I always found this to be an extreme irony. Or is it arrogance... People famous for "creating" sophisticated works of intellect maintining it is impossible for themselves to have been created. But, what is more sophisticated: a computer operating system; or, a living organism capable of creating that same computer operating system?
If Linux gets better through a guided, conscious stepwise refinement (evolution) effort, how does it happen in nature without such a guided, conscious effort? Who plays the part of the coders in the real-life version of evolution? If there is a requirement for sentient guidance for one case, there is a requirement for the case other also. Anything else is simply illogical (yes, that's right, it is an act of "faith" to believe in evolution, at least because it is obviously a contadiction to everything that we know and experience in our own acts of creating). Moreover, despite popular opinion, evolution is still an unproven theory according to the tenets of the scientific method. Consider the debate that rages between "panspermia" and "abiogenesis" -- it is not even agreed which theory is correct, never mind having proven one or the other.
After reading Linus' comments on 'Celebrity atheist list', I sense his problem with more with 'organized religion' and its socio-economic impact (and the unliklihood of said same of being backed by the superintelligence that created all things), rather than with the idea that there is a supreme God and Creator. And he is correct, at least according the the Christian Bible (despite what they clergy says as it defends its own eco-political survival). God does not back the overwhelming majority of religions we see today. Revelation 18 speaks of "Babylon the Great" as the representation of false religion, and that it will be urtterly destroyed prior to the battle of Armageddon, which is called 'God's war against the ungodly.'
I believe you meant "indict", meaning to 'accuse, perhaps wrongly'; not "indite", which means to compose [a poem, et al]. Although some coders may disagree, I personally don't equate coding with poetry =)
Unquestionably, all chants are bad, even 'open source' chants. But with respect to security, open source transparency is the best all-around approach to the security problem.
Um, sorry, but if an independent claim is found obvious, the dependent claims based upon it are also found obvious. If they are not invalidated as such, it is because fundamentally they should have been framed independent claims themselves. It would be a flaw in the patent filing, not a flaw in my assertion. A 'dependent claim' depends upon an 'independent claim'.
For example: I patent a novel door. I also claim that painting the door extends its novelty. If the door is seen as obvious and unpatentable then painting it is irrelevant. If the painting of the door is not deemed irrelevant, than it's because painting any door is novel, and as such, it should have been its own independent claim. It's a simple logic problem.
And I never said that new patents cannot be based on older patents (or any other older notions). They ALWAYS are. Patents are novel applications of existing ideas.
I did not mean to suggest that all, or even most, of those arrested are innocent. But the law adds the presumption of innocence because society at large is innocent. But it is perhaps more dangerous to assume all those arrested are guilty. Charged phrases like "perps" -- short for "perpetrators" -- imputes guilt before examination of evidence in open court. Those with this attitude, to me, are truly bone-chilling to be around. Many people, even in the US have been railroaded, knowingly falsely prosecuted and even executed.
If the Law were fair, it would hold up people who were involved with wrongly convicting someone -- regardless of the crime and regardless of the intent of those prosecuting -- to the death penalty if found to be wrong. This should extend to their families and should be automatic. Prosecutors, judges, juries, the whole lot of them. That would give them something to think about.
And people that have such a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude" are themselves lawless and immoral. They cultivate that attitude because of pure arrogance. Ironically, if there were true justice, then these would be the first to be among the some 7% of innocents that get executed in the US each year. (Stats as reported by the Economist, subject to my flawed memory)
As to me being 'dogmatic', get a dictionary. The 'law' has a completely different definition than does 'government', and both differ from 'morality' and 'uprightness'. That's one reason that they are spelled different and sound different. But more to the point, the US Government is immune from prosecution in most cases, which proves that it was always known that the Government and the Law were independent concepts. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to grant such immunity. And as for Law vs. Uprightness/Morality, there have been scads of Laws that have been immoral and crooked. Slavery for one. And many unrighteous laws exist and persist now. The US Government (and all others that I know of) still has the "right" (military might, that is) to enslave people. Look at the military draft for instance.
And, YOUR inability to properly understand what I was writing of does not mean I was incoherent. It means my arguments were simply over your head, regardless of the 'common man' grasp of philoshophies you have. In fact it is just more evidence of your arrogance: you assume that I must be just like a more famous philospher you know better than I do, and presume your knowledge and understanding are deeper than mine, and that I am not capable of your level of 'understanding'. Enlightened Liberalism? I hardly think so. That line of philosphy argues that man can rule man successfully -- as do all the other people you mention -- wheras I do not. History has proven that not one of man's philosophies leads him to happiness or perfection. And we've been recycling those same tired philosophies, over and over, century after century, millenium after millenium, as you unwittingly have pointed out. They are just variations on a totally misguided theme. If I were to identify with one worldly philospher (though some call him an economist) would be Bastiat (although he too thinks that man can successfully rule man, whereas, again, I do not). You missed him in your diatribe. Perhaps you should read more.
As for a perfect morailty and uprightness defined by men in a system of man's laws, well that simply a contradiction in terms, given that most innately realize mankind is imperfect. For me, I look to a completely different kind of government. And you have been brainwashed by Academia (or the Philosophy Channel, not sure which).
And for such an academic, you certainly miss a lot. For example, you say that, "Government, in the US, in the form of the Congress, has the power to make law." Well, that's a little off the mark, but no doubt what the US Educational System, which is unquestionably a branch of the Federal Government, has taught you beacuse it is in the Government's best inte
The US Constitution does not allow for the govewrnment to bypass congress (read it). The War Powers Act created the authority for Executive Orders which indeed does that very thing. The President has the authority to create laws at the stroke of a pen.
In fact, three times that I know of has Executive order authority been used to redefine liberty (see EO 13083, et al). Yes, you read it right. Americans now enjoy liberties at the behest of the US Government. I'm pretty sure that the US Constitutional framers never thought that would be possible given the principles they established.
As for the cases you cited, I do believe that they succeeded based on the most fundamental Constitutional principles. Laws, which you cite, flow from principles, not vice versa. Nothing new or expanded was introduced. All that happened was that Government imposed limitations that never should have been there in the first place got removed and the orginal principles got more room. But that doesn't mean things haven't been given up in the process. In fact things are generally worse, in my book anyway. The fact that entire nations and peoples are being repressed is expressed in their acts of terrorism, which is simply the most economical way of expressing their frustration. Davidson and Rees-Mogg did a good job explaining this in "The Great Reckoning".
