And so you know, no, I will not argue "but every missing link discovered creates two more." I would, however, like an answer to the question you alluded to: If a part has no useful purpose in the current generation, why is it passed on?
It's a false argument. It presumes the ID crowd's mechanism of evolution, which says a complex system can only evolve by the slow accumulation of all it's parts, none of which had any useful function until the last part evolved into existence. But this simply ignores the possibility that might be other pathways to an irreducibly complex system. For example, what if some of the parts had a different function prior to becoming part of the irreducibly complex set? What if the set wasn't irreducibly complex in the past, but lost some proteins until the set that remained was irreducibly complex?
Or how about this conundrum. What if there was an "irreducibly complex" set of proteins performing a vital function, then some unrelated protein randomly evolved in a way that caused it to be better than one of the existing proteins. This made one of the proteins redundant, which then disappeared ('evolved away') leaving no trace. The remaining set is again "irreducibly complex". By observing the second set, can we now conclude that it was "intelligently designed"?
Let me tell you about an incident I had with another (non-Google) mail provider. I used to pay an email provider for IMAP access. Due to some software glitches while trying to move email between boxees, (long story,) I lost everything in my Inbox. I wrote them, asked them what I could do. They said, "We make tape backups every night. We can restore all your email within the week."
I was thrilled at the time. (Still am.) But I realize this has privacy implications. No one ever goes over the old tapes to delete files you no longer want. Most IT departments have backup policies where they retain at least some snapshots for months or years, if not FOREVER. Whether they made the copy to help out poor users who accidentally delete their thesis or to CYA in case of catastrophy that's completely beside the point. Copies of your deleted email exist, and can always be subpoenad by a court.
You're not safe just because you don't use webmail or IMAP. If you use a POP provider, there's likely some backup tape running over the POP server. There may be smaller windows of time that your data could get recorded, but short of encryption, absolute privacy is an elusive concept when you're using a store-and-forward network for communcation. (What part of "store" don't you understand?)
Perhaps you've never worked outside an academic setting?
There are these people out there called "businessmen" who (a) tend to be in charge, and (b) don't think like engineers. They frequently ignore the advice of opinionated engineers who say things like, "Lets build a few features with excellent design, cleanly written code, and then test them to death. Oh, and we'll have to refactor half the system, but it's obviously worth it!" Instead, they insist that the programmers operate under different objectives - strange things like "shortest time to market" and "feature lists that sound good to marketing." Clean design and quality code are frequently sacrificed on the alter of the (perceived) profitability.
This is not to say all coders are design affectionados and all businessmen are short-sited profit maximizers, but it has been known to happen now and again.
We find the performance of punch cards alarming: punch cards are an established technology and the residual vote rate [spoiled or unmarked ballots] of this technology is nearly double that of alternatives.
Hardly what one would call "extreemly accuate", though I won't quibble with "economical".
The commonly describe approach is a receipt printed behind glass that the user can inspect. He presses one of two buttons, to either accept the paper or shred it. He never touches the receipt directly (so even he can't alter it.)
my guess about why redhat is not offering indemnification is that it would be setting itself up as an easy target.
My guess is much different.
One possible outcome of the SCO affair is that companies become convinced that all Open Source Software requires idemnification before it can be used in an enterprise. This would be a terrible blow to the Open Source Movement as a whole. Once convinced of the need for idemnification, then your own corporate lawyers will insist that no one in the company ever use any Open Source Software, unless it is provided through some distributor that has agreed to offer idemnification.
The need for an idemnifying distributor will undermine the use of open source in the corporate world. It will either become just as inconvenient to obtain as commercial software, or it will be precluded altogether if no idemnifying distributer can be found. The Open Source movement as a whole will suffer a horrible setback.
I like to think that one of the reasons Red Hat chooses not to offer idenmification is because they know that conceding the argument to SCO is tantemount to destroying Open Source. They are standing by the principle that Linux in particular (and Open Source in general) does not need indeminfication, and I admire them for seeking a declaratory judgement to that effect, rather than caving into SCO's underhanded attempt to undermine the Open Source Software movement by giving into the pressure to idemnify.
I have to agree that "walking out because I couldn't find the cash register" is definitely stealing.
But I know what it's like to walk around trying to find a cash register in one of these places. On a recent trip to Circuit City, there was no cash register anywhere near the front of the store. It was "conveniently" stuck in a back corner with a sign "customer service".
Moreover, since when does a slanted piece by an unabashed liberal partisan complaining about the political opposition actually qualify as "stuff that matters
Your link for support to MediaResearch.org. This is the same media research.org that has the slogan:
The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias
And I'm supposed to trust their opinion as more unbiased than the person their slandering? How about some non-partisan review?
-- mark
BTW, a brief google search found media bias watchdog groups of the left and of the right. Anyone know a media watchdog group that is ostensibly non-partisan?
There's a problem with this "pay for yourself" theory. The phone companies still need to build the capability to switch into their phone service, or it isn't possible for anyone to switch. >Of course, they don't want to build that into their system, because (1) it costs them moeny and (2) it defeats the marketing leverage that "lock-in" provides. They only provide number portability because the government mandated that they do so.
