China already has a problem with this already. Due to their one-child policy, many families had sex-based abortions. In particular, since sons were much more popular, they would abort daughters.
I agree totally with your post, but I feel the need to add a small clarification to it.
Sex-based abortions are illegal in China. Indeed, prenatal sex tests are not allowed. Instead, the government makes you carry the child to term and give birth to discover the sex of your child so as to avoid just that problem.
It's at that point that female children are either accepted (not as rare as the media would suggest, but not totally the norm either!), killed, or given to an orphanage. Though it happens on occasion without the government's knowledge (usually by people with access to a sympathetic doctor who is also willing to risk their lives for the family), sex-based abortions are not the norm for those reasons.
The government is doing a great deal to educate their population on the value of female children to put a halt to the ratio problems. It's a slow process, but it is working. The question is whether it will work fast enough to fix the growing sex gap in the population. My money says it won't.:( It'll get fixed, but not in time to have a serious (albeit short-term) problem.
Disclaimer: I am in the process of adopting a Chinese girl right now and I hope to have her back home with me by July or so.
Look, I don't disagree that they are in dire straits, nor that they need more subscribers. I've read all those articles too, but 'hurting' != 'dead'. There is every indication that they will continue to exist at least until the next round of money runs out (I mean the venture backers, not Dolan's $10M).
Sure Govmt is mandating stations to push HD to consumers but that is when? In 2007!
Stations are already broadcasting in HD. Every station in my area broadcasts digital and HDTV. No need to wait for 2007 for that. Only stragglers and idiots will wait til the last minute to roll out digital broadcasts. And as more and more HDTVs are sold every day, people are more and more expecting HD content, which brings me back to my original point...
HD movies will be in demand when everyone gets the taste for HD content. Since every major content provider offers it now, and since TV makers are letting their SDTV offerings die on the vine already (by and large), there's no reason to make the assumption that you did. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will be both viable and welcome by the public. People will bitch abut having to upgrade their movies (I know I will) but they will do it (I know I will). It's a pain to watch SDTV when you are accustomed to HDTV. It really is a big difference.
It's a viral effect. I got HDTV and showed it to friends. They, in turn, got HDTV and showed it to others. I was giving someone advice on buying his HDTV this morning. Three other people chimed in with suggestions. We may not be the majority yet, but there are getting to be a strong minority.
didn't anyone here see that VOOM just went tits up?
Voom has not gone tits up.
Voom is still operational. Charles Dolan, CEO of Cablevision has made a tentative agreement to buy Voom and its assets from Cablevision so he can contimnue running it as a seperate entity. All that's happened so far is that Cablevision didn't want to be in the venture capital business so they decided to drop Voom's assets. That is quite a different thing from going tits up. The Satellite sale to Echostar is not finalized and may still get derailed, and there is another Voom satellite still scheduled for launch soon.
In short, as of this morning Voom is still accepting new customers and they added several new channels this past weekend to their service. doesn't sound like a dead company to me.
As for the rest, demand for HDTV isn't the question. Expectation is. The Government is expecting (read: mandating) stations to push HD to consumers. They are also expecting (read: mandating) TV suppliers to ship all digital/HD sets to consumers in short order.
Once consumers have everything in place to watch HDTV and are doing so regularly do you honestly think they are going to be cool with reverting to the 'olden days' when they watch movies? Of course not.
but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time?
Two answers to this:
1) Yes, after the patent expires they lose the right to enforce it. Though that's obvious, it's worth pointing out. Patents do not last nearly as long as copyrights do (yet!).
2) Yes, but only of the defender can prove the complainer knew about the violation and purposefully waited until the damages would be maximized or the remedy catastrophic to the defendant. It would then fall under the Doctrine of Laches. Specifically, Estoppel by Silence. If you know ahead of time, you can't let a roofing crew finish replacing your roof with a new one before telling them that they got the address wrong. Do that, and you'll be paying for a new roof.
But I ain't no lawyer, so read my comments in that light.
Try using any regular phone on your home VOIP network.
Maybe I'm missing what you are saying, but I use Vonage and I can use any phone I buy off the shelf with no problems. None yet, at least! Am I just lucky?
if the superintendent is held responsible, then he in turn (in theory) will hold the principal responsible.