Nice tries though. And by the way, I don't support any administration; history has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is totally and profoundly unfit to rule men. (Jer 10:23; 2 Tim 3:1-5, 15-16).
"innocent until proven guilty" is missing one word in front of it and that word is "presumed".
The overwhelming majority are innocent. Thus the presumption is based, not on some act of misplaced kindness that permits wealthy and influential to escape justice, but a simple acknowledgment of the true fact. Such injustice happens by other means. The presumption of innocence allows people to exist without be harrassed in the absence of reasonable evidence to the contrary.
And you are flat wrong about the government, anyway. The government prosecutes as a direct result of their presumption of guilt based on its unproven evidence. The Law, and not the government, presumes innocence. It is always a scary thing when people confuse government with law, even scarier when they equate the two.
But perhaps most frightening of all is when poeple confuse law with morality and uprightness. These are independent concepts, and as with intergalactic comets, only rarely do they meet each other.
The problem with most/. posts on patents is that rank-and-=file./'ers don't understand patents, how they work, what they are for, why they are granted or how they are enforced. They simply react to the time-limited monopoly aspects that seem to infringe their right to create.
This is a perfect case in point. "3. The computer system of claim 1, further comprising:" is a dependent claim. This Claim has no meaning outside of the context in holds in the Independent Claim 1. So if Claim 1 in this case were obvious or mundane, then Claim 3 would have no basis for enforcement. If Claim 3 were stand-alone, the inventor(s) would have set it out in an Independent Claim (or if they should have and didn't, they are thus too stupid to get the Claim, by definition).
And just because no one has previously done a particular thing before, it doesn't make that particular thing patentable. There must be a novel, unobvious, beneficial teaching involved. So, given the same circumstances and problem to solve, would others of ordinary skill solve those problems similarly? If so, the idea is not patentable. Otherwise, in exchange for the disclosing of the way no one else would have thought of -- that is, for the teaching of others something truly new and unique -- the government permits a limited monopoly.
Translucent windowing is not new, nor is it novel. I suppose everyone should be writing to the Examiner with the proof of this and it will be rejected. Stop whining on/. about how unfair patents are. They are eminently fair, so long as money and politics do not distort the process. In which case you would remove the distortion, not the process.
One of the things often missed in these discussions is that the US Constitution is a charter for the government to exist, not a charter for the people to exist. All these 'rules' and 'scrutiny' add the presumption of guilt.
All these draconian 'security' measures are not needed because barbarians are at America's gates, but that American policies around the world are creating tensions that are easist to address via terrorism.
"Extra scrutiny" has never been shown to add true security. And the US government has been taking apart the US Constitution since the US Civil War. Consider the War Powers Act for one. The printing of a fiat currency for another. Censorship. Affirmative Action (aka 'reverse discrimination') which is strictly against the principles of the Constitution -- social engineering is ineffective and people, especially when considering generations: time and societies are not algebraic equations; you can't take away from Jim in 1850 and give Joe a handout in 2004 and make up for it. All it does is create a class of people who feel as though society owes them something, which it most surely does not. Clearly the Constitution never allowed for this; if it did, it would have included "inequalty" as its key premise. This does exist because the US government does indeed pervert the US Constituion.
Bastiat wrote of 'legal plunder' which is how the State works. In fact he wrote that the State was 'that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.' Whenever the State gives itself authority that the indiviuals making up that State do not have, it begins to live above the power that created it and by definition must oppress the creating power. That is the mechanism through which principles of civil rights are lost, which is quite different than judging such by contravening current laws. Laws flow from principles, not the other way.
My version of Enlightenment has been doing this for years and years. The fact that Apple may apply this technique to specific items or exaggerate the time is not a "non-obvious teaching" and therefore is not patentable.
To anyone with ordinary skill in the art, making a translucent window gradually opaque is obvious. Patents are not (well, at least, should not be) granted to the first person to say or do a thing, but to teach others something truly novel and useful, advancing the art in some profound way. This application does no such thing and should be severly narrowed to precisely what they are doing or rejected outright for obviousness (or even silliness).
In order to adjust the behavior of companies like this, the penalty should not be solely cash fines, but rather include an injunction from doing business in certain markets or being involved with the development of those products for some period of time, including forever in eggregious cases.
If someone persistently breaks traffic laws, they lose their priveledge to pilot an automobile. If you break anti-competitive laws, you get barred from that marketplace.
It has been said that it's hitting people in the wallet that really hurts. I don't think so. Hitting them in their ability to fatten their wallets is what truly hurts, and hurts in a way feared in advance and not easily forgotten. Stop Microsoft from developing or releasing anything related to IE or Windows or Office products for two years. Now that would get their attention and cause them to pause before acting with reckless abandon and total disregard for the law.
Those who think that 'what is good for Microsoft is good for America' say that because they fear that hurting Microsoft hurts themselves. But that is simply not true. Sure, there are a lot of jobs at Microsoft, but those jobs exist to answer market demand for the products offered. Bridling a ferocious company like Microsoft does not in any way destroy market demand. In fact the innovation permitted by the destruction of such a dictatorial central planning authority is often the best thing that can happen to an ecosystem. Especially when you consider that Microsoft does not innovate in markets, they distort.
Think of it this way. If you suffered from blindness and could be cured, would you worry about your cure putting your overcharging Braille publisher out of business?
Yeah, well, everything's an 'arms race.' And it's a very questionable premise that the USSR went broke because of the military arms race, anyway. Most of the educated and informed people that I know blame central planning and the destruction of the work ethic that ensues from turning adults into manufactring and farming automatons with the decision making authority of a two-year old.
Not automatically buying Microsoft products, not permitting them to adopt and extend, not allowing them to use their cash to pervert the patent system into granting them monopolies on obvious applications of computer science, not allowing them to steal code and hide behind the veil of 'proprietary/secrecy' claims. Microsoft stifles innovation in favor of creating idiot-proof software. But as everyone on/. knows intuitively, create something even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it.
