>If you come up with an amazing new algorithm your implementation is protected, and cannot be copied by other people.
Wow, how did that get marked up. I'm really starting to wonder about the moderation system.
I'm guessing it got modded up because it is factually correct. Perhaps you missed the word 'implementation' in there? Copyright protects the programmer's authorship in how he actually codes (writes) the implementation. As you note copyright does not prevent someone from reading that algorithm and creating a new work of authorship in a new implementation of the same algorithm.
To discard what patents because [software] copywrite exists, defeats the purpose of patents themselves.
Waitaminute - saying patents do not (or should not) extend to software is a very different thing from "discarding patents"! And saying patents do not (or should not) extend to software certainly does not defeat the purpose of patents. Your "abolishment" comment was particularly egregious, holding up the false strawman that he wanted to abolish patents.
The previous poster used the phrase "should not", but elsewhere were I make the case "do not" is actually correct. While the patent office certainly issues many software patents, and lower courts often uphold software patents, a careful reading of Supreme Court cases such as Diamond v. Diehr reveals that the Supreme Court has made many statements on what is and is not patentable - and that lower courts have been ignoring or violating what the Supreme Court has stated on the issue. Software is not patentable, and any such patents that have been granted by the patent office are invalid. I eagerly await the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the subject, although I'm concerned they might might rule narrowly on the "business method" point and still leave the lower courts in confusion on how to deal with software patents.
And to reiterate, my statement that patents do not apply to software, my position that patents never did apply to software, that in no way discards or abolishes patents. Stating that patents do not cover novels is in no way anti-patent. Stating that patents do not cover software is in no way anti-patent.
The idea that opposition to software patents equals "abolishing patents" or is in any way "anti-patent" is a flaming false strawman.
Do we *really* want software techniques to be legally protected *forever*?
Software techniques cannot be protected by copyright. Only the specific "authorship" in the particular way someone writes their code. Under copyright someone else can use the same techniques so long as they write their own code to do it.
Pushing software harder and harder into the "copyright" camp is, IMHO, a dangerous strategy, because it ultimately leads those copyright owners to try and expand the scope of what that copyright protects.
It's almost surprising, but there actually exist a long line of really good caselaw carefully defining the scope of what copyright does and does not protect in software.
Let me illustrate with a particularly informative case. Back in the early days of game consoles one manufacturer took a small copyrighted image and stamped it at the beginning of all their game cartridges, and designed their console to only launch the game software if it found that copyrighted image at the beginning of the program. It was an early form of DRM, trying to use the copyright in that image to control who could and could not publish games for that console.
The court ruled that independent software publishers *could* include that copyrighted image in the software they published. The court noted that the copyrighted image was not being used as an image, it was being used as a functional part of the initialization code in the program. And earlier cases had clarified that only the "creative" elements of software were protectable by copyright - in particular when there is only a single way to code something in software there is no creative element in writing the code that way. Since the copyrighted image was being used as a purely functional element in the code, and because there was only one way to write that initialization code, it was not within the scope of what copyright protects in software.
Copyright only protects the elements of "creative authorship" within software. The creative choice to code in a certain order, the choice to code an algorithm as a single loop or nested loops, the choice to count upwards or downwards in your loops, how you lay out your variables, things like that. If someone reads your code - or reverse engineers it - and then does their own work writing their own code to do the same thing, then that is explicitly not copyright infringement. You can copy the ideas in software, but you cannot copy the work in how those ideas are written by the programmer/author.
by programming a general purpose computer to perform a specific task, the programmer has created a new special purpose computer... The programmer has created a functionally (not physically) NEW MACHINE. It has new abilities.
Pardon the pun, but that is patently absurd.
Grab any handy common calculator. Press 2 multiply multiply 0 equals. You have now programmed that basic calculator, and by your own patently absurd statement it is a - and I quote - a "NEW MACHINE".
With those four key presses you have programmed any common calculator and turned it into a (laugh laugh) NEW MACHINE and it now has - and again I quote - it has "new abilities".
See, now it's a doubling machine. If you press 5 equals it will display 10. If you press 8 equals it will display 16. If you press 9 9 equals it will display 198.
If instead you press 0 plus plus 1 equals you new have a different "NEW MACHINE" with different "new abilities". Now it magically becomes an incrementing machine. If you press 5 equals, now it will display 6. If you press 8 equals, now it will display 9. If you press 9 9 equals, this time it will display 100.
If you program the calculator by pressing 2 divide divide 3 equals, now you get yet another "NEW MACHINE" with a different "new ability". Now if you press a number and press equal it will display one-third of that number.
And if you have a calculator that costs a few dollars more and has slightly more memory capabilities, you can press a few more keys and program that calculator into a "NEW MACHINE" with the "new ability" to carry out !PATENTED! calculations when you enter a series of numbers. Those math patents were invalidly granted(*footnote).
The notion that programming a computer produces a "new machine" is patently absurd. If that is true then pressing 2 multiply multiply 0 equals on a common calculator magically turns it into a "new machine, it's no different, it's merely a particularly short program. I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd that a common calculator becomes a "new machine" when you press a few key on it. It is patently wrong that a computer magically becomes a "new machine" when you press a few keys on it.
It's the same machine, and it only has a single "ability", the ability to calculate. A computer can carry out longer more complicated calculations than a common calculator, but that is the only thing it can do. All software is nothing more than a fancy way of writing a fancy math function. A pure math function, numbers go in, get calculated, and numbers come out. Software is nothing but a fancy math function.
You can certainly connect a computer to physical devices that do patentable stuff, but the computer itself, software, is incapable of doing anything other than rapidly calculate a long math function. It's nothing more than a common calculator with more memory and more speed. Calculators ALREADY have the ability to carry out any computation you type in. Computers ALREADY have the ability to carry out any computation to type in. A calculator does not become a "new machine" when you type in the calculation you want it to compute, and computers do not become a "new machine" when you type in the calculation you want it to compute.
*footnote: The Supreme Court has stated that algorithms are not patentable, that they must be treated as "familiar prior art" for patent purposes, has stated that "insignificant post solution [physical] activity" cannot transform a non-patentable algorithm into a valid patent. The lower courts have clearly erred by violating those Supreme Court statements on patentablity. The latest Supreme Court software-related patent majority ruling (Diamond V. Diehr) concluded with the explicit statement that they were only ruling in favor "Because" they viewed it as an "industrial process" patent. The ruling stands for the rather simple position that the presence of a calculation (a.k.a. software) somewhere within an otherwise patentable physical process does not REMOVE the patentabili
Please explain (in less than the 10 pages PoIR takes) how Godel numbers prove that software should not be patent-eligible
I can answer that. Godel numbers demonstrate that every possible piece of software "already exists" or is "already defined", laid out on a number line. There is the first Godel program and the second Godel program and the third Godel program and on and on.