Here, we agree. The principal will be the one hung out to dry for public satisfaction, but regardless of how complicit the principal is, he simply does not have the authority to make that sort of school-wide change without the involvement and permission of the superintendent. Even if the principal started this mess (HIGHLY doubtful!) the superintendent's job is to stop it, and the buck stops with him, not the lowly principal.
Like any union, they oppose competition because it destroys their monopolistic advantage
Unlike other unions, the loyalties of the NEA are split between the teachers as workforce and the students as a stewardship. Teachers do not have a union in any real sense. It's why they get screwed to the wall at every turn. If they had a union that axted like a union, they'd have far better pay and benefits.
they realize that increased competition will drive the public school teachers [...] out of a job once people realize how incompetent many [...] of them are compared to private school teachers
The difference between private and public school teachers is not one of competence. The difference is authority and responsiblity. Public school teachers are forced to a stricter standard of behavior and technique than private school teachers. Like Coy fish, they will grow to the extent they are given room. In the public sector, they are fearful of lawsuits and capricious bureaucrats who push responsibility down without pushing the authority down that is the necessary precursor to responsibility.
more than any other major factor, is the problem.
Look, we cold debate vouchers all day and night and not come to any conclusions. Either way, vouchers are only one of many possible solutions to the problems of our educational system. To say that this symptom is caused by that one thing is to view the problem myopically. The problem with the public education system is far deeper than its socialistic structure. That socialism has benefits and problems. The real problems of the system will not be fixed by opening it in that way. And certainly there is no substantial evidence to say that this sort of problem will be fixed by doing so.
The problem of RFIDs and kids is a cultural one, not an educational one. We need to resist the push to make ours a surveillance culture. These people weren't pushing a socialist agenda with this move. They were making decisions about our kids in a vaccuum. They saw only the problems they had to fix, and RFIDs fix them. We need to remind them that there is a bigger picture than whether or not my kid skips gym class. that is a cultural issue.
I don't see how socialism plays a role in this at all.
Meanwhile, the government, represented by the school principal, still wants to act against the will of the public which is funding it.
The deciding government official here is the Superintendent of the School System, not a lone Principal. A Superintendent is accountable to te public as an elected official. If he defies the Will of the People, he will know it at election time.
because of vested interests (read: public school teacher unions), the parents are going to continue paying for this system they oppose.
I assume you have no clue how this all works together? The teachers' union (the NEA) has nothing to do with the decision making process here. This is the result of a decision made by an elected official. How the hell does the NEA benefit from this? Where is the "vested interest" you claimed? I don't see it.
Neither Marx nor Engels invented the idea of sharing with your neighbor.
Don't let the detractors set the vocabulary of this IMPORTANT debate.
Communism is essentially a system of economics where the government establishes a de facto monopoly for a good or service. The Postal Service is essentially a communist structure. The military is essentially a communist structure. Hell, Microsoft is essentially a communist structure. Free Software distinguishes itself from those structures by the fact that it opens the playing field rather than closing it.
in terms of a community of workers all banding together to produce their own labor, instead of selling themselves to the capitalists.
That is a Commune, which has nothing to do whatsoever with Communism. They have about as much to do with one another as a Hysterectomy has to do with Hysteria. They share some etymology, and that is all.
Let's move past this need to allow Bill Gates to set the tone and direction of our internal discussions.
When we talk about Free Software, we are talking about a software development model. Let others implement that model within whatever economic context they wish, be it capitalist, communist, or something else.
The object of art is the object reformed deliberately and informed by our collective cultural experiences through the intent of the artist. It is this intent which forms the "energy" of the art itself.
Through art we relive the energy of the subject of the art form vicariously and that energy, according to all thinkers on art, from Goethe to Berenson, is the primary source of aesthetic pleasure.
Can a computer randomly generate art? Of course not. Beauty? Maybe. But not art. Beauty can be found in nature, in randomness, in chaos. Art is found in culture, in purpose, and in order (even when it may appear chaotic).
This is exactly what measures like SPF were designed to induce
We've lost.