You see, those stinking Brits... All my good ideas get written on napkins, but now I'm not sure how much better those ideas would have been if they were on a sheet of metric paper. In fact I could probably speak French by know if I only used the correct aspect ratio paper when I was practicing that crap. What a chump I've been. I completely underestimated the importance that the various paper sizes I use have a traceable reference back to the "pi". Um, sorry, I meant "e". Oops...I meant the square root of two.
The key Nazi-identifying mark was not rounding up Jewish people, per se. Hitler & Co needed someone for the financially depressed 'real Germans' to focus their anger upon, and the Jews were that rallying cry because they were perceived to be wealthy. For any political group to overhaul society around its own ideals, it is necessary to have a villian, one who is acceptable to the public at large. This is true for Hitler, Bush, Kerry, Blair, Hussein, etc., etc., etc. So, if you think regimes are Nazi-like only if they round up Jews, well think again...
But, as a matter of history, Hitler did single out one specific group because they adamantly and absolutely refused to participate in any military or political activies whatsoever. This frustrated Hitler and he said that he 'would exterminate that brood,' simply because he couldn't make them do what he wanted. Jews wore yellow 'Star of David' emblems in concentration camps; the other group, donning purple trianges, who would be let free if they simply denounced their religious faith (ironically because they would not participate in war or politics). Jews were persecuted not for their religious stand, but because an economic villian was needed, and the 'Protocols' manuscript provided the [dubious] argument against the Jews. In the end, Hitler killed Jews for their money, not over their religion or any refusal on their part to 'go along to get along'.
The group given those purple trianges was Jehovah's Witnesses. (Of course, this group refuses to get involved in any politics or military actions, which is why all governments hate them.) So, it's not when you see Jewish people rounded up that there's trouble ahead, but rather when Jehovah's Witnesses get rounded up, that you know the world is in true trouble.
Wow, a radio jammer. What will they think of next?
At least they're churning out real geniuses in academia now. I'll bet these guys will soon figure out that if they plug CAT5 cables into wall sockets they can disrupt all the wired LAN stuff withing the area too.
Well, for me, I'm sick of dumbing down my own products because of the predominance of their flawed systems. Yeah, okay, we've all heard it before. So what. We hear of murder and robbery and rape everyday too. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be spoken of each time.
Microsoft gets what it deserves. They are sneaky and underhanded.There is nothing about there actions that should be seen as anything but a cleverly veiled continuation of their need to dominate the world. Is that extreme? Probably -- maybe -- but the true danger is underestimating people like this. And if you don't think that people with the kind of money that these people have -- personally and corporately -- does not influence everything you do, then you have not yet reached adulthood.
Who knows why they are making this particular move. Maybe OSS coders are the only ones cheaper than subcontinent Asians. Maybe they don't want to have to buy out the next GUI design company. One thing's for sure though: This latest move is but another tactic in a blizzard of tactics supporting a neverchanging strategy. It's pure sleight of hand. It never pays to underestimate your foe. And it never hurts to overestimate them.
Momma always said, "never trust anyone that says 'Trust me.'"
Non-profit means just that: they do not make a profit, which is to say that there is not supposed to leave any money extra at the end of the year -- for the organization. So that money has to be distributed. But they are businesses to be sure, and their execs and the gov't officials that retire and become consultants profit handsomely. Also, they do get to retain some earnings when it's really obscene, like with the Red Cross and its sale of blood. I think that in one recent year, it reported some $800 million in "income after expenses", which is profit by another name.
Non-profits have the aire of unbiased, pure of mission, free from the distorting effects of greed. But how long will organizations like the Red Cross promote the sale and use of blood and blood products, certainly one of the most dangerous subsantances used in medicine today (this is a very informed opinion, btw), be allowed to continue? So long as the bureaucracy that now feeds off of it can keep itself alive. And like some obese creature with no self control, it will continue to spread death and disease through blood because its propaganda machine keeps convincing people trhat they save lives and should be supported. No doubt its execs get rewarded, even though its abuses are very well documented. And they are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
Only some one really really naiive thinks that such money should be given to the fund's execs as a reward for 'doing good.' They most often are rewarded for successfully raising money. But these organizations, while they do offer some releif along the lines of their charters, often just feed money back to their well heeled supporters (advocates, not financial contributors) through fat contracts and whatnot. It's just another form of the ol' perk-trough.
Judas Iscariot thought he should be paid for his non-profit work. Nobody else he worked with thought so, for him or themselves, so he just took some of the 'extra' cash. Should he be excused because he wanted to sell the fragrant oil [used on Jesus just before his execution] and give the proceeds to the poor? Of course not; no matter his stated motive, his true motive was greed and power. Jesus and the others thought differently. Could you imagine Jesus as the president of the United Way? The Red Cross? Of course not, because these companies, while appearing noble in purpose through the thin veil of 'non-profit', are simply masking the real motive for their existence -- profiting personally.
In the end, if you really want to help people, simnply help hose that you know. If you want to do good, do good, but don't go around drawing attention to yourself for doing it. If Robbins wants to resign, he should be allowed to do so without a whole lot of explanation. Though as a Gentoo user I am disappointed and concerned. But he seems, at least, to be someone who gave to the 'community' out of genuine concern. However to justify profligacy of execs of hugely funded 'non-profits' is stretching the point beyond its elasticity. And wrong.
I think it was Harry Truman who said, 'the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.' How true.
Nice try. If the airplane were a proper and effective Faraday Cage, your cell phone would not work at all. And not all radio waves are reflected infinitely, 'bouncing around', as you say; much is absorbed by the incident material. For the most part the airframe will act as a waveguide (at certain wavelengths) and the window openings as dipole antennas albeit with 90 degree polarization rotation vs a wire dipole. Granted, it's probably not the most efficient antenna in the world, but that's not the point. The airplane is not a EM shield but rather a propagating antenna structure. The point is that your Faraday Cage theory is flat-out bogus. No wonder you posted anonymously.
Beyond that, airplanes do not get their navigation data from inside the plane, where you purport all passenger cell phone energy bounces around. Plus, consider all the people who -- whoops -- forget to shut off their cell phones (which transmit even when you are not yakking). This is FAR from rare or occassional. I'd venture to say there are three or four on every single flight (rare is the flight where at 30,000 feet I don't catch someone shutting their's off, all red-faced and whatnot). Plus the cell phone towers do not just select parked airplanes. Their energy is absorbed and reflected by airplanes at all altitudes. Otherwise when the unfortunate people onboard those planes on 9/11 would never been able to call anyone.