It's like someone saying they invented a six hundred digit number. That number might be "novel" in that you are the first person to write it down, but you cannot invent a number no matter how novel it may be. That number might be extremely "non-obvious" to find, but you cannot invent a number no matter how non-obvious it may be. That number might even be extremely useful, but you cannot invent a number no matter how useful it may be. It may even take a lot of effort to find that number, but you cannot invent a number no matter how much effort goes into discovering it.
What Godel numbers demonstrate is that all possible software algorithms are "already defined" in the same sense that all possible numbers are already defined, and that those programs can only be discovered in the same sense that one would discover some useful big number. A software patent is like granting a patent on program number 5,693,344. Well gee, if someone can patent program number 5,693,344 then I might as well sign up for patents on programs number six million through twelve million. There's nothing inventive in that, I'm just running down the Godel list and making a land-grab to own as many of these pre-defined programs as fast as possible.
Or I can start at the first program and work my way down the list of Godel programs (actually I could write software to go down the list for me, chuckle), and start filing patents on the "interesting" programs. But again, I'm not inventing anything, I'm just going down a pre-defined list and discovering the interesting programs and grabbing patents on them.
P.S. I don't think PoIR is exactly the best argument that software patents are invalid. I prefer to more simply cite already existing US Supreme Court rulings. Diamond v. Diehr has already stated that the key to a process patent is the "transformation of an article to a different state or thing", and the justices clearly thought of that as physical processes for physically transforming a physical article to a different physical state or physical thing. The justices were quite clear that the read the case as relating to an industrial process for manufacturing rubber. Diamond v. Diehr ruled that algorithms are mathematics and are unpatentable, that algorithms must be treated as if they were familiar prior art for patent purposes. Diamond v. Diehr warned that patent lawyers should not and cannot be permitted to obtain patents on invalid subject matter merely by creatively drafting the patent, and in particular they stated that "insignificant post solution activity" cannot be used to twist a non-invention into a patentable invention. This again makes the point that process patents are for physical processes (the implied physical post solution activity), and that mathematical/algorithmic solutions are not patentable, and that you cannot claim a patent on an algorithm merely by adding mention of some physical activity into the patent writeup.
The one thing that Diamond v. Diehr did not explicitly address is the fact that *ALL* software is nothing more than mathematical algorithm. All software is pure algorithm. Every program is nothing more than an algorithm (usually many smaller algorithms combined into one big algorithm, but still just a big algorithm).
And with that, software is inherently unpatentable subject matter.
The point that the Supreme Court was explicitly making in Diamond v. Diehr was that software can certainly exist somewhere *within* a legitimate physical process patent, the point that software does not magically *remove* the patentability of an otherwise patentable p
Last post you said "papers [should] stand on their own merits".
I agree.
Previous post you sarcastically said "Let's eliminate dissent" and "let emotions run the scientific community" and "fuck the facts".
I agree we should not eliminate dissent. I agree emotions should not run the scientific community. I agree the facts are paramount.
Last post I said "it is proper for science journals to subject his papers to proper scientific peer review and to REJECT those papers if peer scientists identify specific errors in those papers".
Do you agree with me or disagree with me?
I think you agree with me.
I believe that there is no substantive argument between you and me on proper standards science journals should use for accepting or rejecting papers.
And if we do agree on all of those things - the things that we are supposedly arguing with each other about - that obviously leads to the question of what argument actually *is* going on here.
I am going to try to lay out what and why I am arguing, and my best understanding of what and why you are arguing.
I believe the central focus is certain papers disputing global warming, and whether or not they should be published by legitimate science journals. In particular the story and the emails relate to three specific papers, and just to simplify things I am going to arbitrarily select the first of the three papers as representing the dispute. That paper is known as Soon and Baliunas 2003.
I believe you agree with me on the proper standards for science journals. I believe your objection is that you believe certain scientists and certain journals have been failing to follow those proper standards. I believe that you believe certain papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) are being improperly rejected in violation of proper science journal standards.
I believe agree on the proper standards for science journals. I have been defending certain scientists and certain journals for rejecting papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 because I believe they have been properly following those agreeable standards. I believe that they are properly rejecting papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 based on specific identifiable flaws and errors in those papers.
I believe there is no actual argument between us on proper scientific standards. I believe the argument between us is whether or not those standards are being violated.
Your argument that there is a problem is based on the assumption that papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 are good science papers and are being improperly rejected.
IF the papers are solid, then I agree with you.
My argument that there is no problem is based on the assumption that papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 specific identifiable flaws and errors in those papers.
I assume that you agree papers containing specific identifiable flaws and erros should not be published by legitimate science journals.
I believe you believe anthropogenic global warming is wrong, and therefore you assume that papers challenging it (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) are solid papers that stand on their own merits, and therefore you conclude that they are being improperly rejected, and that therefore conclude proper science standards are being violated.
I believe anthropogenic global warming is correct, and that papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) contain hose specific identifiable flaws and errors, and that those papers are being properly rejected for those flaws and errors, and that proper science standards are not being violated.
However I am not merely *assuming* that papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) contain specific identifiable errors. I actually looked into that matter. The people objecting to papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 indeed are raising multiple specific identifiable problems they see in the papers. And while I am not a professional climate scientist, at least some of those objections are clear proble
I had that happen twice. I believe it might have been dehydration related. Ever since then I consciously hydrate when I get a fever, drinking plenty of half-water-half-orangejuice. Somehow half watered orange juice seems to go down very well even when I'm extremely sick and nauseous. I haven't experienced fever hallucinations ever since, though I guess it's possible I just "outgrew it".
There are somewhere around 700 degreed biology scientists who deny evolution. Out of a about a half million such degreed biologists that is 99.85% consensus for evolution vs 0.15% denialists.
Naming one denialist, or even dozens of denialists, or even a few hundred denialists does not change the fact that there is, rounded to the nearest full percent, a 100% consensus.
There are dozens or maybe even a few hundred "experts" in aerospace or other relevant field who are moon landing denialists. That does not change the fact that there is effectively unanimous consensus affirming the moon landing.
There are dozens, possibly even a few hundred, degreed climatologists who deny global warming. That does not change the fact that there is effectively unanimous consensus on global warming.
One researcher did a study to determine just how much "controversy" actually exists among climatologists. He went to a database of published science papers and pulled up every single climatology paper in the database - it was over 900. He then examined each paper to determine its position regarding global warming. Approximately 30% of the papers dealt strictly with technical methodology or dealt strictly with prehistoric climate, and as such could not possibly be read as expressing any position on the issue of modern global warming. Approximately 70% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly concurred with the scientific consensus on global warming. ZERO percent of the papers argued against global warming. And not merely zero percent rounded to the nearest full percentage point - out of over 900 climatology papers in the database there were EXACTLY ZERO disputing global warming.
I was mocking the fact that you put the word 'consensus' in scare quotes, and that you linked to a denialist supposedly "proving" that no consensus existed. I can link to dozens of experts who deny the moon landing, but that does not cast any reasonable doubt on the moon landing.
It is atrocious that people defending science fall into the trap of using the word 'consensus', because people do what you just did - treat the word 'consensus' as an excuse to delegitimize solid mainstream science and elevate fraction-of-a-single-percent crackpots as if they were relevant.
