"Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years." I believe that the theory states that simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, may have come to earth from meteors... not that full-fledged life came from outer space. In any event, that 'billion-billion' years (if true) happened somewhere, and the location of the (or one of many) events isn't all that integral to speciation by evolution. It still occured here, on earth. There are two large problems I've got with this 'billion-billion years' theory. The first is what I believe is called the 'anthropic principle' in cosmology, which states that the physical attributes of this universe seem arbitrary, but that since they're the only ones that allow the matter that we're made of, those attributes are the only ones that we're capable of observing. There could be a 'quadrillion quadrillion' possible universes out there, but since we're a result of a certain set of conditions, they're the only ones that we can observe. (I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but this is the general idea). My point is this: since we're the result of life arising, saying 'it's rare' doesn't give us a reason to reject the theory, because we are a part of the system. Sorry if I can't explain it better than that. The second problem I've got with this 'billion-billion' years thing may have been taken into account with your statistics - but it still concerns me. I believe the current theory says that life arose from simple replicons - macromolecules of RNA that could assemble copies of themselves. Once there is even one, it could make copies of itself and kick off evolution - I simply have a hard time believing that the chances of this occuring are as low as you say, and it only takes one event (theoretically) to get things going. "Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling." I hadn't heard this - I doubt we can pin any event that occured billions of years in the past to 'an instant' - I'd be willing to believe '100 million years' or even less, and am willing to believe life could have arisen in that time. "Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since." This also seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Bacteria, which are still the most numerous form of life on earth, existed long before this, as did the blue-green algae, and possibly lichens, etc. See http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendianlife.h tml for some information on this. Even if invertebrate life arose here, this doesn't disprove speciation by evolution. The theory of punctuated equilibrium states that evolution tends to occur in 'spurts', where a new combination of genetic traits allows a population to take advantage of new niches. Not to mention that you yourself, as a mammal, are a member of a species that did not evolve until much later than the cambrian. "Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life." Huh? Perhaps it is complex enough that a radio signal describing a DNA molecule would be strong evidence that the signal originated from an intelligent life form, but this fact says absolutely nothing about evolution. I don't see why you even included this in your post. "Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion." Random chance is at the base of evolutionary theory - but that's not all there is. It's not a matter of faith as much as it is a matter of all evidence being consistent with a theory that says life arose by chance and changes by the accumulation of mutations and selecting for the populations that can reproduce successfully by taking advantage of specific ecological niches. Evolutionary theory is simply the best and most logical explanation that we have for the evidence. It doesn't make it 'right' - it's just the best (and a very, very good) explanation. I'm sure there are people who have faith in evolution, but the theory is perfectly sound without relying on faith. It's not a religion.
The thing is, there are many, *many* more people like your mother out there than there are people who are comfortable with the complexities of linux (as it is today). I realize that there are a lot of people here who believe that there's no reason to change linux to make it more 'user friendly' - that it is, and should be, an OS for the technological 'elite', for lack of a better word. This is a perfectly valid opinion---but it's mutually exclusive with another common (and again, perfectly valid) idea I've seen in the linux community, the 'take over the world' mentality. I do run linux at home, and would classify myself as a linux newbie at best - but I'm still far more knowledgable about computers than at least 95% of my peers - and these are all highly educated, intelligent people, people who wouldn't consider linux even if they knew anything more than the name. Most people simply don't care, as long as they can use computers to get their work done, use the web, or play the occasional computer game. Endless configurability and myriad choices of interfaces just aren't an issue. And I won't even get into the uselessness of having source code available to the average user (I'm not disparaging the concept, or the obvious benefits - just stating that the average user isn't, and never will be able to take advantage of it personally). The needs and desires of the traditional linux user are so different from that of the majority of computer users, and future computer users, that the likeliest common ground I can see is simple binary compatibility. Let the hard core linux user use the CLI, customize to their little heart's desire, get things running _exactly_ perfectly. Give the average user a simple, stable, consistent interface that they can learn quickly (and only once) - and let them use the same applications so that both groups can work and play compatibly. This is assuming that the average user can be convinced that there's a reason to use anything other than windows and office... anyway, my point is this - there simply isn't any way to please both groups, and without the pool of average users, linux won't become mainstream, ever. Linux has the potential flexibility to serve both camps, but there's no reason to even try to make everyone happy with one distribution/interface set.