The Internet was designed to be, and should remain, a network of peers. There exists no hierarchy on the Internet. My computer is as signifigant are Microsoft's web server (albeit, far less popular).
With systems like SPF, we've abdicated our computer's place on the Internet to so-called super-peers. Now, to send an email, I have to get permission from my ISP.
Fuck that.
Call me an unrealistic idealist if you want, but a network of peers is a Freer structure than the one that SPF creates. Give me freedom, with all its problems, over permissions-based structures any day of the week.
We've come closer to beating spam at the cost of the Free Internet. If we've won something, then it's a pyrrhic victory at best and you guys will be celebrating without me.:(
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Just a quick clarification. A principal at a public school is an agent of the government. Legally, when he speaks, it is as an agent for the municipality under which he is employed. That's why principal's and teachers have to be so damn careful about what they say and do. They fall under a different set of rules in that respect...just like police and elected officials.
Bill Gates is the head of a company that, under his watch and (according to evidence entered into record) by his direct order, used illegal means to gain its profits. This is a matter of fact as proved in both European and US courts.
Bill Gates' money was ill-gotten, and now I'm supposed to smile and act pleased that he is choosing to give back a small portion of the money he stole from us in the first place? No thanks.
I am not so lost to the ideological that I can't appreciate the good that money will do, and were I the charity he was giving to, I'd take it with a smile, but let's never, EVER forget that he's just giving us back the money he stole in the first place.
No, he willfully broke the law repeatedly to get that money, and even if the governments refuse to punish him for it, I will not give him a moral free-ride. Dammit, he SHOULD be giving that money back to the world! He gets no pat on the back from me for doing what he ought to do in the first place.
Go ahead and mod me down for my cynicism, but I can't sit back and let people pretend that this is generousity. A generous theif is still a theif.
Just for the record: I earn a 6 figure salary, live in a 3500 sq ft ranch home, am happily married with a kid on the way. (some people gauge success on such markers. I don't, but if you do, there you are.)
The unending causal chain seems the most straightforward solution to me.
I don't realy have an opinion on that one way or the other. In this thread, I was talking specifically about the views of the Creationists and the IDers, both of which do have an opinion on this question (whether the causal chain has a beginning or is infinite).
I gave a small nod to the other view in my initial comment, without going into the theological implications much. The replies so far in this thread suggest that the infinite causal chain is popular amongst slashdotters, though that doesn't mean much scientifically.
Disclaimer: I am no physicist, so I won't touch the infinite causal chain question, but I am a theologian (well, my degree says I am, and I don't argue with it ) and I'll be happy to offer what insight I have as to the implications of either answer.
Some faiths make the same claim. Himduism, for instance, professes a belief in the endless cycle of of Shiva the Creator and Destroyer, whose dances both make and end the universe and existence over and over again.
I'm not a Hindu, but the idea is fascinating to me. The logic underlying the Karmic/Samsaric wheel and the Atman are intricate, and in a sense beautiful.
This is in no way meant to belittle the process or the faith by base comparison, but it's like well written code---elegantly perfect.
But I'm a Christian, so I'm stuck with a far more messy religion.;-) Not elegant at all in its general cosmology...excepting the Theology of the Cross which is as elegant as anything I've seen.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any god. Very few atheists would argue that life couldn't have been created by an intelligent designer, only that there is no evidence that this is the case and that in the lack of any evidence it doesn't make sense to believe.
Scientifically speaking, the evidence equally supports two opposing hypotheses[*]:
1) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is intelligent and the universe is the result of explicit intent.
2) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is non-intelligent and the universe is not the result of explicit intent.
Religious people make a leap of faith toward the first hypothesis. Atheists make a leap of faith toward the second hypothesis. Agnostics choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction on that issue.
That small caveat made, I don't think we disagree enough on this point to debate it. Basically, I agree with your premises.
The Theory of Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life started. It only describes the ways in which life has changed over millions of years.
Absolutely. Indeed, this hints at the distinction being lost in these religion/science debates:
There is a why to the universe which transcends and does not conflict with the how that modern science is trying to resolve.
[*] Of course, both hypotheses make as their underlying assumption the idea that the universe is not an unending causal chain. If the assumption is not granted, a leap of faith is stil required for religious people and atheists alike, albeit a slightly different leap than the ones presented above.