Absolutely every field has a fraction of one percent crackpots-with-a-degree. There are rocket science PhDs who deny the moon landing, and there are PhD geneticists who will testify in court that an exact DNA match sperm sample did not com from the defendant in a rape case.
By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of the moon landing. By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of global warming. By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of evolution.
There are virtually zero climatologists who fundamentally dispute global warming. The handful that do exists produce effectively zero science papers challenging accepted mainstream science on global warming. The handful of such papers that have been produced have all been found to contain fatal flaws and errors when subjected to expert peer review.
I really wish the media would stop presenting unequal sized as if they were equal. Standard media practice has been to grab one talking head "expert" denying the moon landing and a second talking head "expert" to defend the moon landing, and present it as some equal and balanced controversy. NO. The job of any responsible journalist is to check on the qualifications of both experts and do a basic review whether the expect is presenting accepted mainstream views in his field or if he's a crackpot spouting fringe and dubious claims. A responsible journalist should then either reject the crackpot "expert", or at minimum inform the viewers which "expert" is presenting the overwhelming accepted expert position and which "expert" is considered "fringe" or "crackpot" by most professionals in the field.
Some people try to claim there is a scientific "consensus" that we landed on the moon. Here's my link to destroy that claim of "consensus".
You only linked to a single supposed expert to destroy the global warming consensus claim. I link to more than a dozen supposed experts to destroy the moon landing consensus claim. I win!
Yeah, you're right. Science Journals should publish papers from Flat Earthers because failing to do so would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists should choose to publish their papers in journals with Flat Earther papers because publishing elsewhere would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists must choose to subscribe to journals that publish Flat Earther papers because choosing not to pay for such subscriptions would be "eliminating dissent".
Global Warming Denialist and Evolution Denialists and other conspiracy theorists generally have their work rejected by publications because their papers are riddled with blatant errors and bogoscience. And scientists don't subscribe to journals that do publish papers riddles with blatant errors and bogoscience.
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Einstein. And they laughed at Bozo The Clown.
Bozo The Clown can scream "persecution" all he likes, it is proper for science journals to subject his papers to proper scientific peer review and to REJECT those papers if peer scientists identify specific errors in those papers. Any science journal that fails to preform rigorous peer review and fails to REJECT dubious papers is no longer a science journal - it is a non-science rag.
Even if all human generated CO2 emissions (apart from respiration) were to cease tomorrow, global warming would continue.
I have heard that basic point from a number of denialists, and out of all the misinformation and confusion coming from denialists that has got to be just about most mind boggling item of all.
Geee.... I don't believe by couch is on fire, but I am going to continue pouring gasoline on it because even if it is on fire it's going to get hot in here even if I were to stop.
Seriously.... WUT? Just how ideologically myopic does the denialist community have to be to come up with such a thing, repeat such a thing, and remain completely oblivious of just how comically wrong and absurd it is? "Even if there is a fire we should keep pouring gas on it because it will get hot even if we stop." Ouch, ouch, it causes pain in my brain.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
If we let the facts speak for themselves the conversation is OVER. Q.E.D. Period. Done. Finito. The fat lady sang and the cows came home.
Fact 1, we are emitting gigatons of CO2 and related gases, and no one disputes this.
Fact 2, atmospheric CO2 levels and other gases have massively increased, no one disputes it and no one disputes that is it caused by Fact 1.
Fact 3, basic physics, CO2 and related gases do trap infrared thermal radiation, no one disputes this.
1+2+3 = YES, there does exist a human caused heat trapping effect. The size of the effect is a more complicated issue, predicting the future size of the effect is more complicated, predicting the secondary climatological effects is a lot more complicated, and yes there may exist ADDITIONAL things affecting the climate, but it is impossible for any well informed and sane person to deny the existence and reality of that human-cased heat trapping effect. It is trivial physics that human emissions do have a heat trapping effect.
The denialists are at best badly misinformed, and at worst completely blinded by ideology.
How "classy" would you be if Flat Earthers were harassing you and interfering with your work based on some deluded idea that you were part of some evil global conspiracy?
I don't speak Finnish, but based on the graphs themselves and the English transcript, this is a perfect example of how wrong the denialists are.
If you have something like a graph of cloud cover with 0% percent at the bottom and 100% at the top, and you are looking at something like how much sunlight reaches the ground, then it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to "flip that graph upside down" putting 100% cloud cover at the bottom and 0% cloud cover at the top. The first graph curves down with increased sunlight. When you flip the graph "upsidedown" it is still COMPLETELY CORRECT, and easier to read curving upwards with increased sunlight reaching the ground.
(1)It is a trivial undisputed fact that we are dumping gigatons of CO2 (and related gases) into the atmosphere.
(2)It is a trivial and undisputed fact that the levels of CO2 (and related gases) have increased dramatically - due to those human emissions.
(3)It is a trivial and undisputed physics that CO2 (and related gases) *do* trap infrared thermal radiation.
1,2,3 case closed. It is a trivial and indisputable fact that the human-caused heat trapping effect is real. Measuring the size of the effect can be challenging, predicting the future size of the effect can be very difficult, predicting the complex secondary results of that effect can be extremely difficult, and there can be ADDITIONAL climate influences occurring in parallel, but it is impossible for any well informed and clearly thinking person to deny the the existence and reality of that effect.
Many denialists are good intelligent sincere people who have been badly misinformed by fanatical denialist activists. "Flipping the graph upside down" was not some mistake, it was not some deception, it was not some conspiracy, it was completely legitimate and completely appropriate. If you have a graph with high temperature at the bottom and low temperature at the top, it is correct and way easier to read if you flip it "upside down".
The climate change denialists in your linked video are IDIOTS. They are so clueless they can't even read a graph, much less grasp the science behind it. They are wildly ideological with a flaming bias, grasping on to deluded shreds of "evidence" that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.
No, there is no grand conspiracy by scientists to hoax the planet. Anyone who considers it to be a reasonable premise needs to take their meds.
I'm an atheist, but I gotta admit you got me. I blame the bad economy on Zeus. But I really hate those fucking leprechauns... it's their fault I got a flat tire last week.
There's so much fear in our culture, people are scared of health care, scared of a black president, scared of terrorists, scared of oil prices, scared of cell phone companies, scared of pirates (the Somalian kind), scared of pirates (the MPAA kind), scared of the RIAA and MPAA, scared of swine flu, scared of unemployment, scared of having a job that doesn't pay a living wage, scared of peanuts, scared of global warming, scared of pollution, scared of home invasions, scared of floods, earthquakes and fires, scared of nuts with guns, scared of the government taking away everyone's guns.
Great.... now you have me scared of people who are scared.