I think it should be born by everyone. Even those who don't take advantage of number portability benefit from it's availability. The companies will compete harder to keep your business.
Hmmm. What about companies offering a discount for people who explicity request non-portable numbers? Not sure if I like this, but it's an idea.
You need a new cell phone number to prompt you to contact people you haven't talked to in years?
There's already a social convention for this. It's called "Christmas Cards".
-- mark
Slashdot Mirror
It's a false argument. It presumes the ID crowd's mechanism of evolution, which says a complex system can only evolve by the slow accumulation of all it's parts, none of which had any useful function until the last part evolved into existence. But this simply ignores the possibility that might be other pathways to an irreducibly complex system. For example, what if some of the parts had a different function prior to becoming part of the irreducibly complex set? What if the set wasn't irreducibly complex in the past, but lost some proteins until the set that remained was irreducibly complex?
Or how about this conundrum. What if there was an "irreducibly complex" set of proteins performing a vital function, then some unrelated protein randomly evolved in a way that caused it to be better than one of the existing proteins. This made one of the proteins redundant, which then disappeared ('evolved away') leaving no trace. The remaining set is again "irreducibly complex". By observing the second set, can we now conclude that it was "intelligently designed"?
Gee, this is fun.
I was thrilled at the time. (Still am.) But I realize this has privacy implications. No one ever goes over the old tapes to delete files you no longer want. Most IT departments have backup policies where they retain at least some snapshots for months or years, if not FOREVER. Whether they made the copy to help out poor users who accidentally delete their thesis or to CYA in case of catastrophy that's completely beside the point. Copies of your deleted email exist, and can always be subpoenad by a court.
You're not safe just because you don't use webmail or IMAP. If you use a POP provider, there's likely some backup tape running over the POP server. There may be smaller windows of time that your data could get recorded, but short of encryption, absolute privacy is an elusive concept when you're using a store-and-forward network for communcation. (What part of "store" don't you understand?)
And while your at it, you might also want to lookup some of the law on Common Carriage. Eg. http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/defcc.htm
There are these people out there called "businessmen" who (a) tend to be in charge, and (b) don't think like engineers. They frequently ignore the advice of opinionated engineers who say things like, "Lets build a few features with excellent design, cleanly written code, and then test them to death. Oh, and we'll have to refactor half the system, but it's obviously worth it!" Instead, they insist that the programmers operate under different objectives - strange things like "shortest time to market" and "feature lists that sound good to marketing." Clean design and quality code are frequently sacrificed on the alter of the (perceived) profitability.
This is not to say all coders are design affectionados and all businessmen are short-sited profit maximizers, but it has been known to happen now and again.
It would help when making such statements if you were prepared to back them up. How about research from the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project that did some comparisions. According to their 2001 Report on Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment (executive summary),
Hardly what one would call "extreemly accuate", though I won't quibble with "economical".
The commonly describe approach is a receipt printed behind glass that the user can inspect. He presses one of two buttons, to either accept the paper or shred it. He never touches the receipt directly (so even he can't alter it.)
One possible outcome of the SCO affair is that companies become convinced that all Open Source Software requires idemnification before it can be used in an enterprise. This would be a terrible blow to the Open Source Movement as a whole. Once convinced of the need for idemnification, then your own corporate lawyers will insist that no one in the company ever use any Open Source Software, unless it is provided through some distributor that has agreed to offer idemnification.
The need for an idemnifying distributor will undermine the use of open source in the corporate world. It will either become just as inconvenient to obtain as commercial software, or it will be precluded altogether if no idemnifying distributer can be found. The Open Source movement as a whole will suffer a horrible setback.
I like to think that one of the reasons Red Hat chooses not to offer idenmification is because they know that conceding the argument to SCO is tantemount to destroying Open Source. They are standing by the principle that Linux in particular (and Open Source in general) does not need indeminfication, and I admire them for seeking a declaratory judgement to that effect, rather than caving into SCO's underhanded attempt to undermine the Open Source Software movement by giving into the pressure to idemnify.
I have to agree that "walking out because I couldn't find the cash register" is definitely stealing. But I know what it's like to walk around trying to find a cash register in one of these places. On a recent trip to Circuit City, there was no cash register anywhere near the front of the store. It was "conveniently" stuck in a back corner with a sign "customer service".
Your link for support to MediaResearch.org. This is the same media research.org that has the slogan:
And I'm supposed to trust their opinion as more unbiased than the person their slandering? How about some non-partisan review?-- mark
BTW, a brief google search found media bias watchdog groups of the left and of the right. Anyone know a media watchdog group that is ostensibly non-partisan?
I think it should be born by everyone. Even those who don't take advantage of number portability benefit from it's availability. The companies will compete harder to keep your business.
Hmmm. What about companies offering a discount for people who explicity request non-portable numbers? Not sure if I like this, but it's an idea.
You need a new cell phone number to prompt you to contact people you haven't talked to in years? There's already a social convention for this. It's called "Christmas Cards". -- mark