My point was that the value of something is based in large part upon the efforts it took to make it accessible and useful to a consumer. Gold 500 feet under a mountain has little value - it's not doing anybody any good. Purified gold in the hands of a jeweler has value. A CD-ROM with randomized bits has essentially no value. A CD-ROM encoding software that allows me to do something useful has value, and the people responsible for giving it value deserve the right to expect compensation (in terms of money, reputation, or otherwise) from their efforts if they so choose. 'Information' may not be rare, but 'useful information' is hardly in limitless supply, and it takes effort (sometimes a lot of effort) to extract it - and I don't think anyone would propose that the supply of time and effort is infinite. My argument isn't one of pure economics, more one of responsibility and moral issues. Practically, I think you have some valid points - it's definitely harder to control the output of a software developer than a gold miner, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But let's face it. As you minimize the rewards to those that work in an information field, you minimize the motivation of people to create new things or to make existing ones better. Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for corporate policy of price-gouging, and I'm all for timed 'trial periods' and demos - they're a great way to expose people to software (or music, or movies, etc.). It's just simply this: taking and using products that you're explicitly expected to pay for is refusing to compensate people for their work. I am against that, both on a moral and economic level.
Let's face it. Software piracy IS illegal, but more importantly, it IS 'wrong'. Very little, if anything, has intrinsic economic value. Take gold for example. It supposedly has value because it's rare. But there are tons upon tons of it out there for the taking. When you buy a bar of gold, you're paying the people who went to the trouble to locate, mine, and process the gold. You're saying 'your time and efforts are worth this much to me.' The basics are the same for software. You pay others for the efforts they've put into developing it. Yes, it doesn't appear as if you're taking anything away from them when you copy their software, but here's what you're saying when you do this:
1. - Since the developer doesn't know that I'm receiving the fruits of their efforts for nothing, even though they specifically expect compensation, it's okay.
2. - Since there are enough honest people willing to compensate the developer for their efforts, it's okay for me not to do so.
Neither of these 'principles' (for lack of a better word) holds any strength from a moral standpoint. Parasites and perpetual mooches deserve their low reputation.
There are many people who say, with some relevance, that copying software to learn it, and later reccommend it to an employer for purchase, etc. helps the software industry. There appears to be some sort of logic to this, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't your choice, as a licensee (consumer), to do this. If I go steal a hershey bar from the 7-11 down the street, eat it, reccomend it to my friends, ten of whom buy one, does that mean that I'm not responsible for the one I took? It doesn't take the Hershey corp. a significant effort to produce the bar I took when compared to the total amount they produce, but that doesn't make stealing one okay. If the Hershey corp. wants to use this style of marketing, they're free to do so - many software companies, such as StarDivision and Netscape (way back when) do this - as the owner they can license the software however _they_ choose. The only people who have the right to make software free are those who develop it. Just because it's easier to rationalize the issue with software than it is for candy doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.
I'm afraid MS has got the jump on the linux community here. They've already got an NT port in development - the development name is apparently "SLUG-ish".
Yes, I know leeches and slugs aren't all that similiar, but sometimes a pun is just so bad you have to let it out...
Actually, if I remember correctly, one of the jedi masters on the coucil was a woman. Most of the others (with the exception of Mace/Samuel Jackson) are aliens, and at least technically of indeterminate gender - including Yoda, for that matter. It's really beside the point. Lucas has done a better job on this issue than he did in the original movies - it's not a complete 'white male' club with a woman in need of rescue (although the trade federation types could definitely have gone without the accent). Qui-Gon was the only other jedi in the film who _could_ have been female, keeping the characters from the original series intact. Lucas could have done a better job with the issue, but with a film targeted at 10-12 year old boys, I don't think he's really going for social commentary here. The trade federation accent was very close to, if not over, 'the line' - but in every other instance this movie isn't dissimilar from most action-adventure movies out there. If you think I'm looking too deeply into this, well, I'd say we both are:P.