Oh, there's an even worse example than 2012 Reverse Mortgages. Someone came up with a Rapture Petcare business. The employees are all atheists (sure to be left behind on Rapture Day), and for the low low price of a hundred-odd dollars today they guarantee to come to your home, collect your pets, and feed and care for them after you've been taken up into heaven. (Apparently pets don't Rapture I guess.) The head of the business was vague on how many people have signed up for the service, but he said it was a "double digit" number of subscriptions. So somewhere between 10 and 99 people have signed up.
I'm an atheist, however living in suburban New York I sadly don't think many of my neighbors are quite "Rapture Ready". Sucks, I'd have loved to have gotten in on this sort of business.
BlueParrot (965239): One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.
Would it be insensitive of me to make a PinkParrot joke?;)
If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them.
Many scientific studies have been done on that kind of thing. On average, girls do in fact spend a higher percentage of time playing with "stereotypical girl toys" and boys will on average spend a higher percentage of time playing with "stereotypical boy toys". Studies have found that these sorts of gender differences exist right from birth, and that there tend to be slight physical differences between male infant brains and female infant brains even before birth.
It is a raw fact of species survival that a woman who gives birth - independent of any cultural influences and even in isolation - has a biologically based inclination to protect and feed that infant. Young girls are on average more inclined towards play that simulates nurturing a child. Boys are on average more inclined towards exploratory and risk taking behavior and play.
Then why do boys play with GI Joe and Army Man toys?
This actually illustrates the point even more so. While GI Joe and Barbie are both "dolls", they represent qualitatively very different kinds of play. When a young girl picks up a GI Joe doll she is more likely to engage in care-taking play, imaginary feeding it and dressing it and brushing it's hair and putting it to bed and expressing affection towards it. When a young boy picks up a Barbie doll he is more likely to use it as just another "soldier" in army type play or use as a pilot tied to a plastic airplane and thrown recklessly across the room.
You can take a boy infant and dress him in pink and tell the babysitter he is a girl, and you can take a girl infant and dress her in baby-blue and tell the babysitter she is a boy, and they will tend to express actual-gender-matching stereotypical behavior. The infant may even become actively combative if the misinformed babysitter attempts to "correct" the child into opposite gender behavior and play. Baby Billy might not be very happy if you try to force him to brush the doll's hair - he probably wants to throw it through the air on some imaginary adventure. Baby Betty might not be too happy if are using some good-guy-doll to beat up some evil-monster-doll, she probably wants to protect the monster doll and tuck it into bed. I'm not saying children can't or down engage in both types of play, but there is indeed a biological inclination to more often choose and more often enjoy what we would consider "gender stereotype play".
Stereotypes can often be distorted and abused and used to justify prejudice and abhorrent social discrimination, but often stereotypes are rooted in some real origin. It is purely ideological and false to deny women can be brilliant generals or lawyers or CEOs or even president, but it is equally wrong and equally purely ideological to deny that little girls more often enjoy play feeding and dressing Barbie and that little boys more often enjoy blowing up GI Joe.
Just because bigots are wrong and discrimination is bad does mean people are identical. The idea that the differences between men and women are purely cultural may be useful for opposing gender discrimination, but it is just as ideological and just as false. We can give people equal rights and equal opportunity and equal respect without trying to force them to be identical.
Women outnumber men in getting veterinarian degrees by more than 2-to-1. If there is any discrimination against men becoming vets or any cultural bias discouraging men from becoming vets, then I am all for eliminating those obstacles. Any man who wants to become a vet, great, I'm all for it. However we should not deny a woman the chance to be a vet if thats what she wants and we should not force a man to become a vet if he doesn't want to. We should not do that out of some ideological compulsion that men and women must be identical and must make up an exact 50%-50% split of vets. If for whatever reason more women tend to be
Note: I am largely replying to the ideas in this thread. Not everything below is necessarily tied to the particular parent post this is attached to.
There isn't a child alive who hasn't been conditioned from birth.
Sure there are - ones who haven't been born yet.
There are slight but real and measurable average differences between male and female brains, even before birth. The phenomena of steroid induced rage, "roid-rage", is enough to demonstrate the fact that hormones can and do influence psychology and behavior. Abnormal levels of male hormones can and do induce a propensity to abnormal outbursts of violence. The natural female monthly hormone cycle causes subtle but measurable differences in psychology and behavior, and so do the hormones in birth control pills. Hormones do have subtle but real influences on brain development, thought, and behavior.
Yes there are cultural stereotypes, and yes there are racists and there is gender-bigots spouting all sorts of bullshit to justify and perpetuate their biases, and yes we need to be vigilant not to allow bias and bigotry to corrupt science. However we also need to be careful not to allow anti-bias beliefs and positions to themselves become a bias. It's the "Hitler believed two plus two equals four" problem. Yes Hitler believed many very wrong and very bad things, and yes we should actively guard against Hitler's wrong and evil notions, but we have to be careful not to let anti-Hitler-bias lead us into denying 2+2=4.
In animals "psychology" and behavior is overwhelmingly hardwired and preprogrammed by genetics - including a variety of hardwired gender differences in behavior even when isolated from birth. Humans are unique in developing complex culture and in our mental capacity and mental flexibility, and the overwhelming extent that environment and culture shape mental development. However it naive and purely ideological to believe that culture and environment magically reach perfect 100% dominance and that biology is relegated to precisely zero influence.
There exist real average physical differences between men and women. On average men develop somewhat larger muscles. These are mostly only differences in tendencies and average values, but they are real and do exist. They are however far fewer and generally much smaller than bigots like to believe, and they absolutely do NOT justify the discrimination of bigots.
There exist real average psychological/behavioral differences between men and women. From the moment they can crawl, on average male infants are inclined towards more exploratory and risk taking behavior, and females tend to be inclined towards child-rearing type play. Humans do still have genetically-based instincts. If you place an infant on a flat glass floor with an apparent one to two foot tall "cliff" below the glass, infants have an instinctual fear of falling over any visual cliffs or edges. Infants instinctually suckle at a breast. Humans instinctually find large eyes and other baby-like features to be "cute", and that both men and women tend to be emotionally protective of "cute" helpless things like infants and puppies. It is hardly surprising that females tend to have more, or more developed, instincts and tendencies towards child rearing, that girls tend to be are more inclined towards simulated child rearing style play. These are mostly differences in tendencies and average values, but they are real and do exist. They are however far fewer and generally much smaller than bigots like to believe, and they absolutely do NOT justify the discrimination of gender-bigots or racial-bigots.
Slashdot Mirror
>If you come up with an amazing new algorithm your implementation is protected, and cannot be copied by other people.
Wow, how did that get marked up. I'm really starting to wonder about the moderation system.
I'm guessing it got modded up because it is factually correct. Perhaps you missed the word 'implementation' in there? Copyright protects the programmer's authorship in how he actually codes (writes) the implementation. As you note copyright does not prevent someone from reading that algorithm and creating a new work of authorship in a new implementation of the same algorithm.
To discard what patents because [software] copywrite exists, defeats the purpose of patents themselves.
Waitaminute - saying patents do not (or should not) extend to software is a very different thing from "discarding patents"! And saying patents do not (or should not) extend to software certainly does not defeat the purpose of patents. Your "abolishment" comment was particularly egregious, holding up the false strawman that he wanted to abolish patents.