They are assuming that life is an "effect", in other words assuming their conclusion, that it has a cause.
Well, actually, science has long since assumed this, because in science the cause/effect principle is core and ubiquitous to all things. Life came about as an effect from some cause. The ID people, however misguided in their intent, have only built on top of science in this respect.
But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
And nothing saying it isn't either. The ID people argue that it is, with no proof of the fact, while atheists argue the opposite with equally little evidence.
The Theory contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible but there are so many problems with a literal interpetation of the bible that Evolution is the least of an inerrantist's worries.
it has a huge flaw with "first cause" since everything must come from something more intelligent so supposedly "The Creator" was created from a more intelligent "Creator" and so forth.
Well, don't take this as disagreement, becuase I agree with you that, while still a theory, evolution is the best one we have to explain the facts in hand and it shouldn't be singled out as particularly suspect, but......The Intelllgent Design people aren't that easy to dismiss. The idea behind intelligent design (heck, behind many claims of God entirely!) is not that there is an infinite track of more intelligent causes to the effects we see in the world around us, but rather they take the basic scientificly accepted principle that effects have causes and follow that logic to it's end. To wit:
1) Effects have causes 2) No effect can cause itself 3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself 4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time 5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause 6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause 7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.
That logic is valid, so long as we accept two things. First, that they are naming the first cause "God", and second that the underlying assumption is that there is not a causal chain that stretches back infinitely in time.
We cannot deny them their first choice (to call the first cause "God") because it isn't like we have a better name for it. And if we deny them their second assumption, then we are still left with a substantial question:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
If the universe can be said to stretch back infinitely in time, then we should ask why the universe need exist at all. There is still a substantial "Why?" left to explain.
If we follow that train of logic, then God's role is not as initiator of the universe, but as sustainer and creator in a sense that we simply cannot understand. We assume a creation time when we speak of creation, but if the universe stretches back infinitely and God created it, then there is no "When?" question we can ask, but we are left with a timeless, spiritual act of creation that is incomprehensible to me...not incredulous, just incomprehensible.
In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.
Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.
Alienware slips by one quarter and they get on the list, but Voom has been promising me the uber DVR for almost a year with no follow through and there is no mention at all?
I demand a recount!
I LOVE the Voom service, as any real geek would, but that DVR needs to roll out already!
I know you were being funny, and I don't want to be a killjoy (I did laugh), but every time they claim we are communists, we need to be diligent in reminding them that Karl Marx does not hold the copyright on helping others. We can work for the common good without being communists. To believe otherwise is to give up the good fight.
I simply have to believe that we can share ideas and help each other without succumbing to any one economic philosophy.
how does Vonage "know" where to address the messages to?
Same way as at home. The phone connects to Vonage and with a simple "I'm at x.x.x.x" handshake. Then whenever a call comes in, Vonage pushes the call to that IP. If the phone is no longer at that location (easy enough to determine) then the call goes to voicemail or to the forwarding number (vonage let's to establish a failsafe forwarding number for cases where the vonage PBX isn't on the network currently.
In really lame psuedo-code:
When the phone enters a WiFi spot Phone connects to Vonage and sends latest IP
When incoming call is recieved if phone is at $LatestIPAddressGiven (check by MAC address)
forward call to phone's IP else
forward call to voice mail end if
Surprisingly simply and effective service, really.
Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond
I wouldn't call them unconnected. They are selling licensed music from the RIAA's affiliates, just like Apple. They are connected to the whole mess in some way. It's not like the RIAA and Apple are trying to do the legit thing and some bizarre upstart showed up unannounced selling music against the artists' wishes. The only issue here is whether they can offer playback on Apple's hardware without licensing from Apple.
The RIAA has already agreed that both companies can sell their music and has, therefore, implicitly agreed that both companies have acceptable DRM measures in place.
Slashdot Mirror
China already has a problem with this already. Due to their one-child policy, many families had sex-based abortions. In particular, since sons were much more popular, they would abort daughters.
:( It'll get fixed, but not in time to have a serious (albeit short-term) problem.
I agree totally with your post, but I feel the need to add a small clarification to it.