Early tests of satellite TVRO digital signals, which use convolutional coding to correct errors were plaugued by random errors of unexpected signatures and had to adjust their interleaving rates because of passenger airliners passing overhead.
Furthermore, you are allowed to use your cell phone in a closed-up airplane in motion, so long as you are taxing back to the terminal (in the USA, anyway). How does your Farady Cage theory hold up to that fact? The plane is in motion at that point...
And it's not yakking on the phone they object to, it's yakking on a phone for which they get no share of the revenue. The real answer is shielding the navigation systems from external fields. Oh wait, they do that already. Nevermind.
When you can't win on product merit, win on political influence and financial corruption (but I repeat myself). Hiring people away at dizzying salaries is simply corruption by another name. People selling their integrity for cash. Traitors are of only limited value to either side, as are mercenaries. While 'traitor' and 'mercenary' may evoke a more militaristic vision than many will accept a face value, it is indisputable that it is the same mental disposition. But, then again, I doubt very seriously that anyone at Microsoft that does not see this a pure warfare and a mission to survive at all costs won't last very long there.
My guess is that hiring the SuSE guy is only the beginning of bills they'll have to pay to close the deals this guy arranges. Unlike Borland, this lone sales guy will probably not crater the Linux/OpenSource/Free Software movement, no more than Benedict Arnold won the war for England.
CF is NAND flash driven by an IDE controller. Most of them are pretty cheezy and it's hard to know which controller you ended up with. Add to that concerns about wear-leveling, extended temperature operation and more than one device per IDE channel, and things can get messy quick. While they work fine for a boot device, SWAPs and other frequent writes are better left to RAM, not CF. Only if it MUST be non-volatile should it go to flash.
Nothing wrong with reducing power if you don't need so much. Plenty of good reasons, like longer battery life, less dissipation in the cranium, blah, yadda, and so on.
But to suggest that cellphone power screws up airplane systems is, well, just plain silly. In the US, the FCC allows cell phone use until the door closes for departure, and on landing and taxing upon arrival. Now, since the plane doesn't know which way it's headed, it seems obvious that power and iterference issues are a diversion. The persistent rumor is that the airphone guys worked a political solution to their at-risk $1 a munite business.
The other obvious proof the real issue is financial/political is the couple-of-kilowatt cellphone tower at the airport. My geuss is these cell towers present just a tad bit more interference than your couple milliwatt cell phone. Add to that the unltrapowerful military radar and civilian radar found around airports, and every other source of radio transmission floating around in the ether these days. Cell phones crashing planes? Great, just let Al Kaida know, he (she? they?) can save a ton of cash not building bombs. Just ring up the seventy virgins and let em know you're on your way. Two birds, one stone.
But of course that's a ridiculous notion, otherwise the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers would have never made it to their targets. In the end, the issue is money and politics (as it always is). The interference issue is propaganda fed to the clueless nailbiters afraid that the kid with the gameboy in the next will crash the plane.
I now know the surest way to get modded up and modded down on/.
Mod Down: Cogent arguments based uon scientific method, observed fact, experimentation results that support that life was intentionally created by an intelligence = -1 flamebait
Mod Up: Sarcastic retort, lacking any proof or scientific relevence, implying that anyone that is a creationist is an idiot because everybody says so = +3 karma
This is perfectly reliable. To wit:
Bacteria transorms into catfish = Random chance, no intelligence, driven because the bacteria realize that it's better to be a catfish or because there's a lot of water around and bacteria can't swim too well (okay, you make up the reason).
Bacteria and Catfish independent works of an intelligent creator = Pathetic dialog of an ignorant corn-pone Bible thumper capable of any level of higher reasoning
A horse = undeniably the work of environmental forces randomly acting on living organisms that force it to fill an unfilled ecological niche.
Cave painting of a horse = irrefutable proof that an intelligent being capable of cognative thought existed there.
Native American tribesman = Random chance, just like the horse and the catfish, no doubt nature's hit-or-miss, blind chance way of addressing the buffalo overpopulation (or whatever the reason is that steers the "blind watchmaker").
Stone arrowhead = irrefutable proof that an intelligent Native American tribesman capable of cognative thought existed there.
CCD Camera chip = Random chance creates a light sensitive organism because of a needed ecological niche.
The Human Eye = The work of thousands and thousands of intelligent creatures refining industrial processes, manipulating the laws of the physical universe to create a part of a vision system.
(oh crap...I might have actually gotten the last two reversed...hrumph)
Check any museum display or scientific textbook and these "facts" will be listed there (reverse the last two for yourselves). But obviously, if a stone arrowhead could not happen by chance, then how could the infinitely more complex human arise by chance? It would be nice if someone who was an evolutionist and a competent mathematician (statistician) would compute odds on the arrowhead appearing randomly, and then for the human appearing randomly. Or the painting of a horse, and then for the living horse prototype. This would be according to the scientific method, and the answer, which is so intuitively obvious would show that since evolution is based on statistics (it's never been shown to actually work according to theory experimentally) would show that what we say could not happen randomly is millions of time MORE likely to occur than what we say MUST have happened randomly.
The relevance to the original post? Well, that post was yet another ridiculous theory to say how life got here on Earth without having been intentionally created. Now we've got theories on how rocks ricocheting off planets with little bits of life stuck to them spread it around the universe. Just keep it completely incomprehensible and have a guy in a lab coat say it, and it is taken on face value.
