"The details of the theory have progressed far beyond that by now. Often evolution is thought of in terms the evolution of DNA. This is the driving force behind macroscopic changes, and the various genome projects have provided huge amounts of data which fits beutifully with the theory of evolution."
Ummm.... no it doesn't. There are the same homology problems in DNA as there are in morphology. Depending on which genes you use to sequence, you will get a different phylogenic tree. Then there are the genes that appear from nowhere on multiple branches. Somehow, these long chains of DNA formed multiple times leaving no intermediaries in the millions of years required for this to happen.
"it is not usefull the study of DNA"
Evolution isn't useful to the study of DNA, either. The study of DNA is neither enhanced or retracted by belief in universal common ancestry. Also, remember, that Mendel was a creationist, and believed genetics proved that natural modification of species had limits, which still proves true today.
"It is a philisophical idea that has no place in a science classroom."
Incorrect, it is a historical postulate. That X happened is a historical, not a philosophical argument.
"This is the driving force behind macroscopic changes, and the various genome projects have provided huge amounts of data which fits beutifully with the theory of evolution."
Actually, what the data from single-celled life shows is that there is no way the multiple forms of single cells could have been generated from simpler life forms. In fact, most hypotheses these days focus on some sort of "uber-cell" that degenerated into the known forms we have today, not the other way around.
However, evolution requires that life start off singularly, and then diversify by a gradual process. The fossil record shows immediate diversity, not a gradual process of diversity (there is _some_ gradual process, but nothing like the "big bang" of diversity present in Cambrian rock).
If we _started_ with diversity and then reduced it, that pretty much leaves universal common ancestry out of the picture.
"The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license."
True, but that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.
"To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights."
No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them away. You would not have the right to redistribute a GPL'd program EXCEPT FOR the GPL. If the GPL is ruled invalid, that would not give people the right to copy it willy-nilly, it would actually cause it to revert to the normal copyright law of "you can't copy this".
Other EULA's, however, since they REMOVE rights, if they are deemed invalid, users will gain back the rights they lost.
"It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."
No evidence. Assuming the geologic column is correct, the evidence we do have shows that we started off with a greater number of phyla than we have today -- meaning that the "evolutionary tree of life" is in fact inverted. We started out with greater diversity and then shrunk, not the other way around.
In addition, homologies are not proof of common ancestry, as the many instances of "convergent evolution" point out.
"You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money."
That is incorrect. The sale gives you that right. The EULA is a post-sale contract. Music does not include an EULA, yet it is covered by copyright. EULA's does not give you any right you did not already receive by paying money to legitimate channels.
"Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective."
Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them.
"On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights."
Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler.
By default, copyright allows you to (a) use your program for any purpose, (b) learn from it, (c) modify it for yourself, and (d) keep an archival copy. Most EULA's restrict (b) and (c). The GPL adds additional rights. That is why it is unique. If you know of an EULA from a major vendor that adds additional rights that normal copyright wouldn't give you, let me know.
"There is always a chance they are wrong, this is how science progresses."
However, with evolution, it goes beyond that. The study of evolution as a history of animals cannot be subject to experimentation. We can't go back and recreate the circumstances and test whether or not our hypotheses are correct.
The study of evolutionary history is NOT an empirical science. It is a historical/forensic science, which does not have the same weight of evidence that experimental science offers. In addition, much of the evidence offered for evolution actually doesn't have the punch that evolutionists presume it has. For example, "convergent evolution" proves that evolutionists themselves no longer put weight into the idea that homology is a good indicator of common ancestry.
Then they aren't using it properly. "Intelligent Design" simply refers to the theory that you can determine with an certain amount of objectivity whether or not certain things were designed. I don't know if I agree with all of what they say, but the mechanism of creation is not a question that Intelligent Design tries to answer.
For example, Behe is an author of a book on Intelligent Design, where in the opening chapter he expresses his belief in Universal Common Ancestry. However, the point of his book is that these processes cannot occur by random chance, even if selected by natural selection, but there must have been some sort of design applied to it.