Sex-based abortions are illegal in China. Indeed, prenatal sex tests are not allowed. Instead, the government makes you carry the child to term and give birth to discover the sex of your child so as to avoid just that problem.
It's at that point that female children are either accepted (not as rare as the media would suggest, but not totally the norm either!), killed, or given to an orphanage. Though it happens on occasion without the government's knowledge (usually by people with access to a sympathetic doctor who is also willing to risk their lives for the family), sex-based abortions are not the norm for those reasons.
The government is doing a great deal to educate their population on the value of female children to put a halt to the ratio problems. It's a slow process, but it is working. The question is whether it will work fast enough to fix the growing sex gap in the population. My money says it won't.
Disclaimer: I am in the process of adopting a Chinese girl right now and I hope to have her back home with me by July or so.
it wants its joke back. ;-)
VOOM is dead or is dying.
Look, I don't disagree that they are in dire straits, nor that they need more subscribers. I've read all those articles too, but 'hurting' != 'dead'. There is every indication that they will continue to exist at least until the next round of money runs out (I mean the venture backers, not Dolan's $10M).
Sure Govmt is mandating stations to push HD to consumers but that is when? In 2007!
Stations are already broadcasting in HD. Every station in my area broadcasts digital and HDTV. No need to wait for 2007 for that. Only stragglers and idiots will wait til the last minute to roll out digital broadcasts. And as more and more HDTVs are sold every day, people are more and more expecting HD content, which brings me back to my original point...
HD movies will be in demand when everyone gets the taste for HD content. Since every major content provider offers it now, and since TV makers are letting their SDTV offerings die on the vine already (by and large), there's no reason to make the assumption that you did. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will be both viable and welcome by the public. People will bitch abut having to upgrade their movies (I know I will) but they will do it (I know I will). It's a pain to watch SDTV when you are accustomed to HDTV. It really is a big difference.
It's a viral effect. I got HDTV and showed it to friends. They, in turn, got HDTV and showed it to others. I was giving someone advice on buying his HDTV this morning. Three other people chimed in with suggestions. We may not be the majority yet, but there are getting to be a strong minority.
didn't anyone here see that VOOM just went tits up?
Voom has not gone tits up.
Voom is still operational. Charles Dolan, CEO of Cablevision has made a tentative agreement to buy Voom and its assets from Cablevision so he can contimnue running it as a seperate entity. All that's happened so far is that Cablevision didn't want to be in the venture capital business so they decided to drop Voom's assets. That is quite a different thing from going tits up. The Satellite sale to Echostar is not finalized and may still get derailed, and there is another Voom satellite still scheduled for launch soon.
In short, as of this morning Voom is still accepting new customers and they added several new channels this past weekend to their service. doesn't sound like a dead company to me.
As for the rest, demand for HDTV isn't the question. Expectation is. The Government is expecting (read: mandating) stations to push HD to consumers. They are also expecting (read: mandating) TV suppliers to ship all digital/HD sets to consumers in short order.
Once consumers have everything in place to watch HDTV and are doing so regularly do you honestly think they are going to be cool with reverting to the 'olden days' when they watch movies? Of course not.
but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time?
Two answers to this:
1) Yes, after the patent expires they lose the right to enforce it. Though that's obvious, it's worth pointing out. Patents do not last nearly as long as copyrights do (yet!).
2) Yes, but only of the defender can prove the complainer knew about the violation and purposefully waited until the damages would be maximized or the remedy catastrophic to the defendant. It would then fall under the Doctrine of Laches. Specifically, Estoppel by Silence. If you know ahead of time, you can't let a roofing crew finish replacing your roof with a new one before telling them that they got the address wrong. Do that, and you'll be paying for a new roof.
But I ain't no lawyer, so read my comments in that light.
By now I'd think he'd have already leveled as an Anti-Paladin!
Try using any regular phone on your home VOIP network.
Maybe I'm missing what you are saying, but I use Vonage and I can use any phone I buy off the shelf with no problems. None yet, at least! Am I just lucky?
if the superintendent is held responsible, then he in turn (in theory) will hold the principal responsible.