Of course the obvious issue for evolutionists is that the mere existence of this panspermia mars-rock-as-life-transport-vehicle article and the attention it garners proves conclusively that "evolution" is still a a collection of theories -- hypotheses actually -- and that it cannot be "fact". If it were fact no one would be disputing how it worked at the most basic level. But evolutionists who say they agree on the "facts" can't even decide whether panspermia is correct or it was abiogenesis or organic soup or whatever. Even Stanley Miller, the organic soup experimenter died without ever being able to prove his theories. Sure he rigged a simple chemistry experiment, but he never showed one shred of evidence that those conditions ever
"I don't think anybody had claimed that "simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travelers." " You're right, it's an utterly laughable notion, one so obviously wrong that it must be dismissed out of hand, with predjudice, by any reasonable person. And it should be, because it is pure nonsense. Trouble with the statement is that if it said, "simple organic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers," it would be taken with all seriousness and agreed to implicitly by every evolutionary scientist. Therefore, it would be more convincing if you could explain to readers why animate intelligent life must have evolved without intelligent intevention, but rocketships must not have evolved without intelligent intevention, according to the established 'laws' of the theory of evolution. Otherwise the original article is yet another talk-is-cheap, it's-all-too-hard-to-prove claim by a government bureaucracy that gets financially rewarded for simply reguritating it.
But these same people did, and do, claim that all life on earth has evolved into this hypercomplex, delicately balanced, symbiotic and interdependent system so intricately interwoven that even the simplest-to-understand ecosystems defy completely accurate understanding, even after millenia of study. These claim that this could only be a matter of happenstance, and the former could not be, and that those who would even suggest rocketships self-create and then evolve are intellectual cripples, pathetically clinging to myth.
Now, about the environment: Evolutionists claim (and this is one ramification of this silly article) that life can spontaneously create itself according to whatever conditions exist and then progress and adapt according to changing environmental conditions. It is claimed that intelligent people are newer than apes, which are newer than fish, and so on, because the process is "naturally" biased toward stepwise refinement, relentlessly increasing complexity to deal with adversity and fill ever newer niches, based on the laws of [unimaginably impossible-to-calculate] "statistics" and "blind chance". This is a completely accurate summary of evolutionary theory. This theory mandates that we not preserve the environment, because to do so would be to shut off the engine that powers evolution itself. Evolutionary change would be stifled and then no better, more refined species would be able to emerge. Rather, it mandates that we do all we can to change it so we can see better and more perfect species appear as a result. This statement is 100% supported and encouraged by all the commonly held beliefs of evolutionary theory.
On the other hand, if a creationist had said that the meteorite slammed into Earth so hard that it bounced all the way to Mars with a bit living organism stuck to it because God threw it really hard at the Earth, the laughter would be so thunderous that we'd all bounce to Mars (so as to start a new colony, since some would sureley mutate into viable Martian organisms in flight, no doubt). But say that all that happened for no particular reason at all, it becomes a subject for billions of dollars in research grants. In the end, what you believe comes down to core motive: the blind chance theory justifies its adherents complete selfishness, because survival of the fittest is a doctrine rooted in selfishness.
But there is straightforward test of this meteorite-as-flubber theory: Put a tiny piece of life on one of those metorite rocks and shoot it to the moon, add water to it when it gets there and see if it comes to life. If not, the theory is absolutely wrong and disproven according to the tenets of the scientific method.
Slashdot Mirror
If Linux gets better through a guided, conscious stepwise refinement (evolution) effort, how does it happen in nature without such a guided, conscious effort? Who plays the part of the coders in the real-life version of evolution? If there is a requirement for sentient guidance for one case, there is a requirement for the case other also. Anything else is simply illogical (yes, that's right, it is an act of "faith" to believe in evolution, at least because it is obviously a contadiction to everything that we know and experience in our own acts of creating). Moreover, despite popular opinion, evolution is still an unproven theory according to the tenets of the scientific method. Consider the debate that rages between "panspermia" and "abiogenesis" -- it is not even agreed which theory is correct, never mind having proven one or the other.
After reading Linus' comments on 'Celebrity atheist list', I sense his problem with more with 'organized religion' and its socio-economic impact (and the unliklihood of said same of being backed by the superintelligence that created all things), rather than with the idea that there is a supreme God and Creator. And he is correct, at least according the the Christian Bible (despite what they clergy says as it defends its own eco-political survival). God does not back the overwhelming majority of religions we see today. Revelation 18 speaks of "Babylon the Great" as the representation of false religion, and that it will be urtterly destroyed prior to the battle of Armageddon, which is called 'God's war against the ungodly.'
Great. There goes my "Excellent Karma" :\
I believe you meant "indict", meaning to 'accuse, perhaps wrongly'; not "indite", which means to compose [a poem, et al]. Although some coders may disagree, I personally don't equate coding with poetry =) Unquestionably, all chants are bad, even 'open source' chants. But with respect to security, open source transparency is the best all-around approach to the security problem.
For example: I patent a novel door. I also claim that painting the door extends its novelty. If the door is seen as obvious and unpatentable then painting it is irrelevant. If the painting of the door is not deemed irrelevant, than it's because painting any door is novel, and as such, it should have been its own independent claim. It's a simple logic problem.
And I never said that new patents cannot be based on older patents (or any other older notions). They ALWAYS are. Patents are novel applications of existing ideas.
If the Law were fair, it would hold up people who were involved with wrongly convicting someone -- regardless of the crime and regardless of the intent of those prosecuting -- to the death penalty if found to be wrong. This should extend to their families and should be automatic. Prosecutors, judges, juries, the whole lot of them. That would give them something to think about.
And people that have such a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude" are themselves lawless and immoral. They cultivate that attitude because of pure arrogance. Ironically, if there were true justice, then these would be the first to be among the some 7% of innocents that get executed in the US each year. (Stats as reported by the Economist, subject to my flawed memory) As to me being 'dogmatic', get a dictionary. The 'law' has a completely different definition than does 'government', and both differ from 'morality' and 'uprightness'. That's one reason that they are spelled different and sound different. But more to the point, the US Government is immune from prosecution in most cases, which proves that it was always known that the Government and the Law were independent concepts. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to grant such immunity. And as for Law vs. Uprightness/Morality, there have been scads of Laws that have been immoral and crooked. Slavery for one. And many unrighteous laws exist and persist now. The US Government (and all others that I know of) still has the "right" (military might, that is) to enslave people. Look at the military draft for instance.