p.s. - Doesn't Leia qualify as a female jedi? She's in training to become one, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
"Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years." I believe that the theory states that simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, may have come to earth from meteors... not that full-fledged life came from outer space. In any event, that 'billion-billion' years (if true) happened somewhere, and the location of the (or one of many) events isn't all that integral to speciation by evolution. It still occured here, on earth. There are two large problems I've got with this 'billion-billion years' theory. The first is what I believe is called the 'anthropic principle' in cosmology, which states that the physical attributes of this universe seem arbitrary, but that since they're the only ones that allow the matter that we're made of, those attributes are the only ones that we're capable of observing. There could be a 'quadrillion quadrillion' possible universes out there, but since we're a result of a certain set of conditions, they're the only ones that we can observe. (I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but this is the general idea). My point is this: since we're the result of life arising, saying 'it's rare' doesn't give us a reason to reject the theory, because we are a part of the system. Sorry if I can't explain it better than that. The second problem I've got with this 'billion-billion' years thing may have been taken into account with your statistics - but it still concerns me. I believe the current theory says that life arose from simple replicons - macromolecules of RNA that could assemble copies of themselves. Once there is even one, it could make copies of itself and kick off evolution - I simply have a hard time believing that the chances of this occuring are as low as you say, and it only takes one event (theoretically) to get things going. "Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling." I hadn't heard this - I doubt we can pin any event that occured billions of years in the past to 'an instant' - I'd be willing to believe '100 million years' or even less, and am willing to believe life could have arisen in that time. "Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since." This also seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Bacteria, which are still the most numerous form of life on earth, existed long before this, as did the blue-green algae, and possibly lichens, etc. See http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendianlife.h tml for some information on this. Even if invertebrate life arose here, this doesn't disprove speciation by evolution. The theory of punctuated equilibrium states that evolution tends to occur in 'spurts', where a new combination of genetic traits allows a population to take advantage of new niches. Not to mention that you yourself, as a mammal, are a member of a species that did not evolve until much later than the cambrian. "Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life." Huh? Perhaps it is complex enough that a radio signal describing a DNA molecule would be strong evidence that the signal originated from an intelligent life form, but this fact says absolutely nothing about evolution. I don't see why you even included this in your post. "Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion." Random chance is at the base of evolutionary theory - but that's not all there is. It's not a matter of faith as much as it is a matter of all evidence being consistent with a theory that says life arose by chance and changes by the accumulation of mutations and selecting for the populations that can reproduce successfully by taking advantage of specific ecological niches. Evolutionary theory is simply the best and most logical explanation that we have for the evidence. It doesn't make it 'right' - it's just the best (and a very, very good) explanation. I'm sure there are people who have faith in evolution, but the theory is perfectly sound without relying on faith. It's not a religion.
The thing is, there are many, *many* more people like your mother out there than there are people who are comfortable with the complexities of linux (as it is today). I realize that there are a lot of people here who believe that there's no reason to change linux to make it more 'user friendly' - that it is, and should be, an OS for the technological 'elite', for lack of a better word. This is a perfectly valid opinion---but it's mutually exclusive with another common (and again, perfectly valid) idea I've seen in the linux community, the 'take over the world' mentality. I do run linux at home, and would classify myself as a linux newbie at best - but I'm still far more knowledgable about computers than at least 95% of my peers - and these are all highly educated, intelligent people, people who wouldn't consider linux even if they knew anything more than the name. Most people simply don't care, as long as they can use computers to get their work done, use the web, or play the occasional computer game. Endless configurability and myriad choices of interfaces just aren't an issue. And I won't even get into the uselessness of having source code available to the average user (I'm not disparaging the concept, or the obvious benefits - just stating that the average user isn't, and never will be able to take advantage of it personally). The needs and desires of the traditional linux user are so different from that of the majority of computer users, and future computer users, that the likeliest common ground I can see is simple binary compatibility. Let the hard core linux user use the CLI, customize to their little heart's desire, get things running _exactly_ perfectly. Give the average user a simple, stable, consistent interface that they can learn quickly (and only once) - and let them use the same applications so that both groups can work and play compatibly. This is assuming that the average user can be convinced that there's a reason to use anything other than windows and office... anyway, my point is this - there simply isn't any way to please both groups, and without the pool of average users, linux won't become mainstream, ever. Linux has the potential flexibility to serve both camps, but there's no reason to even try to make everyone happy with one distribution/interface set.