Here, we agree. The principal will be the one hung out to dry for public satisfaction, but regardless of how complicit the principal is, he simply does not have the authority to make that sort of school-wide change without the involvement and permission of the superintendent. Even if the principal started this mess (HIGHLY doubtful!) the superintendent's job is to stop it, and the buck stops with him, not the lowly principal.
Like any union, they oppose competition because it destroys their monopolistic advantage
Unlike other unions, the loyalties of the NEA are split between the teachers as workforce and the students as a stewardship. Teachers do not have a union in any real sense. It's why they get screwed to the wall at every turn. If they had a union that axted like a union, they'd have far better pay and benefits.
they realize that increased competition will drive the public school teachers [...] out of a job once people realize how incompetent many [...] of them are compared to private school teachers
The difference between private and public school teachers is not one of competence. The difference is authority and responsiblity. Public school teachers are forced to a stricter standard of behavior and technique than private school teachers. Like Coy fish, they will grow to the extent they are given room. In the public sector, they are fearful of lawsuits and capricious bureaucrats who push responsibility down without pushing the authority down that is the necessary precursor to responsibility.
more than any other major factor, is the problem.
Look, we cold debate vouchers all day and night and not come to any conclusions. Either way, vouchers are only one of many possible solutions to the problems of our educational system. To say that this symptom is caused by that one thing is to view the problem myopically. The problem with the public education system is far deeper than its socialistic structure. That socialism has benefits and problems. The real problems of the system will not be fixed by opening it in that way. And certainly there is no substantial evidence to say that this sort of problem will be fixed by doing so.
The problem of RFIDs and kids is a cultural one, not an educational one. We need to resist the push to make ours a surveillance culture. These people weren't pushing a socialist agenda with this move. They were making decisions about our kids in a vaccuum. They saw only the problems they had to fix, and RFIDs fix them. We need to remind them that there is a bigger picture than whether or not my kid skips gym class. that is a cultural issue.
I don't see how socialism plays a role in this at all.
Meanwhile, the government, represented by the school principal, still wants to act against the will of the public which is funding it.
The deciding government official here is the Superintendent of the School System, not a lone Principal. A Superintendent is accountable to te public as an elected official. If he defies the Will of the People, he will know it at election time.
because of vested interests (read: public school teacher unions), the parents are going to continue paying for this system they oppose.
I assume you have no clue how this all works together? The teachers' union (the NEA) has nothing to do with the decision making process here. This is the result of a decision made by an elected official. How the hell does the NEA benefit from this? Where is the "vested interest" you claimed? I don't see it.
Socialism has nothing to do with THIS problem.
The whole Open Source idea is a communist idea
Neither Marx nor Engels invented the idea of sharing with your neighbor.
Don't let the detractors set the vocabulary of this IMPORTANT debate.
Communism is essentially a system of economics where the government establishes a de facto monopoly for a good or service. The Postal Service is essentially a communist structure. The military is essentially a communist structure. Hell, Microsoft is essentially a communist structure. Free Software distinguishes itself from those structures by the fact that it opens the playing field rather than closing it.
in terms of a community of workers all banding together to produce their own labor, instead of selling themselves to the capitalists.
That is a Commune, which has nothing to do whatsoever with Communism. They have about as much to do with one another as a Hysterectomy has to do with Hysteria. They share some etymology, and that is all.
Let's move past this need to allow Bill Gates to set the tone and direction of our internal discussions.
When we talk about Free Software, we are talking about a software development model. Let others implement that model within whatever economic context they wish, be it capitalist, communist, or something else.
The object of art is the object reformed deliberately and informed by our collective cultural experiences through the intent of the artist. It is this intent which forms the "energy" of the art itself.
Through art we relive the energy of the subject of the art form vicariously and that energy, according to all thinkers on art, from Goethe to Berenson, is the primary source of aesthetic pleasure.
Can a computer randomly generate art? Of course not. Beauty? Maybe. But not art. Beauty can be found in nature, in randomness, in chaos. Art is found in culture, in purpose, and in order (even when it may appear chaotic).
This is exactly what measures like SPF were designed to induce
:(
We've lost.
The Internet was designed to be, and should remain, a network of peers. There exists no hierarchy on the Internet. My computer is as signifigant are Microsoft's web server (albeit, far less popular).