And, YOUR inability to properly understand what I was writing of does not mean I was incoherent. It means my arguments were simply over your head, regardless of the 'common man' grasp of philoshophies you have. In fact it is just more evidence of your arrogance: you assume that I must be just like a more famous philospher you know better than I do, and presume your knowledge and understanding are deeper than mine, and that I am not capable of your level of 'understanding'. Enlightened Liberalism? I hardly think so. That line of philosphy argues that man can rule man successfully -- as do all the other people you mention -- wheras I do not. History has proven that not one of man's philosophies leads him to happiness or perfection. And we've been recycling those same tired philosophies, over and over, century after century, millenium after millenium, as you unwittingly have pointed out. They are just variations on a totally misguided theme. If I were to identify with one worldly philospher (though some call him an economist) would be Bastiat (although he too thinks that man can successfully rule man, whereas, again, I do not). You missed him in your diatribe. Perhaps you should read more.
As for a perfect morailty and uprightness defined by men in a system of man's laws, well that simply a contradiction in terms, given that most innately realize mankind is imperfect. For me, I look to a completely different kind of government. And you have been brainwashed by Academia (or the Philosophy Channel, not sure which).
And for such an academic, you certainly miss a lot. For example, you say that, "Government, in the US, in the form of the Congress, has the power to make law." Well, that's a little off the mark, but no doubt what the US Educational System, which is unquestionably a branch of the Federal Government, has taught you beacuse it is in the Government's best inte
In fact, three times that I know of has Executive order authority been used to redefine liberty (see EO 13083, et al). Yes, you read it right. Americans now enjoy liberties at the behest of the US Government. I'm pretty sure that the US Constitutional framers never thought that would be possible given the principles they established.
As for the cases you cited, I do believe that they succeeded based on the most fundamental Constitutional principles. Laws, which you cite, flow from principles, not vice versa. Nothing new or expanded was introduced. All that happened was that Government imposed limitations that never should have been there in the first place got removed and the orginal principles got more room. But that doesn't mean things haven't been given up in the process. In fact things are generally worse, in my book anyway. The fact that entire nations and peoples are being repressed is expressed in their acts of terrorism, which is simply the most economical way of expressing their frustration. Davidson and Rees-Mogg did a good job explaining this in "The Great Reckoning".
Nice tries though. And by the way, I don't support any administration; history has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is totally and profoundly unfit to rule men. (Jer 10:23; 2 Tim 3:1-5, 15-16).
The overwhelming majority are innocent. Thus the presumption is based, not on some act of misplaced kindness that permits wealthy and influential to escape justice, but a simple acknowledgment of the true fact. Such injustice happens by other means. The presumption of innocence allows people to exist without be harrassed in the absence of reasonable evidence to the contrary.
And you are flat wrong about the government, anyway. The government prosecutes as a direct result of their presumption of guilt based on its unproven evidence. The Law, and not the government, presumes innocence. It is always a scary thing when people confuse government with law, even scarier when they equate the two.
But perhaps most frightening of all is when poeple confuse law with morality and uprightness. These are independent concepts, and as with intergalactic comets, only rarely do they meet each other.
This is a perfect case in point. "3. The computer system of claim 1, further comprising:" is a dependent claim. This Claim has no meaning outside of the context in holds in the Independent Claim 1. So if Claim 1 in this case were obvious or mundane, then Claim 3 would have no basis for enforcement. If Claim 3 were stand-alone, the inventor(s) would have set it out in an Independent Claim (or if they should have and didn't, they are thus too stupid to get the Claim, by definition).
And just because no one has previously done a particular thing before, it doesn't make that particular thing patentable. There must be a novel, unobvious, beneficial teaching involved. So, given the same circumstances and problem to solve, would others of ordinary skill solve those problems similarly? If so, the idea is not patentable. Otherwise, in exchange for the disclosing of the way no one else would have thought of -- that is, for the teaching of others something truly new and unique -- the government permits a limited monopoly.
Translucent windowing is not new, nor is it novel. I suppose everyone should be writing to the Examiner with the proof of this and it will be rejected. Stop whining on /. about how unfair patents are. They are eminently fair, so long as money and politics do not distort the process. In which case you would remove the distortion, not the process.
All these draconian 'security' measures are not needed because barbarians are at America's gates, but that American policies around the world are creating tensions that are easist to address via terrorism.
"Extra scrutiny" has never been shown to add true security. And the US government has been taking apart the US Constitution since the US Civil War. Consider the War Powers Act for one. The printing of a fiat currency for another. Censorship. Affirmative Action (aka 'reverse discrimination') which is strictly against the principles of the Constitution -- social engineering is ineffective and people, especially when considering generations: time and societies are not algebraic equations; you can't take away from Jim in 1850 and give Joe a handout in 2004 and make up for it. All it does is create a class of people who feel as though society owes them something, which it most surely does not. Clearly the Constitution never allowed for this; if it did, it would have included "inequalty" as its key premise. This does exist because the US government does indeed pervert the US Constituion.
Bastiat wrote of 'legal plunder' which is how the State works. In fact he wrote that the State was 'that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.' Whenever the State gives itself authority that the indiviuals making up that State do not have, it begins to live above the power that created it and by definition must oppress the creating power. That is the mechanism through which principles of civil rights are lost, which is quite different than judging such by contravening current laws. Laws flow from principles, not the other way.
To anyone with ordinary skill in the art, making a translucent window gradually opaque is obvious. Patents are not (well, at least, should not be) granted to the first person to say or do a thing, but to teach others something truly novel and useful, advancing the art in some profound way. This application does no such thing and should be severly narrowed to precisely what they are doing or rejected outright for obviousness (or even silliness).
If someone persistently breaks traffic laws, they lose their priveledge to pilot an automobile. If you break anti-competitive laws, you get barred from that marketplace.
It has been said that it's hitting people in the wallet that really hurts. I don't think so. Hitting them in their ability to fatten their wallets is what truly hurts, and hurts in a way feared in advance and not easily forgotten. Stop Microsoft from developing or releasing anything related to IE or Windows or Office products for two years. Now that would get their attention and cause them to pause before acting with reckless abandon and total disregard for the law.
Those who think that 'what is good for Microsoft is good for America' say that because they fear that hurting Microsoft hurts themselves. But that is simply not true. Sure, there are a lot of jobs at Microsoft, but those jobs exist to answer market demand for the products offered. Bridling a ferocious company like Microsoft does not in any way destroy market demand. In fact the innovation permitted by the destruction of such a dictatorial central planning authority is often the best thing that can happen to an ecosystem. Especially when you consider that Microsoft does not innovate in markets, they distort.
