This entire story is about the tivo clause. The clause would prevent anyone from using the software without providing the means to run modified versions. In the case of embedded hardware that would mean the drivers and reading the source of the drivers gives you the specifications. Yes it is indirect, hence the qualifier 'essentially'.
'The question is, does this new system violate the leter or the spirit of GPL3? (I'm asking honestly here--I can't quite wrap my head around it.)'
It depends on how broadly you interpret the spirit of the GPL. Under this scheme you'd run Linux in a VM. Therefore, you could modify the GPL'd code and update it in the VM. Now, if you believe that is the whole of the SPIRIT of the GPL then there is no problem.
However, this is being done for the sole purpose of bypassing a clause in the GPLv3 that would require the manufacturer to essentially open the specifications of the device. The primary reason manufacturers don't want you to have the specs is that they like to take a device and disable functions in software then sell the exact same device at a higher price without the artificial limitations. If they provide the specs then 'modified' firmware that turns on all the device functions will appear, like that for Tivo, Linksys devices, etc.
I personally believe the idea behind the free software movement and the GPL is about more than just opening source. I believe that opening the source is just a mechanism for achieving a higher aim that empowers the user to be able to fully control their own system (provided they have the skill and abilities to do so). Whether it be a playstation, an xbox, a tivo, a wireless router, a cablebox, a general purpose computer, or a fancy wristwatch; a computer is a computer is a computer and the GPL was just a tool created by a group aiming to create a fully open system that empowered to program and control their own computer. After all, it isn't Sony's playstation, Microsoft's XBox, or Linksys's router; when you bought it, they lost all right to any say in how that device is used or modified.
'So long as the crackpot theories (of which there are dozens at least, and an infinite number in theory) are allowed equal consideration with the realistic ones, we are unlikely to be able to find out what exactly is going on since we do not have the immense (tending towards infinite) resources required to investigate the problem.'
Instead of debating the details to the end of time I think we can safely conclude that this is the real meat of the argument. It is a fundemental flaw in thinking that I have seen many times. It is an apparent conflict between peer review and the basic principles of logic. It is a fallacy to believe information is true or untrue based upon the source. Any time you do so you are acting based upon unsound logic. The entire discipline of statistics you mentioned earlier is unsound logically. It is fortune telling, as demonstrated by the resounding number of products that fail.
Unfortunately, you are right. In the real world there are finite resources and statistics is the best method of GUESSING the best places to look first. The problem comes in when people forget that statistics are not a true math, science, or logic and you can not actually remove anything from the possibilities list based upon statistics. The most you can do is order your list of things to do.
So, while investing claims of ESP and invisible pink unicorns might be so low on your todo list that it never happens; you are wrong if you close your mind to the possibility or ignore the finding of people who have not. If YOU witnessed the paranormal or ESP you might it suddenly rate it quite a bit higher on that todo list eh? And you wouldn't be wrong either. Unlike actual possibilities, priorities are subjective.
"ludicrous claims... allowed equal consideration with the realistic ones"
I suppose that really depends on WHY you think they are ludicrous or realistic.
'Incidentally, this is exactly the reason why we have developed, and adopted, the scientific method. It's very good at filtering out the crud and leaving us with viable theories.'
The scientific method has not ruled out crackpots, ESP, or the paranormal.
'Scientific data usually speaks to the probability of events occurring.'
The data doesn't speak at all. It is the scientists who infer a probability based on that data. If the probability isn't of the observation occurring again then they are on shaky ground indeed. The GP wasn't referring to the likelihood of an observation occurring again, he was speaking of the likelihood of different as yet untested claims being true and that science does not determine.
Thank you for pointing out that a clarification was needed.:)
'Of course. That's why science relies on well-defined, repeatable lab experiments and peer review.'
And how do you know about those experiments? Those experiments, and the interpretation of their results comes down to the witness who observed and interpreted them. To witness and to observe are the same thing. In science the fact that you must rely on witnesses is accepted and so peer review comes into play, where other scientists then become witnesses to corroborate. The more who have witnessed a phenomenon the more sound it is considered.
Not all science occurs within a lab. Studies that include interviews are also often used. When researching you try to control as many variables as possible but ask a meteorologist dropping instrumentation into a hurricane and you will discover that sometimes we don't get to define the variables. That doesn't make it any less science.
'But that isn't in any way a useful observation.'
It is a useful observation. Only idiots reach conclusions on topics when there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion. As for extraordinary claims, there is no such thing as an extraordinary claim. All possibilities are equal and if you believe otherwise then you have a bias that will skew your results. Claims are claims and evidence is evidence, two claims with an equal amount are supporting evidence are equally valid regardless of your subjective opinion that one is 'extraordinary'.
'This evidence has yet to materialize'
There is a great deal of evidence as previously discussed. There is no particular reason to believe otherwise and therefore the subject is still up in the air.
'so believing in it is about as rational as believing in invisible pink unicorns'
Make up your mind, are they pink or are they invisible? I agree, believing in something without evidence is not rational. It is equally irrational to disbelieve something without evidence that contradicts it. That isn't the way it works, it isn't that everything we have verifiable and repeatable evidence for exists and nothing else. Its that everything we have verifiable and repeatable evidence for exists and everything that results aren't in anything that doesn't contradict that evidence.
'More likely than not, however, if you have had such an experience chances are that you were deceived either by your own senses (which literally happens all the time since all your sensory input is constantly subject to interpretation, filtering and embellishment by your brain)'
That is certainly a possibility. That is why we have peer review or in the layman's world, other people who have had similar experiences. Again, there are far too many acccounts to simply dismiss out of hand and therefore they require an explanation. I am not saying that ESP (or the paranormal) is that explanation only that one is needed.
