You seem to be suggesting that I am arguing against the truth of evolution. I'm not---at all. I'm trying to better understand why so many people have problems with it. I'm convinced that a certain class of things...including things like evolution, market economics and prediction markets, "wisdom of crowds", etc...go against peoples intuition, because they deal with things that can't be analyzed well on a micro level, but they really only reveal themselves on a macro/statistical level. Since I tend to deal with all these things, and am a big advocate of them, I run into people's difficulty with them a lot.
Not completely random, there are natural laws of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc than influence the changes. Randomness really requires a point of view. From the point of view of "improving the fitness of the organism", the changes are effectively random. Whether or not they are "truly random", as you might argue certain things at the quantum level are, is irrelevant.
1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation). Well true, but then again, no one has ever proven that fingernails can grow significant amounts either. I mean, we can look at them under a microscope and see tiny amount of growth happening while we watch. But that is just micro-growth. Macro-growth -- as in growing an actual amount that requires them being clipped -- has never been observed. No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.
...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution... Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone. Evolution just goes against many if not most people's intuition. While I might think the whole idea of a sky-god watching over our every move and listening to our telepathic messages is absurd to the extreme, other people think that the idea of things as complex as you and I arising from nothing but random events to be equally absurd. (true, natural selection is not random, but the actual changes themselves were indeed random)
In theory anyway, a city or school could outlaw sticky gum once the non-sticky kind is available. On the basis of it costing a lot of money to clean up the gum (or if they don't, gum all over sidewalks is ugly).
...The one where they want to strong-arm record labels in to doing things their way... Strong-arm? Sounds to me like you are so blinded by hatred toward them you want to see anything they do in some sort of extreme negative light.
Not to psychoanalize or anything, but let me guess.....you've never created anything yourself that others find desirable? It seems to piss you off that Apple is able to do that pretty consistantly.
Except that its very clear that apple doesn't make much money at all off the store, they make their money off selling ipods and the music store is necessary toward that end.
So as a "business beholden to stock holders", exactly what would their motivation be for locking out linux users? Or, for that matter, people on Windows or Macs who want to BUY an iPod but not use their FREE iTunes?
You say they have "long been proprietary with whatever it suits them to be proprietary with"....but their position on DRM doesn't really jibe with this. I'm sure you could come up with something self serving there too, but that seems like a stretch. The only self serving thing I can think of is "doing the right thing by its users might be in the long term financial interest of the company." And if that is the case, that doesn't exactly go along with intentionally locking out linux users.
And btw, I have been an apple stockholder for 7 years (basically been living off it) and I can tell you that not all stockholders have greed as their only motivation. I bought apple not just because I thought they had potential to make me money, but because I think they generally are a force for good.
Yes, they should, but they should also be able to say that the complaining comment was lame. However, I draw the line at complaining about a complaining comment. That's just taking the whole free speach thing too far.
I assume you must be a lawyer. A couple hours of a lawyer's time costs more than a brand new laptop.
I see no reason why normal people can't give each other advice that has to do with legal issues, even if the advice sometimes turns out to be "talk to a lawyer" (which, in this case, I think is an option, but certainly not a requirement). You really think every consumer complaint has to be handled by a "professional"?
For that matter, what if I have a squeaky door, can I just ask my handy friend for advice or do I have to hire a certified carpenter? Is there something so special about legal issues that a regular person can't do anything whatsoever, even on the simplest situaton, on their own?
Your attitude tends to either come from 1) people who want to keep everyone in the dark so as to protect their revenue stream or 2) gullible people who are fooled by people in category 1.
This LOWERS Vista value to everyone. I'm not sure that's true. If someone paid money for Vista, and then finds out a lot of other people are getting it for cheap or free, THAT can lower the value of it for me.
Don't believe me? Look at all the people who were perfectly happy having spent $600 on an iPhone until they found out other people were getting it for $400.
Not trying to take Microsoft's side or anything, but I couldn't let that one go unchallenged...
Now, I use firefox like any self respecting geek, but the whole point of this is supposed to run on anyone ELSE's computer. The unfortunate reality is I can't count on firefox being on other people's computers. If I want to borrow a computer (say a computer in a library) to run my stuff over the web, and then am required to download and install either firefox or an activeX thing to use it, you've sort of defeated the purpose, haven't you?
Do you seriously think Google meant "evil" as in Hitler or Jeff Dahmer or Vlad the Impaler? They used it in a very common way, which in their case "don't be evil" basically meant "don't be a bad internet citizen."
I never understood why photoshop has to load all its plug ins at start up, even ones I never use. Can't it defer that till I need them? Or better yet, keep track of which ones I tend to use, and only load those at start up.
I generally hate microsoft as much as the next slashdotter, but on this they seem to be doing the right thing. I'm sure the cynical will find something evil about it, but I hope most people see it as an attempt by microsoft to be more cross platform and therefore "friendly" to the industry, and that is a good thing.