Think of it this way. If you suffered from blindness and could be cured, would you worry about your cure putting your overcharging Braille publisher out of business?
Not automatically buying Microsoft products, not permitting them to adopt and extend, not allowing them to use their cash to pervert the patent system into granting them monopolies on obvious applications of computer science, not allowing them to steal code and hide behind the veil of 'proprietary/secrecy' claims. Microsoft stifles innovation in favor of creating idiot-proof software. But as everyone on /. knows intuitively, create something even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it.
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
What was I thinking?!?
Yeah, maybe, but you know that's who they all learned it from...
But, as a matter of history, Hitler did single out one specific group because they adamantly and absolutely refused to participate in any military or political activies whatsoever. This frustrated Hitler and he said that he 'would exterminate that brood,' simply because he couldn't make them do what he wanted. Jews wore yellow 'Star of David' emblems in concentration camps; the other group, donning purple trianges, who would be let free if they simply denounced their religious faith (ironically because they would not participate in war or politics). Jews were persecuted not for their religious stand, but because an economic villian was needed, and the 'Protocols' manuscript provided the [dubious] argument against the Jews. In the end, Hitler killed Jews for their money, not over their religion or any refusal on their part to 'go along to get along'.
The group given those purple trianges was Jehovah's Witnesses. (Of course, this group refuses to get involved in any politics or military actions, which is why all governments hate them.) So, it's not when you see Jewish people rounded up that there's trouble ahead, but rather when Jehovah's Witnesses get rounded up, that you know the world is in true trouble.
At least they're churning out real geniuses in academia now. I'll bet these guys will soon figure out that if they plug CAT5 cables into wall sockets they can disrupt all the wired LAN stuff withing the area too.
Microsoft gets what it deserves. They are sneaky and underhanded.There is nothing about there actions that should be seen as anything but a cleverly veiled continuation of their need to dominate the world. Is that extreme? Probably -- maybe -- but the true danger is underestimating people like this. And if you don't think that people with the kind of money that these people have -- personally and corporately -- does not influence everything you do, then you have not yet reached adulthood.
Who knows why they are making this particular move. Maybe OSS coders are the only ones cheaper than subcontinent Asians. Maybe they don't want to have to buy out the next GUI design company. One thing's for sure though: This latest move is but another tactic in a blizzard of tactics supporting a neverchanging strategy. It's pure sleight of hand. It never pays to underestimate your foe. And it never hurts to overestimate them.
Momma always said, "never trust anyone that says 'Trust me.'"
Non-profits have the aire of unbiased, pure of mission, free from the distorting effects of greed. But how long will organizations like the Red Cross promote the sale and use of blood and blood products, certainly one of the most dangerous subsantances used in medicine today (this is a very informed opinion, btw), be allowed to continue? So long as the bureaucracy that now feeds off of it can keep itself alive. And like some obese creature with no self control, it will continue to spread death and disease through blood because its propaganda machine keeps convincing people trhat they save lives and should be supported. No doubt its execs get rewarded, even though its abuses are very well documented. And they are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Only some one really really naiive thinks that such money should be given to the fund's execs as a reward for 'doing good.' They most often are rewarded for successfully raising money. But these organizations, while they do offer some releif along the lines of their charters, often just feed money back to their well heeled supporters (advocates, not financial contributors) through fat contracts and whatnot. It's just another form of the ol' perk-trough.
Judas Iscariot thought he should be paid for his non-profit work. Nobody else he worked with thought so, for him or themselves, so he just took some of the 'extra' cash. Should he be excused because he wanted to sell the fragrant oil [used on Jesus just before his execution] and give the proceeds to the poor? Of course not; no matter his stated motive, his true motive was greed and power. Jesus and the others thought differently. Could you imagine Jesus as the president of the United Way? The Red Cross? Of course not, because these companies, while appearing noble in purpose through the thin veil of 'non-profit', are simply masking the real motive for their existence -- profiting personally.
In the end, if you really want to help people, simnply help hose that you know. If you want to do good, do good, but don't go around drawing attention to yourself for doing it. If Robbins wants to resign, he should be allowed to do so without a whole lot of explanation. Though as a Gentoo user I am disappointed and concerned. But he seems, at least, to be someone who gave to the 'community' out of genuine concern. However to justify profligacy of execs of hugely funded 'non-profits' is stretching the point beyond its elasticity. And wrong. I think it was Harry Truman who said, 'the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.' How true.
Beyond that, airplanes do not get their navigation data from inside the plane, where you purport all passenger cell phone energy bounces around. Plus, consider all the people who -- whoops -- forget to shut off their cell phones (which transmit even when you are not yakking). This is FAR from rare or occassional. I'd venture to say there are three or four on every single flight (rare is the flight where at 30,000 feet I don't catch someone shutting their's off, all red-faced and whatnot). Plus the cell phone towers do not just select parked airplanes. Their energy is absorbed and reflected by airplanes at all altitudes. Otherwise when the unfortunate people onboard those planes on 9/11 would never been able to call anyone.
Early tests of satellite TVRO digital signals, which use convolutional coding to correct errors were plaugued by random errors of unexpected signatures and had to adjust their interleaving rates because of passenger airliners passing overhead.
Furthermore, you are allowed to use your cell phone in a closed-up airplane in motion, so long as you are taxing back to the terminal (in the USA, anyway). How does your Farady Cage theory hold up to that fact? The plane is in motion at that point...
And it's not yakking on the phone they object to, it's yakking on a phone for which they get no share of the revenue. The real answer is shielding the navigation systems from external fields. Oh wait, they do that already. Nevermind.
My guess is that hiring the SuSE guy is only the beginning of bills they'll have to pay to close the deals this guy arranges. Unlike Borland, this lone sales guy will probably not crater the Linux/OpenSource/Free Software movement, no more than Benedict Arnold won the war for England.
CF is NAND flash driven by an IDE controller. Most of them are pretty cheezy and it's hard to know which controller you ended up with. Add to that concerns about wear-leveling, extended temperature operation and more than one device per IDE channel, and things can get messy quick. While they work fine for a boot device, SWAPs and other frequent writes are better left to RAM, not CF. Only if it MUST be non-volatile should it go to flash.