Dembski is attempting to quantify this with his "Design Inference". It is kind of the combination of the chance of an act occurring combined with the compressibility of the act. For example, you can't compress a purely random string of numbers. Things that are designed show qualities that are not random, and therefore are compressible. Therefore, if you combine the chance of X occurring with the compressibility of X you can get a numeric idea of how likely X is a result of design.
Does it work? I don't really know. But that is what Intelligent Design is all about.
Note that this IS in conflict with Neo-Darwinian theory, which states that evolution is a blind process of chance mutations. If a system is determined to have been designed intelligently, then it cannot have been built by a blind process of chance mutations. Therefore, while Intelligent Design can be molded with Universal Common Ancestry, it can't really be molded with Neo-Darwinian theory.
"Where I come from, Christians want to control what you see, hear, and understand in the world."
There was a survey done recently that said that the majority of Americans believe in creation over evolution, but a majority of those people believe that evolution should continue being taught in schools.
The process of genetics is a fact. That is not the same as Universal Common Ancestry which is what most people are referring to when they speak of evolution.
The problem is that homology does not provide the evidence for evolution that evolutionists think they do. For instance, every time you hear the phrase "Convergent Evolution" you should think "epicycle". Each instance of "convergent evolution" points out greater strength to the argument that homology does not imply ancestry.
"Ah, but code is infinitily copyable--by taking it, I'm not depriving someone else of their ability to use it. With due respect, this is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are using/taking someone else's property without permission."
You are confusing terms, though. You are using the word "stolen" which implies that you no longer have said item. "Unauthorized copying" more accurately describes the offense, not "stealing". Your examples show that you are confused as to the differences as well.
Making unauthorized copies is illegal. Some people also believe it is immoral. Using the term "stealing" to describe it is simply denying reality.
Also remember that the purpose of copyrights is NOT for the authors, but for the public. Copyright IS NOT a "right" of itself, but an artificial one given by the public for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean that people can decide for themselves to break that trust, but it does mean that you are dealing with something that is in an entirely different ballpark than stealing.
"Please read TFA. The plaintiff disagrees that the GPL is irrelevant. In fact, it's very relevant--the fact that the code in question was released under the GPL, and therefore not SAE's exclusive property, was one of the plaintiff's major claims."
However, that would be true of ANY license -- there's nothing about the claims of the GPL that are unique to this case. If they had released it under a commercial license, it would have been the same argument, just on a more limitted scale. The terms of the GPL have still not been upheld.
That's not to say that the GPL doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away. This is the primary reason the GPL has never seen the inside of a courtroom -- the case for it is so rock-solid that noone would even try.
"the open source operating system has issues with security, scalability and the possibility of forking."
The funny thing about this is if you took "the possibility of forking", which gives an errant impression that whatever you install will magically change out from under you, and replace it with "the possibility of several competitors entering the field with similar products", which means EXACTLY THE SAME THING, then people would see it as a benefit of an burgeoning market.
The funny thing is that Rasmussen or whatever his name is at EDS said that Sun won the UNIX battles, but it you look at what EDS is actually running -- they are running pretty much all of the UNIX's, because they each have different strengths and weaknesses.
And who made the quote that Solaris 10 can do anything anyone else can do and better? That's right, a representative from Sun.
It's not really the intersection processing that's hard, though, it's the physics response. Such things as:
* Forces on the object (drag, normal, gravity, etc.)
* Preservation of kinetic energy and momentum on collisions
* Deformations due to collisions
* Breakage of solid objects due to collisions
* Rotational properties of rigid bodies
* a whole lot of other stuff for fluid dynamics
I've only implemented a simplistic physics engine for a simplistic game, that basically just did particle-based physics response. A single collision resulted in about 20 matrix operations to determine the final post-collision velocities.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gain back what rights?"
The rights terminated by the EULA.
"The details of the theory have progressed far beyond that by now. Often evolution is thought of in terms the evolution of DNA. This is the driving force behind macroscopic changes, and the various genome projects have provided huge amounts of data which fits beutifully with the theory of evolution."
Ummm.... no it doesn't. There are the same homology problems in DNA as there are in morphology. Depending on which genes you use to sequence, you will get a different phylogenic tree. Then there are the genes that appear from nowhere on multiple branches. Somehow, these long chains of DNA formed multiple times leaving no intermediaries in the millions of years required for this to happen.