Well then how is he correct? Rubin said "it also somehow recorded information about whoever bought the record." and your quote says "No information is ever fed back or collected about the consumer or their activities."
BTW, i just read an article about Rubin (was it linked here yesterday?) that said he had never heard of Simon Cowell from American Idol up till last year or whatever. Now...not saying that Simon Cowell is anything great, but for a top record producer to have never heard of someone that familiar to everyone else...that's just weird. Rubin may well be a genius at what he does, but his knowledge of the rest of the world seems spotty at best. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that he's never used the internet or something.
Assuming you think news should only be about provable facts....well, it is certainly a fact that some people think that Apple may introduce a new iPod on wednesday. Whether that is is important or not* is a matter of debate, but it is certainly a real fact, and therefore news.
*it does have very tangible effects, in the form of moving markets.
If it is "easy for crap music to sell", why would the quality of the music be hurting sales?
In my post above, though, I probably should have used the word "promote" rather than "reward". I didn't mean the artists should get more money....I meant that what money there is, should be better directed at promoting the more talented people rather than the less talented.
The key word in my post was "talented", I think there are probably many people more talented than Britney, that don't have time to put into their music because they have to keep their day jobs to pay the rent.
And by "reward", I didn't just mean give them more money. Finding an audience that enjoys your music is rewarding.
Apple also wants to raise the perceived value of the iPod, so they can sell more and charge more.
Actually, I don't see any reason why they really care how big the iPods are they are selling....they MAY make more money off the larger ones, but if they want they can price them so they make the most profit off the smaller ones. Your analysis strikes me as exceptionally simplistic, and ignores the fact that if a larger iPod is required to keep customers happy, and that means it costs more, that means that fewer people will find it affordable.
seems rather dumb. Quality of the music is an effect, not a cause. If the music sucks, why does it suck? I don't think it is that humans just lost the ability to create good music, it is more likely that the system does not reward talented people enough to keep them making music. Or something...
I assume you are implying that checking the history doesn't verify anything.
While true, it does give a lot more credibility to its veracity than just looking at the article itself. There is a lot you can glean by browsing the history.
I know everyone likes to show how smart they are by saying "don't trust wikipedia", but for me, "trust" depends not only on the chance of it being false information, but how much damage bad information would give. If I see a mention of Mary Queen of Scots and want more information, I suppose I tend to "trust" what I find at wikipedia. If I picked a mushroom in my backyard and want to see if its poisonous before I put it in my mouth, well, not so much.
(btw, if you really want to slam on a reference that is generally overtrusted, why not go after the Bible or something?)
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be suggesting that I am arguing against the truth of evolution. I'm not---at all. I'm trying to better understand why so many people have problems with it. I'm convinced that a certain class of things...including things like evolution, market economics and prediction markets, "wisdom of crowds", etc...go against peoples intuition, because they deal with things that can't be analyzed well on a micro level, but they really only reveal themselves on a macro/statistical level. Since I tend to deal with all these things, and am a big advocate of them, I run into people's difficulty with them a lot.
...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution... Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone. Evolution just goes against many if not most people's intuition. While I might think the whole idea of a sky-god watching over our every move and listening to our telepathic messages is absurd to the extreme, other people think that the idea of things as complex as you and I arising from nothing but random events to be equally absurd. (true, natural selection is not random, but the actual changes themselves were indeed random)In theory anyway, a city or school could outlaw sticky gum once the non-sticky kind is available. On the basis of it costing a lot of money to clean up the gum (or if they don't, gum all over sidewalks is ugly).
...The one where they want to strong-arm record labels in to doing things their way... Strong-arm? Sounds to me like you are so blinded by hatred toward them you want to see anything they do in some sort of extreme negative light.Not to psychoanalize or anything, but let me guess.....you've never created anything yourself that others find desirable? It seems to piss you off that Apple is able to do that pretty consistantly.
Except that its very clear that apple doesn't make much money at all off the store, they make their money off selling ipods and the music store is necessary toward that end.
So as a "business beholden to stock holders", exactly what would their motivation be for locking out linux users? Or, for that matter, people on Windows or Macs who want to BUY an iPod but not use their FREE iTunes?
You say they have "long been proprietary with whatever it suits them to be proprietary with"....but their position on DRM doesn't really jibe with this. I'm sure you could come up with something self serving there too, but that seems like a stretch. The only self serving thing I can think of is "doing the right thing by its users might be in the long term financial interest of the company." And if that is the case, that doesn't exactly go along with intentionally locking out linux users.
And btw, I have been an apple stockholder for 7 years (basically been living off it) and I can tell you that not all stockholders have greed as their only motivation. I bought apple not just because I thought they had potential to make me money, but because I think they generally are a force for good.