The previous poster used the phrase "should not", but elsewhere were I make the case "do not" is actually correct. While the patent office certainly issues many software patents, and lower courts often uphold software patents, a careful reading of Supreme Court cases such as Diamond v. Diehr reveals that the Supreme Court has made many statements on what is and is not patentable - and that lower courts have been ignoring or violating what the Supreme Court has stated on the issue. Software is not patentable, and any such patents that have been granted by the patent office are invalid. I eagerly await the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the subject, although I'm concerned they might might rule narrowly on the "business method" point and still leave the lower courts in confusion on how to deal with software patents.
And to reiterate, my statement that patents do not apply to software, my position that patents never did apply to software, that in no way discards or abolishes patents. Stating that patents do not cover novels is in no way anti-patent. Stating that patents do not cover software is in no way anti-patent.
The idea that opposition to software patents equals "abolishing patents" or is in any way "anti-patent" is a flaming false strawman.
-
Do we *really* want software techniques to be legally protected *forever*?
Software techniques cannot be protected by copyright. Only the specific "authorship" in the particular way someone writes their code. Under copyright someone else can use the same techniques so long as they write their own code to do it.
Pushing software harder and harder into the "copyright" camp is, IMHO, a dangerous strategy, because it ultimately leads those copyright owners to try and expand the scope of what that copyright protects.
It's almost surprising, but there actually exist a long line of really good caselaw carefully defining the scope of what copyright does and does not protect in software.
Let me illustrate with a particularly informative case. Back in the early days of game consoles one manufacturer took a small copyrighted image and stamped it at the beginning of all their game cartridges, and designed their console to only launch the game software if it found that copyrighted image at the beginning of the program. It was an early form of DRM, trying to use the copyright in that image to control who could and could not publish games for that console.
The court ruled that independent software publishers *could* include that copyrighted image in the software they published. The court noted that the copyrighted image was not being used as an image, it was being used as a functional part of the initialization code in the program. And earlier cases had clarified that only the "creative" elements of software were protectable by copyright - in particular when there is only a single way to code something in software there is no creative element in writing the code that way. Since the copyrighted image was being used as a purely functional element in the code, and because there was only one way to write that initialization code, it was not within the scope of what copyright protects in software.
Copyright only protects the elements of "creative authorship" within software. The creative choice to code in a certain order, the choice to code an algorithm as a single loop or nested loops, the choice to count upwards or downwards in your loops, how you lay out your variables, things like that. If someone reads your code - or reverse engineers it - and then does their own work writing their own code to do the same thing, then that is explicitly not copyright infringement. You can copy the ideas in software, but you cannot copy the work in how those ideas are written by the programmer/author.
-
by programming a general purpose computer to perform a specific task, the programmer has created a new special purpose computer... The programmer has created a functionally (not physically) NEW MACHINE. It has new abilities.
Pardon the pun, but that is patently absurd.
Grab any handy common calculator. Press 2 multiply multiply 0 equals. You have now programmed that basic calculator, and by your own patently absurd statement it is a - and I quote - a "NEW MACHINE".
With those four key presses you have programmed any common calculator and turned it into a (laugh laugh) NEW MACHINE and it now has - and again I quote - it has "new abilities".
See, now it's a doubling machine. If you press 5 equals it will display 10. If you press 8 equals it will display 16. If you press 9 9 equals it will display 198.
If instead you press 0 plus plus 1 equals you new have a different "NEW MACHINE" with different "new abilities". Now it magically becomes an incrementing machine. If you press 5 equals, now it will display 6. If you press 8 equals, now it will display 9. If you press 9 9 equals, this time it will display 100.
If you program the calculator by pressing 2 divide divide 3 equals, now you get yet another "NEW MACHINE" with a different "new ability". Now if you press a number and press equal it will display one-third of that number.
And if you have a calculator that costs a few dollars more and has slightly more memory capabilities, you can press a few more keys and program that calculator into a "NEW MACHINE" with the "new ability" to carry out !PATENTED! calculations when you enter a series of numbers. Those math patents were invalidly granted(*footnote).
The notion that programming a computer produces a "new machine" is patently absurd. If that is true then pressing 2 multiply multiply 0 equals on a common calculator magically turns it into a "new machine, it's no different, it's merely a particularly short program. I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd that a common calculator becomes a "new machine" when you press a few key on it. It is patently wrong that a computer magically becomes a "new machine" when you press a few keys on it.
It's the same machine, and it only has a single "ability", the ability to calculate. A computer can carry out longer more complicated calculations than a common calculator, but that is the only thing it can do. All software is nothing more than a fancy way of writing a fancy math function. A pure math function, numbers go in, get calculated, and numbers come out. Software is nothing but a fancy math function.
You can certainly connect a computer to physical devices that do patentable stuff, but the computer itself, software, is incapable of doing anything other than rapidly calculate a long math function. It's nothing more than a common calculator with more memory and more speed. Calculators ALREADY have the ability to carry out any computation you type in. Computers ALREADY have the ability to carry out any computation to type in. A calculator does not become a "new machine" when you type in the calculation you want it to compute, and computers do not become a "new machine" when you type in the calculation you want it to compute.
*footnote:
The Supreme Court has stated that algorithms are not patentable, that they must be treated as "familiar prior art" for patent purposes, has stated that "insignificant post solution [physical] activity" cannot transform a non-patentable algorithm into a valid patent. The lower courts have clearly erred by violating those Supreme Court statements on patentablity. The latest Supreme Court software-related patent majority ruling (Diamond V. Diehr) concluded with the explicit statement that they were only ruling in favor "Because" they viewed it as an "industrial process" patent. The ruling stands for the rather simple position that the presence of a calculation (a.k.a. software) somewhere within an otherwise patentable physical process does not REMOVE the patentabili
Please explain (in less than the 10 pages PoIR takes) how Godel numbers prove that software should not be patent-eligible
I can answer that. Godel numbers demonstrate that every possible piece of software "already exists" or is "already defined", laid out on a number line. There is the first Godel program and the second Godel program and the third Godel program and on and on.
It's like someone saying they invented a six hundred digit number. That number might be "novel" in that you are the first person to write it down, but you cannot invent a number no matter how novel it may be. That number might be extremely "non-obvious" to find, but you cannot invent a number no matter how non-obvious it may be. That number might even be extremely useful, but you cannot invent a number no matter how useful it may be. It may even take a lot of effort to find that number, but you cannot invent a number no matter how much effort goes into discovering it.
What Godel numbers demonstrate is that all possible software algorithms are "already defined" in the same sense that all possible numbers are already defined, and that those programs can only be discovered in the same sense that one would discover some useful big number. A software patent is like granting a patent on program number 5,693,344. Well gee, if someone can patent program number 5,693,344 then I might as well sign up for patents on programs number six million through twelve million. There's nothing inventive in that, I'm just running down the Godel list and making a land-grab to own as many of these pre-defined programs as fast as possible.