With systems like SPF, we've abdicated our computer's place on the Internet to so-called super-peers. Now, to send an email, I have to get permission from my ISP.
Fuck that.
Call me an unrealistic idealist if you want, but a network of peers is a Freer structure than the one that SPF creates. Give me freedom, with all its problems, over permissions-based structures any day of the week.
We've come closer to beating spam at the cost of the Free Internet. If we've won something, then it's a pyrrhic victory at best and you guys will be celebrating without me.
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Just a quick clarification. A principal at a public school is an agent of the government. Legally, when he speaks, it is as an agent for the municipality under which he is employed. That's why principal's and teachers have to be so damn careful about what they say and do. They fall under a different set of rules in that respect...just like police and elected officials.
Bill Gates is the head of a company that, under his watch and (according to evidence entered into record) by his direct order, used illegal means to gain its profits. This is a matter of fact as proved in both European and US courts.
Bill Gates' money was ill-gotten, and now I'm supposed to smile and act pleased that he is choosing to give back a small portion of the money he stole from us in the first place? No thanks.
I am not so lost to the ideological that I can't appreciate the good that money will do, and were I the charity he was giving to, I'd take it with a smile, but let's never, EVER forget that he's just giving us back the money he stole in the first place.
No, he willfully broke the law repeatedly to get that money, and even if the governments refuse to punish him for it, I will not give him a moral free-ride. Dammit, he SHOULD be giving that money back to the world! He gets no pat on the back from me for doing what he ought to do in the first place.
Go ahead and mod me down for my cynicism, but I can't sit back and let people pretend that this is generousity. A generous theif is still a theif.
And yet, I'm still happy.
;-)
Just for the record: I earn a 6 figure salary, live in a 3500 sq ft ranch home, am happily married with a kid on the way. (some people gauge success on such markers. I don't, but if you do, there you are.)
But your reply was still funny.
Still doing that today, albeit with a far better income and a great family.
What would I want the teenage Me to know? That it'll all be just fine.
What else need be said?
The unending causal chain seems the most straightforward solution to me.
I don't realy have an opinion on that one way or the other. In this thread, I was talking specifically about the views of the Creationists and the IDers, both of which do have an opinion on this question (whether the causal chain has a beginning or is infinite).
I gave a small nod to the other view in my initial comment, without going into the theological implications much. The replies so far in this thread suggest that the infinite causal chain is popular amongst slashdotters, though that doesn't mean much scientifically.
Disclaimer: I am no physicist, so I won't touch the infinite causal chain question, but I am a theologian (well, my degree says I am, and I don't argue with it ) and I'll be happy to offer what insight I have as to the implications of either answer.
but what about a circle?
;-) Not elegant at all in its general cosmology...excepting the Theology of the Cross which is as elegant as anything I've seen.
Some faiths make the same claim. Himduism, for instance, professes a belief in the endless cycle of of Shiva the Creator and Destroyer, whose dances both make and end the universe and existence over and over again.
I'm not a Hindu, but the idea is fascinating to me. The logic underlying the Karmic/Samsaric wheel and the Atman are intricate, and in a sense beautiful.
This is in no way meant to belittle the process or the faith by base comparison, but it's like well written code---elegantly perfect.
But I'm a Christian, so I'm stuck with a far more messy religion.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any god. Very few atheists would argue that life couldn't have been created by an intelligent designer, only that there is no evidence that this is the case and that in the lack of any evidence it doesn't make sense to believe.
Scientifically speaking, the evidence equally supports two opposing hypotheses[*]:
1) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is intelligent and the universe is the result of explicit intent.
2) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is non-intelligent and the universe is not the result of explicit intent.
Religious people make a leap of faith toward the first hypothesis. Atheists make a leap of faith toward the second hypothesis. Agnostics choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction on that issue.
That small caveat made, I don't think we disagree enough on this point to debate it. Basically, I agree with your premises.
The Theory of Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life started. It only describes the ways in which life has changed over millions of years.
Absolutely. Indeed, this hints at the distinction being lost in these religion/science debates:
There is a why to the universe which transcends and does not conflict with the how that modern science is trying to resolve.