"it is not usefull the study of DNA"
Evolution isn't useful to the study of DNA, either. The study of DNA is neither enhanced or retracted by belief in universal common ancestry. Also, remember, that Mendel was a creationist, and believed genetics proved that natural modification of species had limits, which still proves true today.
"It is a philisophical idea that has no place in a science classroom."
Incorrect, it is a historical postulate. That X happened is a historical, not a philosophical argument.
"This is the driving force behind macroscopic changes, and the various genome projects have provided huge amounts of data which fits beutifully with the theory of evolution."
Actually, what the data from single-celled life shows is that there is no way the multiple forms of single cells could have been generated from simpler life forms. In fact, most hypotheses these days focus on some sort of "uber-cell" that degenerated into the known forms we have today, not the other way around.
However, evolution requires that life start off singularly, and then diversify by a gradual process. The fossil record shows immediate diversity, not a gradual process of diversity (there is _some_ gradual process, but nothing like the "big bang" of diversity present in Cambrian rock).
If we _started_ with diversity and then reduced it, that pretty much leaves universal common ancestry out of the picture.
My wife loves her iBook. I'm actually feeling rather jealous.
"The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license."
True, but that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.
"To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights."
No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them away. You would not have the right to redistribute a GPL'd program EXCEPT FOR the GPL. If the GPL is ruled invalid, that would not give people the right to copy it willy-nilly, it would actually cause it to revert to the normal copyright law of "you can't copy this".
Other EULA's, however, since they REMOVE rights, if they are deemed invalid, users will gain back the rights they lost.
"It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."
That is incorrect. As a user, you could do this.
No evidence. Assuming the geologic column is correct, the evidence we do have shows that we started off with a greater number of phyla than we have today -- meaning that the "evolutionary tree of life" is in fact inverted. We started out with greater diversity and then shrunk, not the other way around.
In addition, homologies are not proof of common ancestry, as the many instances of "convergent evolution" point out.
"You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money."
That is incorrect. The sale gives you that right. The EULA is a post-sale contract. Music does not include an EULA, yet it is covered by copyright. EULA's does not give you any right you did not already receive by paying money to legitimate channels.
"Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective."
Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them.
"On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights."
Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler.
By default, copyright allows you to (a) use your program for any purpose, (b) learn from it, (c) modify it for yourself, and (d) keep an archival copy. Most EULA's restrict (b) and (c). The GPL adds additional rights. That is why it is unique. If you know of an EULA from a major vendor that adds additional rights that normal copyright wouldn't give you, let me know.
"And the nice thing is, we actually have ways of determining when homology is due to common ancestry or convergent evolution;"
What are these ways?
"What specific parts do you think are unproven?"
Universal Common Ancestry.
"There is always a chance they are wrong, this is how science progresses."
However, with evolution, it goes beyond that. The study of evolution as a history of animals cannot be subject to experimentation. We can't go back and recreate the circumstances and test whether or not our hypotheses are correct.
The study of evolutionary history is NOT an empirical science. It is a historical/forensic science, which does not have the same weight of evidence that experimental science offers. In addition, much of the evidence offered for evolution actually doesn't have the punch that evolutionists presume it has. For example, "convergent evolution" proves that evolutionists themselves no longer put weight into the idea that homology is a good indicator of common ancestry.
Then they aren't using it properly. "Intelligent Design" simply refers to the theory that you can determine with an certain amount of objectivity whether or not certain things were designed. I don't know if I agree with all of what they say, but the mechanism of creation is not a question that Intelligent Design tries to answer.
For example, Behe is an author of a book on Intelligent Design, where in the opening chapter he expresses his belief in Universal Common Ancestry. However, the point of his book is that these processes cannot occur by random chance, even if selected by natural selection, but there must have been some sort of design applied to it.
Dembski is attempting to quantify this with his "Design Inference". It is kind of the combination of the chance of an act occurring combined with the compressibility of the act. For example, you can't compress a purely random string of numbers. Things that are designed show qualities that are not random, and therefore are compressible. Therefore, if you combine the chance of X occurring with the compressibility of X you can get a numeric idea of how likely X is a result of design.
Does it work? I don't really know. But that is what Intelligent Design is all about.
