except for some toy problems.
Finally, if the proof is automatic - i.e. performed by a computer program - how do you verify that that you proving program is correct?
Proving that a proving program is correct sounds to me like another undecidable problem.
Agreed.
The point I'm trying to make is that the same science that leads to creation of things like elevators, is also use to demonstrate evolution.
I like to ask people who do not believe that evolution is true, why they are not afraid to go on elevators.
Because, if all the physics and chemistry that supports theory of evolution is false, then there is no way that elevators would work. :)
So is theory of eletricity.... Do you believe in electricity? Ever seen an eletron?
Did Columbus discover America on schedule?
If it's an "estimate" why does everyone expects it to be the exact date. Have we forgotten the meaning of "estimate"?
People who come up with the schedules have no clue what it takes to build software.
I let my kids play GTA. When I asked them about this issue, they said "How stupid do you think we are? It's just a game!". My kids are 17 and 13 now.
One could argue that games provide a cathartic effect for your more violent impulses. In fact if you look at the crime statistics (rather than front page of tabloids) you'll notice that violent crime has been diminishing steadily over the past 20 or so years.
Bravo!!!
Really! Here, for example, is the V amendment:
Note "no person". You can go here to read the entire Bill of Rights, or go to Washington and read the original. It does not mention anywhere that it applies to U.S. Citizens only.
Actually, VHS won over Beta, because of convenience. VHS could record 6 hours of stuff at low quality and Beta could not.
Which is what I meant when I said that the law is not really enforcable.
When you are listening on the radio, the song is not the product. YOU are the product, that the radio station sells to advertisers. When you listen to music on the radio it is an impetus to buy more music. When you download and retain a copy, it is very very often a substitute for buying the music. That is why the artists freak out.
I don't care what radio sells. A p2p client can show ads too.
When I download, sometimes it is to avoid buying something I may not want. Because of limited selection of what is played on the radio, it's hard for me to find out about artists I like. I don't think that artists really mind - this is free publicity.
The artist is looking for fans, if they don't get radio play they'll never find anyone. Internet distribution frees the artist from the tyranny of the record companies (check out CDBaby.com)
Look, Metallica doesn't want you downloading thier music without authorization or payment being made to them.
I certainly respect Metallica's wishes. In fact I wouldn't waste my disk space (or my time) on their files. ;-)
You either respect what the creators want, or you don't.
I do. But the act of creation is not some holy thing that happens in the mind of the artist. Each artist is part of a culture which influences him. He copies from others that came before.
I just don't want such influence locked up - as it is happening today. If I make a documentary and talk to someone, while they are drinking Coke and have an episode of Simpsons is playing on TV in the background, I need to get permission from Coke and from FOX to show my movie. This is ridiculous!
Ultimately, this is a question about respect for artists...
What do I do if the artist is dead? Eg. Charlie Parker? What if the rights are no longer owned by the artist?
Sometimes laws are not just (insert an obligatory reference to slavery here :)).
Technology changes things. In fact recording technology destroyed the livelihood of many musicians in the 20th century. Think about that next time you are at a party with a DJ, instead of a live band.