[*] Of course, both hypotheses make as their underlying assumption the idea that the universe is not an unending causal chain. If the assumption is not granted, a leap of faith is stil required for religious people and atheists alike, albeit a slightly different leap than the ones presented above.
They are assuming that life is an "effect", in other words assuming their conclusion, that it has a cause.
Well, actually, science has long since assumed this, because in science the cause/effect principle is core and ubiquitous to all things. Life came about as an effect from some cause. The ID people, however misguided in their intent, have only built on top of science in this respect.
But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
And nothing saying it isn't either. The ID people argue that it is, with no proof of the fact, while atheists argue the opposite with equally little evidence.
The Theory contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible but there are so many problems with a literal interpetation of the bible that Evolution is the least of an inerrantist's worries.
I totally agree.
it has a huge flaw with "first cause" since everything must come from something more intelligent so supposedly "The Creator" was created from a more intelligent "Creator" and so forth.
...The Intelllgent Design people aren't that easy to dismiss. The idea behind intelligent design (heck, behind many claims of God entirely!) is not that there is an infinite track of more intelligent causes to the effects we see in the world around us, but rather they take the basic scientificly accepted principle that effects have causes and follow that logic to it's end. To wit:
Well, don't take this as disagreement, becuase I agree with you that, while still a theory, evolution is the best one we have to explain the facts in hand and it shouldn't be singled out as particularly suspect, but...
1) Effects have causes
2) No effect can cause itself
3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause
6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause
7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.
That logic is valid, so long as we accept two things. First, that they are naming the first cause "God", and second that the underlying assumption is that there is not a causal chain that stretches back infinitely in time.
We cannot deny them their first choice (to call the first cause "God") because it isn't like we have a better name for it. And if we deny them their second assumption, then we are still left with a substantial question:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
If the universe can be said to stretch back infinitely in time, then we should ask why the universe need exist at all. There is still a substantial "Why?" left to explain.
If we follow that train of logic, then God's role is not as initiator of the universe, but as sustainer and creator in a sense that we simply cannot understand. We assume a creation time when we speak of creation, but if the universe stretches back infinitely and God created it, then there is no "When?" question we can ask, but we are left with a timeless, spiritual act of creation that is incomprehensible to me...not incredulous, just incomprehensible.
In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.
Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.
Alienware slips by one quarter and they get on the list, but Voom has been promising me the uber DVR for almost a year with no follow through and there is no mention at all?
I demand a recount!
I LOVE the Voom service, as any real geek would, but that DVR needs to roll out already!
Karl Marx did not invent sharing.
I know you were being funny, and I don't want to be a killjoy (I did laugh), but every time they claim we are communists, we need to be diligent in reminding them that Karl Marx does not hold the copyright on helping others. We can work for the common good without being communists. To believe otherwise is to give up the good fight.
I simply have to believe that we can share ideas and help each other without succumbing to any one economic philosophy.
how does Vonage "know" where to address the messages to?
Same way as at home. The phone connects to Vonage and with a simple "I'm at x.x.x.x" handshake. Then whenever a call comes in, Vonage pushes the call to that IP. If the phone is no longer at that location (easy enough to determine) then the call goes to voicemail or to the forwarding number (vonage let's to establish a failsafe forwarding number for cases where the vonage PBX isn't on the network currently.
In really lame psuedo-code:
When the phone enters a WiFi spot
Phone connects to Vonage and sends latest IP
When incoming call is recieved
if phone is at $LatestIPAddressGiven (check by MAC address)
forward call to phone's IP
else
forward call to voice mail
end if
Surprisingly simply and effective service, really.
Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond
I wouldn't call them unconnected. They are selling licensed music from the RIAA's affiliates, just like Apple. They are connected to the whole mess in some way. It's not like the RIAA and Apple are trying to do the legit thing and some bizarre upstart showed up unannounced selling music against the artists' wishes. The only issue here is whether they can offer playback on Apple's hardware without licensing from Apple.
The RIAA has already agreed that both companies can sell their music and has, therefore, implicitly agreed that both companies have acceptable DRM measures in place.
Personally, I say that if people insist on dealing with these people at all, they should do it in a way that is legal and doesn't require draconian DRM measures.