Or I can start at the first program and work my way down the list of Godel programs (actually I could write software to go down the list for me, chuckle), and start filing patents on the "interesting" programs. But again, I'm not inventing anything, I'm just going down a pre-defined list and discovering the interesting programs and grabbing patents on them.
P.S.
I don't think PoIR is exactly the best argument that software patents are invalid. I prefer to more simply cite already existing US Supreme Court rulings. Diamond v. Diehr has already stated that the key to a process patent is the "transformation of an article to a different state or thing", and the justices clearly thought of that as physical processes for physically transforming a physical article to a different physical state or physical thing. The justices were quite clear that the read the case as relating to an industrial process for manufacturing rubber. Diamond v. Diehr ruled that algorithms are mathematics and are unpatentable, that algorithms must be treated as if they were familiar prior art for patent purposes. Diamond v. Diehr warned that patent lawyers should not and cannot be permitted to obtain patents on invalid subject matter merely by creatively drafting the patent, and in particular they stated that "insignificant post solution activity" cannot be used to twist a non-invention into a patentable invention. This again makes the point that process patents are for physical processes (the implied physical post solution activity), and that mathematical/algorithmic solutions are not patentable, and that you cannot claim a patent on an algorithm merely by adding mention of some physical activity into the patent writeup.
The one thing that Diamond v. Diehr did not explicitly address is the fact that *ALL* software is nothing more than mathematical algorithm. All software is pure algorithm. Every program is nothing more than an algorithm (usually many smaller algorithms combined into one big algorithm, but still just a big algorithm).
And with that, software is inherently unpatentable subject matter.
The point that the Supreme Court was explicitly making in Diamond v. Diehr was that software can certainly exist somewhere *within* a legitimate physical process patent, the point that software does not magically *remove* the patentability of an otherwise patentable p
Every congressman says dopey things that someone finds inflammatory and unpopular.
Cindy Crawford and Mr. T both wear gold necklaces, therefore they are identical and unnotable.
-
Last post you said "papers [should] stand on their own merits".
I agree.
Previous post you sarcastically said "Let's eliminate dissent" and "let emotions run the scientific community" and "fuck the facts".
I agree we should not eliminate dissent.
I agree emotions should not run the scientific community.
I agree the facts are paramount.
Last post I said "it is proper for science journals to subject his papers to proper scientific peer review and to REJECT those papers if peer scientists identify specific errors in those papers".
Do you agree with me or disagree with me?
I think you agree with me.
I believe that there is no substantive argument between you and me on proper standards science journals should use for accepting or rejecting papers.
And if we do agree on all of those things - the things that we are supposedly arguing with each other about - that obviously leads to the question of what argument actually *is* going on here.
I am going to try to lay out what and why I am arguing, and my best understanding of what and why you are arguing.
I believe the central focus is certain papers disputing global warming, and whether or not they should be published by legitimate science journals. In particular the story and the emails relate to three specific papers, and just to simplify things I am going to arbitrarily select the first of the three papers as representing the dispute. That paper is known as Soon and Baliunas 2003.
I believe you agree with me on the proper standards for science journals. I believe your objection is that you believe certain scientists and certain journals have been failing to follow those proper standards. I believe that you believe certain papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) are being improperly rejected in violation of proper science journal standards.
I believe agree on the proper standards for science journals. I have been defending certain scientists and certain journals for rejecting papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 because I believe they have been properly following those agreeable standards. I believe that they are properly rejecting papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 based on specific identifiable flaws and errors in those papers.
I believe there is no actual argument between us on proper scientific standards. I believe the argument between us is whether or not those standards are being violated.
Your argument that there is a problem is based on the assumption that papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 are good science papers and are being improperly rejected.
IF the papers are solid, then I agree with you.
My argument that there is no problem is based on the assumption that papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 specific identifiable flaws and errors in those papers.
I assume that you agree papers containing specific identifiable flaws and erros should not be published by legitimate science journals.
I believe you believe anthropogenic global warming is wrong, and therefore you assume that papers challenging it (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) are solid papers that stand on their own merits, and therefore you conclude that they are being improperly rejected, and that therefore conclude proper science standards are being violated.
I believe anthropogenic global warming is correct, and that papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) contain hose specific identifiable flaws and errors, and that those papers are being properly rejected for those flaws and errors, and that proper science standards are not being violated.
However I am not merely *assuming* that papers (such as Soon and Baliunas 2003) contain specific identifiable errors. I actually looked into that matter. The people objecting to papers such as Soon and Baliunas 2003 indeed are raising multiple specific identifiable problems they see in the papers. And while I am not a professional climate scientist, at least some of those objections are clear proble
hallucinations-inducing fevers
I had that happen twice. I believe it might have been dehydration related. Ever since then I consciously hydrate when I get a fever, drinking plenty of half-water-half-orangejuice. Somehow half watered orange juice seems to go down very well even when I'm extremely sick and nauseous. I haven't experienced fever hallucinations ever since, though I guess it's possible I just "outgrew it".
-
The kind who treats people who fly in private jets, and who bill accordingly.
-
I was mocking your mocking of the word consensus.
There are somewhere around 700 degreed biology scientists who deny evolution. Out of a about a half million such degreed biologists that is 99.85% consensus for evolution vs 0.15% denialists.
Naming one denialist, or even dozens of denialists, or even a few hundred denialists does not change the fact that there is, rounded to the nearest full percent, a 100% consensus.
There are dozens or maybe even a few hundred "experts" in aerospace or other relevant field who are moon landing denialists. That does not change the fact that there is effectively unanimous consensus affirming the moon landing.
There are dozens, possibly even a few hundred, degreed climatologists who deny global warming. That does not change the fact that there is effectively unanimous consensus on global warming.
One researcher did a study to determine just how much "controversy" actually exists among climatologists. He went to a database of published science papers and pulled up every single climatology paper in the database - it was over 900. He then examined each paper to determine its position regarding global warming. Approximately 30% of the papers dealt strictly with technical methodology or dealt strictly with prehistoric climate, and as such could not possibly be read as expressing any position on the issue of modern global warming. Approximately 70% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly concurred with the scientific consensus on global warming. ZERO percent of the papers argued against global warming. And not merely zero percent rounded to the nearest full percentage point - out of over 900 climatology papers in the database there were EXACTLY ZERO disputing global warming.
I was mocking the fact that you put the word 'consensus' in scare quotes, and that you linked to a denialist supposedly "proving" that no consensus existed. I can link to dozens of experts who deny the moon landing, but that does not cast any reasonable doubt on the moon landing.
It is atrocious that people defending science fall into the trap of using the word 'consensus', because people do what you just did - treat the word 'consensus' as an excuse to delegitimize solid mainstream science and elevate fraction-of-a-single-percent crackpots as if they were relevant.
Absolutely every field has a fraction of one percent crackpots-with-a-degree. There are rocket science PhDs who deny the moon landing, and there are PhD geneticists who will testify in court that an exact DNA match sperm sample did not com from the defendant in a rape case.