My point was that the value of something is based in large part upon the efforts it took to make it accessible and useful to a consumer. Gold 500 feet under a mountain has little value - it's not doing anybody any good. Purified gold in the hands of a jeweler has value. A CD-ROM with randomized bits has essentially no value. A CD-ROM encoding software that allows me to do something useful has value, and the people responsible for giving it value deserve the right to expect compensation (in terms of money, reputation, or otherwise) from their efforts if they so choose. 'Information' may not be rare, but 'useful information' is hardly in limitless supply, and it takes effort (sometimes a lot of effort) to extract it - and I don't think anyone would propose that the supply of time and effort is infinite. My argument isn't one of pure economics, more one of responsibility and moral issues. Practically, I think you have some valid points - it's definitely harder to control the output of a software developer than a gold miner, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But let's face it. As you minimize the rewards to those that work in an information field, you minimize the motivation of people to create new things or to make existing ones better. Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for corporate policy of price-gouging, and I'm all for timed 'trial periods' and demos - they're a great way to expose people to software (or music, or movies, etc.). It's just simply this: taking and using products that you're explicitly expected to pay for is refusing to compensate people for their work. I am against that, both on a moral and economic level.
Let's face it. Software piracy IS illegal, but more importantly, it IS 'wrong'. Very little, if anything, has intrinsic economic value. Take gold for example. It supposedly has value because it's rare. But there are tons upon tons of it out there for the taking. When you buy a bar of gold, you're paying the people who went to the trouble to locate, mine, and process the gold. You're saying 'your time and efforts are worth this much to me.' The basics are the same for software. You pay others for the efforts they've put into developing it. Yes, it doesn't appear as if you're taking anything away from them when you copy their software, but here's what you're saying when you do this:
1. - Since the developer doesn't know that I'm receiving the fruits of their efforts for nothing, even though they specifically expect compensation, it's okay.
2. - Since there are enough honest people willing to compensate the developer for their efforts, it's okay for me not to do so.
Neither of these 'principles' (for lack of a better word) holds any strength from a moral standpoint. Parasites and perpetual mooches deserve their low reputation.
There are many people who say, with some relevance, that copying software to learn it, and later reccommend it to an employer for purchase, etc. helps the software industry. There appears to be some sort of logic to this, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't your choice, as a licensee (consumer), to do this. If I go steal a hershey bar from the 7-11 down the street, eat it, reccomend it to my friends, ten of whom buy one, does that mean that I'm not responsible for the one I took? It doesn't take the Hershey corp. a significant effort to produce the bar I took when compared to the total amount they produce, but that doesn't make stealing one okay. If the Hershey corp. wants to use this style of marketing, they're free to do so - many software companies, such as StarDivision and Netscape (way back when) do this - as the owner they can license the software however _they_ choose. The only people who have the right to make software free are those who develop it. Just because it's easier to rationalize the issue with software than it is for candy doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.
I'm afraid MS has got the jump on the linux community here. They've already got an NT port in development - the development name is apparently "SLUG-ish".
Yes, I know leeches and slugs aren't all that similiar, but sometimes a pun is just so bad you have to let it out...
Actually, if I remember correctly, one of the jedi masters on the coucil was a woman. Most of the others (with the exception of Mace/Samuel Jackson) are aliens, and at least technically of indeterminate gender - including Yoda, for that matter. It's really beside the point. Lucas has done a better job on this issue than he did in the original movies - it's not a complete 'white male' club with a woman in need of rescue (although the trade federation types could definitely have gone without the accent). Qui-Gon was the only other jedi in the film who _could_ have been female, keeping the characters from the original series intact. Lucas could have done a better job with the issue, but with a film targeted at 10-12 year old boys, I don't think he's really going for social commentary here. The trade federation accent was very close to, if not over, 'the line' - but in every other instance this movie isn't dissimilar from most action-adventure movies out there. If you think I'm looking too deeply into this, well, I'd say we both are :P.
p.s. - Doesn't Leia qualify as a female jedi? She's in training to become one, anyway.