But to suggest that cellphone power screws up airplane systems is, well, just plain silly. In the US, the FCC allows cell phone use until the door closes for departure, and on landing and taxing upon arrival. Now, since the plane doesn't know which way it's headed, it seems obvious that power and iterference issues are a diversion. The persistent rumor is that the airphone guys worked a political solution to their at-risk $1 a munite business.
The other obvious proof the real issue is financial/political is the couple-of-kilowatt cellphone tower at the airport. My geuss is these cell towers present just a tad bit more interference than your couple milliwatt cell phone. Add to that the unltrapowerful military radar and civilian radar found around airports, and every other source of radio transmission floating around in the ether these days. Cell phones crashing planes? Great, just let Al Kaida know, he (she? they?) can save a ton of cash not building bombs. Just ring up the seventy virgins and let em know you're on your way. Two birds, one stone.
But of course that's a ridiculous notion, otherwise the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers would have never made it to their targets. In the end, the issue is money and politics (as it always is). The interference issue is propaganda fed to the clueless nailbiters afraid that the kid with the gameboy in the next will crash the plane.
Mod Down: Cogent arguments based uon scientific method, observed fact, experimentation results that support that life was intentionally created by an intelligence = -1 flamebait
Mod Up: Sarcastic retort, lacking any proof or scientific relevence, implying that anyone that is a creationist is an idiot because everybody says so = +3 karma
This is perfectly reliable. To wit:
Bacteria transorms into catfish = Random chance, no intelligence, driven because the bacteria realize that it's better to be a catfish or because there's a lot of water around and bacteria can't swim too well (okay, you make up the reason).
Bacteria and Catfish independent works of an intelligent creator = Pathetic dialog of an ignorant corn-pone Bible thumper capable of any level of higher reasoning
A horse = undeniably the work of environmental forces randomly acting on living organisms that force it to fill an unfilled ecological niche.
Cave painting of a horse = irrefutable proof that an intelligent being capable of cognative thought existed there.
Native American tribesman = Random chance, just like the horse and the catfish, no doubt nature's hit-or-miss, blind chance way of addressing the buffalo overpopulation (or whatever the reason is that steers the "blind watchmaker").
Stone arrowhead = irrefutable proof that an intelligent Native American tribesman capable of cognative thought existed there.
CCD Camera chip = Random chance creates a light sensitive organism because of a needed ecological niche.
The Human Eye = The work of thousands and thousands of intelligent creatures refining industrial processes, manipulating the laws of the physical universe to create a part of a vision system.
(oh crap...I might have actually gotten the last two reversed...hrumph)
Check any museum display or scientific textbook and these "facts" will be listed there (reverse the last two for yourselves). But obviously, if a stone arrowhead could not happen by chance, then how could the infinitely more complex human arise by chance? It would be nice if someone who was an evolutionist and a competent mathematician (statistician) would compute odds on the arrowhead appearing randomly, and then for the human appearing randomly. Or the painting of a horse, and then for the living horse prototype. This would be according to the scientific method, and the answer, which is so intuitively obvious would show that since evolution is based on statistics (it's never been shown to actually work according to theory experimentally) would show that what we say could not happen randomly is millions of time MORE likely to occur than what we say MUST have happened randomly.
The relevance to the original post? Well, that post was yet another ridiculous theory to say how life got here on Earth without having been intentionally created. Now we've got theories on how rocks ricocheting off planets with little bits of life stuck to them spread it around the universe. Just keep it completely incomprehensible and have a guy in a lab coat say it, and it is taken on face value.
Of course the obvious issue for evolutionists is that the mere existence of this panspermia mars-rock-as-life-transport-vehicle article and the attention it garners proves conclusively that "evolution" is still a a collection of theories -- hypotheses actually -- and that it cannot be "fact". If it were fact no one would be disputing how it worked at the most basic level. But evolutionists who say they agree on the "facts" can't even decide whether panspermia is correct or it was abiogenesis or organic soup or whatever. Even Stanley Miller, the organic soup experimenter died without ever being able to prove his theories. Sure he rigged a simple chemistry experiment, but he never showed one shred of evidence that those conditions ever
Ooohhh, so, that's how they make "gold leaf"...
just read /. twice a day. "troll" that.
But these same people did, and do, claim that all life on earth has evolved into this hypercomplex, delicately balanced, symbiotic and interdependent system so intricately interwoven that even the simplest-to-understand ecosystems defy completely accurate understanding, even after millenia of study. These claim that this could only be a matter of happenstance, and the former could not be, and that those who would even suggest rocketships self-create and then evolve are intellectual cripples, pathetically clinging to myth.
Now, about the environment: Evolutionists claim (and this is one ramification of this silly article) that life can spontaneously create itself according to whatever conditions exist and then progress and adapt according to changing environmental conditions. It is claimed that intelligent people are newer than apes, which are newer than fish, and so on, because the process is "naturally" biased toward stepwise refinement, relentlessly increasing complexity to deal with adversity and fill ever newer niches, based on the laws of [unimaginably impossible-to-calculate] "statistics" and "blind chance". This is a completely accurate summary of evolutionary theory. This theory mandates that we not preserve the environment, because to do so would be to shut off the engine that powers evolution itself. Evolutionary change would be stifled and then no better, more refined species would be able to emerge. Rather, it mandates that we do all we can to change it so we can see better and more perfect species appear as a result. This statement is 100% supported and encouraged by all the commonly held beliefs of evolutionary theory.
On the other hand, if a creationist had said that the meteorite slammed into Earth so hard that it bounced all the way to Mars with a bit living organism stuck to it because God threw it really hard at the Earth, the laughter would be so thunderous that we'd all bounce to Mars (so as to start a new colony, since some would sureley mutate into viable Martian organisms in flight, no doubt). But say that all that happened for no particular reason at all, it becomes a subject for billions of dollars in research grants. In the end, what you believe comes down to core motive: the blind chance theory justifies its adherents complete selfishness, because survival of the fittest is a doctrine rooted in selfishness.
But there is straightforward test of this meteorite-as-flubber theory: Put a tiny piece of life on one of those metorite rocks and shoot it to the moon, add water to it when it gets there and see if it comes to life. If not, the theory is absolutely wrong and disproven according to the tenets of the scientific method.