By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of the moon landing.
By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of global warming.
By any sane standard there is unanimous consensus on the fundamental points of evolution.
There are virtually zero climatologists who fundamentally dispute global warming. The handful that do exists produce effectively zero science papers challenging accepted mainstream science on global warming. The handful of such papers that have been produced have all been found to contain fatal flaws and errors when subjected to expert peer review.
I really wish the media would stop presenting unequal sized as if they were equal. Standard media practice has been to grab one talking head "expert" denying the moon landing and a second talking head "expert" to defend the moon landing, and present it as some equal and balanced controversy. NO. The job of any responsible journalist is to check on the qualifications of both experts and do a basic review whether the expect is presenting accepted mainstream views in his field or if he's a crackpot spouting fringe and dubious claims. A responsible journalist should then either reject the crackpot "expert", or at minimum inform the viewers which "expert" is presenting the overwhelming accepted expert position and which "expert" is considered "fringe" or "crackpot" by most professionals in the field.
-
And now to destroy your claim of "consensus", MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen from a few weeks ago.
Oooo! Oooo! Can I play too?
Some people try to claim there is a scientific "consensus" that we landed on the moon.
Here's my link to destroy that claim of "consensus".
You only linked to a single supposed expert to destroy the global warming consensus claim. I link to more than a dozen supposed experts to destroy the moon landing consensus claim. I win!
-
Yeah, you're right. Science Journals should publish papers from Flat Earthers because failing to do so would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists should choose to publish their papers in journals with Flat Earther papers because publishing elsewhere would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists must choose to subscribe to journals that publish Flat Earther papers because choosing not to pay for such subscriptions would be "eliminating dissent".
Global Warming Denialist and Evolution Denialists and other conspiracy theorists generally have their work rejected by publications because their papers are riddled with blatant errors and bogoscience. And scientists don't subscribe to journals that do publish papers riddles with blatant errors and bogoscience.
They laughed at Galileo.
They laughed at Einstein.
And they laughed at Bozo The Clown.
Bozo The Clown can scream "persecution" all he likes, it is proper for science journals to subject his papers to proper scientific peer review and to REJECT those papers if peer scientists identify specific errors in those papers. Any science journal that fails to preform rigorous peer review and fails to REJECT dubious papers is no longer a science journal - it is a non-science rag.
-
Even if all human generated CO2 emissions (apart from respiration) were to cease tomorrow, global warming would continue.
I have heard that basic point from a number of denialists, and out of all the misinformation and confusion coming from denialists that has got to be just about most mind boggling item of all.
Geee.... I don't believe by couch is on fire, but I am going to continue pouring gasoline on it because even if it is on fire it's going to get hot in here even if I were to stop.
Seriously.... WUT? Just how ideologically myopic does the denialist community have to be to come up with such a thing, repeat such a thing, and remain completely oblivious of just how comically wrong and absurd it is? "Even if there is a fire we should keep pouring gas on it because it will get hot even if we stop." Ouch, ouch, it causes pain in my brain.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
If we let the facts speak for themselves the conversation is OVER. Q.E.D. Period. Done. Finito. The fat lady sang and the cows came home.
Fact 1, we are emitting gigatons of CO2 and related gases, and no one disputes this.
Fact 2, atmospheric CO2 levels and other gases have massively increased, no one disputes it and no one disputes that is it caused by Fact 1.
Fact 3, basic physics, CO2 and related gases do trap infrared thermal radiation, no one disputes this.
1+2+3 = YES, there does exist a human caused heat trapping effect. The size of the effect is a more complicated issue, predicting the future size of the effect is more complicated, predicting the secondary climatological effects is a lot more complicated, and yes there may exist ADDITIONAL things affecting the climate, but it is impossible for any well informed and sane person to deny the existence and reality of that human-cased heat trapping effect. It is trivial physics that human emissions do have a heat trapping effect.
The denialists are at best badly misinformed, and at worst completely blinded by ideology.
-
classy stuff
A question...
How "classy" would you be if Flat Earthers were harassing you and interfering with your work based on some deluded idea that you were part of some evil global conspiracy?
-
I don't speak Finnish, but based on the graphs themselves and the English transcript, this is a perfect example of how wrong the denialists are.
If you have something like a graph of cloud cover with 0% percent at the bottom and 100% at the top, and you are looking at something like how much sunlight reaches the ground, then it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to "flip that graph upside down" putting 100% cloud cover at the bottom and 0% cloud cover at the top. The first graph curves down with increased sunlight. When you flip the graph "upsidedown" it is still COMPLETELY CORRECT, and easier to read curving upwards with increased sunlight reaching the ground.
(1)It is a trivial undisputed fact that we are dumping gigatons of CO2 (and related gases) into the atmosphere.
(2)It is a trivial and undisputed fact that the levels of CO2 (and related gases) have increased dramatically - due to those human emissions.
(3)It is a trivial and undisputed physics that CO2 (and related gases) *do* trap infrared thermal radiation.
1,2,3 case closed. It is a trivial and indisputable fact that the human-caused heat trapping effect is real. Measuring the size of the effect can be challenging, predicting the future size of the effect can be very difficult, predicting the complex secondary results of that effect can be extremely difficult, and there can be ADDITIONAL climate influences occurring in parallel, but it is impossible for any well informed and clearly thinking person to deny the the existence and reality of that effect.
Many denialists are good intelligent sincere people who have been badly misinformed by fanatical denialist activists. "Flipping the graph upside down" was not some mistake, it was not some deception, it was not some conspiracy, it was completely legitimate and completely appropriate. If you have a graph with high temperature at the bottom and low temperature at the top, it is correct and way easier to read if you flip it "upside down".
The climate change denialists in your linked video are IDIOTS. They are so clueless they can't even read a graph, much less grasp the science behind it. They are wildly ideological with a flaming bias, grasping on to deluded shreds of "evidence" that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.
No, there is no grand conspiracy by scientists to hoax the planet. Anyone who considers it to be a reasonable premise needs to take their meds.
-
Atheists sure are quick to blame God
I'm an atheist, but I gotta admit you got me. I blame the bad economy on Zeus.
But I really hate those fucking leprechauns... it's their fault I got a flat tire last week.
-
There's so much fear in our culture, people are scared of health care, scared of a black president, scared of terrorists, scared of oil prices, scared of cell phone companies, scared of pirates (the Somalian kind), scared of pirates (the MPAA kind), scared of the RIAA and MPAA, scared of swine flu, scared of unemployment, scared of having a job that doesn't pay a living wage, scared of peanuts, scared of global warming, scared of pollution, scared of home invasions, scared of floods, earthquakes and fires, scared of nuts with guns, scared of the government taking away everyone's guns.
Great.... now you have me scared of people who are scared.
-
The progress bar beeps? Pffft! My mute button beeps.
-
You could mock up a fake 'rocket' out of an old Disney ride and see how long you could keep them believing they were in a space ship.