Yes, they should, but they should also be able to say that the complaining comment was lame. However, I draw the line at complaining about a complaining comment. That's just taking the whole free speach thing too far.
The possessive does not only refer to ownership. I do not own my mom, but she is still my mom.
Being the founder/creator of something makes the term "his site" appropriate.
I assume you must be a lawyer. A couple hours of a lawyer's time costs more than a brand new laptop.
I see no reason why normal people can't give each other advice that has to do with legal issues, even if the advice sometimes turns out to be "talk to a lawyer" (which, in this case, I think is an option, but certainly not a requirement). You really think every consumer complaint has to be handled by a "professional"?
For that matter, what if I have a squeaky door, can I just ask my handy friend for advice or do I have to hire a certified carpenter? Is there something so special about legal issues that a regular person can't do anything whatsoever, even on the simplest situaton, on their own?
Your attitude tends to either come from 1) people who want to keep everyone in the dark so as to protect their revenue stream or 2) gullible people who are fooled by people in category 1.
Don't believe me? Look at all the people who were perfectly happy having spent $600 on an iPhone until they found out other people were getting it for $400.
Not trying to take Microsoft's side or anything, but I couldn't let that one go unchallenged...
Now, I use firefox like any self respecting geek, but the whole point of this is supposed to run on anyone ELSE's computer. The unfortunate reality is I can't count on firefox being on other people's computers. If I want to borrow a computer (say a computer in a library) to run my stuff over the web, and then am required to download and install either firefox or an activeX thing to use it, you've sort of defeated the purpose, haven't you?
Do you seriously think Google meant "evil" as in Hitler or Jeff Dahmer or Vlad the Impaler? They used it in a very common way, which in their case "don't be evil" basically meant "don't be a bad internet citizen."
Language changes, deal with it.
I never understood why photoshop has to load all its plug ins at start up, even ones I never use. Can't it defer that till I need them? Or better yet, keep track of which ones I tend to use, and only load those at start up.
I generally hate microsoft as much as the next slashdotter, but on this they seem to be doing the right thing. I'm sure the cynical will find something evil about it, but I hope most people see it as an attempt by microsoft to be more cross platform and therefore "friendly" to the industry, and that is a good thing.
Are you sure you didn't mean "it's only a violation of the 1st ammendment if the government does it"?
Well then how is he correct? Rubin said "it also somehow recorded information about whoever bought the record." and your quote says "No information is ever fed back or collected about the consumer or their activities."
BTW, i just read an article about Rubin (was it linked here yesterday?) that said he had never heard of Simon Cowell from American Idol up till last year or whatever. Now...not saying that Simon Cowell is anything great, but for a top record producer to have never heard of someone that familiar to everyone else...that's just weird. Rubin may well be a genius at what he does, but his knowledge of the rest of the world seems spotty at best. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that he's never used the internet or something.
Assuming you think news should only be about provable facts....well, it is certainly a fact that some people think that Apple may introduce a new iPod on wednesday. Whether that is is important or not* is a matter of debate, but it is certainly a real fact, and therefore news.
*it does have very tangible effects, in the form of moving markets.
If it is "easy for crap music to sell", why would the quality of the music be hurting sales?
In my post above, though, I probably should have used the word "promote" rather than "reward". I didn't mean the artists should get more money....I meant that what money there is, should be better directed at promoting the more talented people rather than the less talented.
The key word in my post was "talented", I think there are probably many people more talented than Britney, that don't have time to put into their music because they have to keep their day jobs to pay the rent.
And by "reward", I didn't just mean give them more money. Finding an audience that enjoys your music is rewarding.
Apple also wants to raise the perceived value of the iPod, so they can sell more and charge more.
Actually, I don't see any reason why they really care how big the iPods are they are selling....they MAY make more money off the larger ones, but if they want they can price them so they make the most profit off the smaller ones. Your analysis strikes me as exceptionally simplistic, and ignores the fact that if a larger iPod is required to keep customers happy, and that means it costs more, that means that fewer people will find it affordable.
seems rather dumb. Quality of the music is an effect, not a cause. If the music sucks, why does it suck? I don't think it is that humans just lost the ability to create good music, it is more likely that the system does not reward talented people enough to keep them making music. Or something...
Sorry I misunderstood you. :)
I assume you are implying that checking the history doesn't verify anything.
While true, it does give a lot more credibility to its veracity than just looking at the article itself. There is a lot you can glean by browsing the history.
I know everyone likes to show how smart they are by saying "don't trust wikipedia", but for me, "trust" depends not only on the chance of it being false information, but how much damage bad information would give. If I see a mention of Mary Queen of Scots and want more information, I suppose I tend to "trust" what I find at wikipedia. If I picked a mushroom in my backyard and want to see if its poisonous before I put it in my mouth, well, not so much.
(btw, if you really want to slam on a reference that is generally overtrusted, why not go after the Bible or something?)