Note that this IS in conflict with Neo-Darwinian theory, which states that evolution is a blind process of chance mutations. If a system is determined to have been designed intelligently, then it cannot have been built by a blind process of chance mutations. Therefore, while Intelligent Design can be molded with Universal Common Ancestry, it can't really be molded with Neo-Darwinian theory.
"Where I come from, Christians want to control what you see, hear, and understand in the world."
There was a survey done recently that said that the majority of Americans believe in creation over evolution, but a majority of those people believe that evolution should continue being taught in schools.
"The process of evolution is fact."
The process of genetics is a fact. That is not the same as Universal Common Ancestry which is what most people are referring to when they speak of evolution.
The problem is that homology does not provide the evidence for evolution that evolutionists think they do. For instance, every time you hear the phrase "Convergent Evolution" you should think "epicycle". Each instance of "convergent evolution" points out greater strength to the argument that homology does not imply ancestry.
Here's some more to think about.
Now, if by evolution, you simply mean "Change over Time" or something similar, then everyone -- creationists and evolutionists alike, can agree.
"Ah, but code is infinitily copyable--by taking it, I'm not depriving someone else of their ability to use it. With due respect, this is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are using/taking someone else's property without permission."
You are confusing terms, though. You are using the word "stolen" which implies that you no longer have said item. "Unauthorized copying" more accurately describes the offense, not "stealing". Your examples show that you are confused as to the differences as well.
Making unauthorized copies is illegal. Some people also believe it is immoral. Using the term "stealing" to describe it is simply denying reality.
Also remember that the purpose of copyrights is NOT for the authors, but for the public. Copyright IS NOT a "right" of itself, but an artificial one given by the public for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean that people can decide for themselves to break that trust, but it does mean that you are dealing with something that is in an entirely different ballpark than stealing.
"Please read TFA. The plaintiff disagrees that the GPL is irrelevant. In fact, it's very relevant--the fact that the code in question was released under the GPL, and therefore not SAE's exclusive property, was one of the plaintiff's major claims."
However, that would be true of ANY license -- there's nothing about the claims of the GPL that are unique to this case. If they had released it under a commercial license, it would have been the same argument, just on a more limitted scale. The terms of the GPL have still not been upheld.
That's not to say that the GPL doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away. This is the primary reason the GPL has never seen the inside of a courtroom -- the case for it is so rock-solid that noone would even try.
Unfortunately, Gutenberg is text-only. While that is okay for some books, for others pictures and typesetting are part of what makes the book work.
Also, there are the Light and Matter books available:
http://www.lightandmatter.com/
What about Linux assembly language?
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/pgubook/
Or, you can buy a printed version from here.
The next issue of Free Software Magazine will likely have a list of many of the good free books available.
"I don't particularly want to go back to "green screen" text-only monochrome monitors."
That's funny, because that's exactly the color scheme I have mine set to. Of course, that's because it's easy on the eyes.
Except that he's not. Does Sun run XFS? No. Yet XFS is the best available filesystem for streaming large files from disk. There's at least one.
"the open source operating system has issues with security, scalability and the possibility of forking."
The funny thing about this is if you took "the possibility of forking", which gives an errant impression that whatever you install will magically change out from under you, and replace it with "the possibility of several competitors entering the field with similar products", which means EXACTLY THE SAME THING, then people would see it as a benefit of an burgeoning market.
The funny thing is that Rasmussen or whatever his name is at EDS said that Sun won the UNIX battles, but it you look at what EDS is actually running -- they are running pretty much all of the UNIX's, because they each have different strengths and weaknesses.
And who made the quote that Solaris 10 can do anything anyone else can do and better? That's right, a representative from Sun.
It's not really the intersection processing that's hard, though, it's the physics response. Such things as:
* Forces on the object (drag, normal, gravity, etc.)
* Preservation of kinetic energy and momentum on collisions
* Deformations due to collisions
* Breakage of solid objects due to collisions
* Rotational properties of rigid bodies
* a whole lot of other stuff for fluid dynamics
I've only implemented a simplistic physics engine for a simplistic game, that basically just did particle-based physics response. A single collision resulted in about 20 matrix operations to determine the final post-collision velocities.