Hell, at that point you might as well just tell her that the life support system is powered by blowjobs.
-
Oh, there's an even worse example than 2012 Reverse Mortgages. Someone came up with a Rapture Petcare business. The employees are all atheists (sure to be left behind on Rapture Day), and for the low low price of a hundred-odd dollars today they guarantee to come to your home, collect your pets, and feed and care for them after you've been taken up into heaven. (Apparently pets don't Rapture I guess.) The head of the business was vague on how many people have signed up for the service, but he said it was a "double digit" number of subscriptions. So somewhere between 10 and 99 people have signed up.
I'm an atheist, however living in suburban New York I sadly don't think many of my neighbors are quite "Rapture Ready". Sucks, I'd have loved to have gotten in on this sort of business.
-
but I think people would assume we were converts instead of just some people who thought he had some good ideas.
All the better for slipping subversive ideas into their heads.
For example Jesus was the original advocate for Separation of Church and State.
Matthew 22:21
-
BlueParrot (965239): One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.
Would it be insensitive of me to make a PinkParrot joke? ;)
-
If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them.
Many scientific studies have been done on that kind of thing. On average, girls do in fact spend a higher percentage of time playing with "stereotypical girl toys" and boys will on average spend a higher percentage of time playing with "stereotypical boy toys". Studies have found that these sorts of gender differences exist right from birth, and that there tend to be slight physical differences between male infant brains and female infant brains even before birth.
It is a raw fact of species survival that a woman who gives birth - independent of any cultural influences and even in isolation - has a biologically based inclination to protect and feed that infant. Young girls are on average more inclined towards play that simulates nurturing a child. Boys are on average more inclined towards exploratory and risk taking behavior and play.
Then why do boys play with GI Joe and Army Man toys?
This actually illustrates the point even more so. While GI Joe and Barbie are both "dolls", they represent qualitatively very different kinds of play. When a young girl picks up a GI Joe doll she is more likely to engage in care-taking play, imaginary feeding it and dressing it and brushing it's hair and putting it to bed and expressing affection towards it. When a young boy picks up a Barbie doll he is more likely to use it as just another "soldier" in army type play or use as a pilot tied to a plastic airplane and thrown recklessly across the room.
You can take a boy infant and dress him in pink and tell the babysitter he is a girl, and you can take a girl infant and dress her in baby-blue and tell the babysitter she is a boy, and they will tend to express actual-gender-matching stereotypical behavior. The infant may even become actively combative if the misinformed babysitter attempts to "correct" the child into opposite gender behavior and play. Baby Billy might not be very happy if you try to force him to brush the doll's hair - he probably wants to throw it through the air on some imaginary adventure. Baby Betty might not be too happy if are using some good-guy-doll to beat up some evil-monster-doll, she probably wants to protect the monster doll and tuck it into bed. I'm not saying children can't or down engage in both types of play, but there is indeed a biological inclination to more often choose and more often enjoy what we would consider "gender stereotype play".
Stereotypes can often be distorted and abused and used to justify prejudice and abhorrent social discrimination, but often stereotypes are rooted in some real origin. It is purely ideological and false to deny women can be brilliant generals or lawyers or CEOs or even president, but it is equally wrong and equally purely ideological to deny that little girls more often enjoy play feeding and dressing Barbie and that little boys more often enjoy blowing up GI Joe.
Just because bigots are wrong and discrimination is bad does mean people are identical. The idea that the differences between men and women are purely cultural may be useful for opposing gender discrimination, but it is just as ideological and just as false. We can give people equal rights and equal opportunity and equal respect without trying to force them to be identical.
Women outnumber men in getting veterinarian degrees by more than 2-to-1. If there is any discrimination against men becoming vets or any cultural bias discouraging men from becoming vets, then I am all for eliminating those obstacles. Any man who wants to become a vet, great, I'm all for it. However we should not deny a woman the chance to be a vet if thats what she wants and we should not force a man to become a vet if he doesn't want to. We should not do that out of some ideological compulsion that men and women must be identical and must make up an exact 50%-50% split of vets. If for whatever reason more women tend to be
Note: I am largely replying to the ideas in this thread. Not everything below is necessarily tied to the particular parent post this is attached to.
There isn't a child alive who hasn't been conditioned from birth.
Sure there are - ones who haven't been born yet.
There are slight but real and measurable average differences between male and female brains, even before birth. The phenomena of steroid induced rage, "roid-rage", is enough to demonstrate the fact that hormones can and do influence psychology and behavior. Abnormal levels of male hormones can and do induce a propensity to abnormal outbursts of violence. The natural female monthly hormone cycle causes subtle but measurable differences in psychology and behavior, and so do the hormones in birth control pills. Hormones do have subtle but real influences on brain development, thought, and behavior.
Yes there are cultural stereotypes, and yes there are racists and there is gender-bigots spouting all sorts of bullshit to justify and perpetuate their biases, and yes we need to be vigilant not to allow bias and bigotry to corrupt science. However we also need to be careful not to allow anti-bias beliefs and positions to themselves become a bias. It's the "Hitler believed two plus two equals four" problem. Yes Hitler believed many very wrong and very bad things, and yes we should actively guard against Hitler's wrong and evil notions, but we have to be careful not to let anti-Hitler-bias lead us into denying 2+2=4.
In animals "psychology" and behavior is overwhelmingly hardwired and preprogrammed by genetics - including a variety of hardwired gender differences in behavior even when isolated from birth. Humans are unique in developing complex culture and in our mental capacity and mental flexibility, and the overwhelming extent that environment and culture shape mental development. However it naive and purely ideological to believe that culture and environment magically reach perfect 100% dominance and that biology is relegated to precisely zero influence.
There exist real average physical differences between men and women. On average men develop somewhat larger muscles. These are mostly only differences in tendencies and average values, but they are real and do exist. They are however far fewer and generally much smaller than bigots like to believe, and they absolutely do NOT justify the discrimination of bigots.
There exist real average psychological/behavioral differences between men and women. From the moment they can crawl, on average male infants are inclined towards more exploratory and risk taking behavior, and females tend to be inclined towards child-rearing type play. Humans do still have genetically-based instincts. If you place an infant on a flat glass floor with an apparent one to two foot tall "cliff" below the glass, infants have an instinctual fear of falling over any visual cliffs or edges. Infants instinctually suckle at a breast. Humans instinctually find large eyes and other baby-like features to be "cute", and that both men and women tend to be emotionally protective of "cute" helpless things like infants and puppies. It is hardly surprising that females tend to have more, or more developed, instincts and tendencies towards child rearing, that girls tend to be are more inclined towards simulated child rearing style play. These are mostly differences in tendencies and average values, but they are real and do exist. They are however far fewer and generally much smaller than bigots like to believe, and they absolutely do NOT justify the discrimination of gender-bigots or racial-bigots.
-
It was a Fox News with a ShamWow commercial.
-
In related news SETI Has Detected Intelligent Radio Signals From Space.
They are currently working on better methods to filter out the earth TV broadcasts being reflected back from the moon.
-