It wouldn't be paying to purchase stuff. If you buy something from a foreign hosted site you have purchase the material in that nation, if the material is legal there then according to treaty is legal when imported to your home nation (aka, downloaded after purchase).
That was the whole debate with allofmp3.com. IF the material really was legal under russian law, the copies you purchased were legal well. The only real debate was whether or not the material WAS legal under russian law.
'The problem is, eyewitness accounts aren't very credible, as the "gorilla experiment" dramatically showed.'
Without question. Unfortunately eyewitness accounts are the basis of our belief we exist and the core of the idea that there is a natural world to be observed. Without believing in a fundemental validity to our subjective views of reality as they correspond to the subjective views to others there can be no scientific method, no observations, and no reproducing of results.
If we do not accept that perception of reality as corroborated by those around us is valid evidence then the natural world, reality, and the scientific method are all invalid and the discussion is moot. If we do accept those concepts, then you might dismiss an eyewitness, you might dismiss a couple eyewitnesses, you can not dismiss millions of eyewitnesses. Instead you must accept that millions of eyewitnesses as an aggregate constitute objective evidence of SOMETHING. What the something is, is another matter entirely.
'("reverse engineering" the brain is producing a theory).'
The brain is an objective machine. Once we understand how a machine operates and can observe all aspects of its operation that operation IS an observation (therefore fact) and no longer a theory. No theory on the capabilities of the brain can be sound when we lack a rudimentary understanding of how it functions. You can make them all day long but they are wasted ink and breath. In fact, I would question the validity of calling them theories at all.
'What you mean to say is "what people, based on their own subjective notions, peer pressure, and world view believe to be their understanding of what they think they've see"'
You do realize the exact same statement can be made about the majority of scientific research. Believing that the observations of scientists are somehow superior to the observations of other credible witnesses is simple arrogance. That is what witnessing is, whether it is a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer, or the guy carrying a 'Christ is coming!' sign on the side of the road.
'which, just like a witness to a crime, can mean a whole lot of NOTHING when it comes to sizing up reality and causality.'
Exactly, which is why with all witnesses (be they scientists or otherwise) it is critical to have others independently witness the same thing. The more others the better. Millions of witnesses constitutes evidence that is strong enough it must be explained rather than dismissed.
Jeez here it is, not even Tuesday and I have managed to make an observation that you'd have to be a hypocrite to disagree with and somehow managed to get half the 'objective' minds on Slashdot attempting to use rhetoric and construct a strawman. I never argued that ESP is real, I only proposed that there is not sufficient evidence to evaluate whether or not ESP is real.
'No, I happen to be a scientist who believes in the scientific method. I have read a fair amount about paranormal phenomena, and it is my belief that in all probability it's just wishful thinking. A lot of people have shown off a lot of numbers that look like they support ESP.'
A lot of people have shown a lot of numbers that look they support a lot of things. Most of the time the numbers are accepted as evidence. If there is any reason to dismiss the numbers it is that we haven't even really begun to comprehend and reverse engineer the brain and that our knowledge is too primitive to safely reach any conclusions.
That said, I tend to agree with you that in all probability ESP is probably just wishful thinking. I just hate to see someone damned for pursuing ideas outside the status quo. Joop may be a crackpot or not, he may be right, he may be wrong, but his current ideas should stand or fall on their own merit.
'So, you think science is something like democracy, if enough people believe in something then it must be true?'
I don't recall mentioning what people believe. I recall mentioning what people have WITNESSED.
'To me, credibility is pretty much linked to repeatability.'
You mean like a second person witnessing the phenomenon on a subsequent occasion?
'In order for something to be credible it must be either replicated or shown by a well-reasoned chain of evidence to be possible.'
That is a fairly poor standard in practice. There are numerous events that neither repeat nor are the most reasonable outcome. Can you honestly say you have never been in a situation where you were the only witness and what occurred was not the most likely thing? It has happened to me thousands of times in life and I doubt I am the only one.
'Yes, it does. Ask any judge, any lawyer, any juror. Would you like to be convicted of a crime based solely on unreliable evidence presented by the DA?'
They wouldn't be much of a lawyer/judge/juror. The standard for conviction is not whether it is likely you committed the crime but whether a reasonable person could believe there is a chance you did not commit the crime. The same is true of dismissing things that have been witnessed by millions of separate individuals who have demonstrated a repeated history of honesty and reliability. It would be like claiming that the existence of the squirrel is unlikely despite everyone seeing them in their backyard, the researcher who bothered to look didn't find any when he checked so they must not exist.
'If you report a phenomenon that (a) no one can repeat and (b) negates facts that we know both from the labs and from day-to-day experience, then you are in trouble.'
Lots of people have repeated this phenomenon. Nobody is even saying it CAN'T be repeated in a lab, only that it hasn't. As for (b) ESP doesn't negate any facts known from labs or day-to-day experience (not that you can safely invoke day-to-day experience after dismissing the day-to-day experiences of millions of credible eye witnesses). If it runs contrary to anything it is a few hypothesis in a rather young field.
'Yes, there is. Millions of children have put a tooth under their pillows and found a bicycle in the porch next morning.'
'Would you mind linking to that supporting data? I've never heard of any well-executed experiments that support ESP.'
I never said anything about experiments. The only well executed experiments i know of (supporting or otherwise) regarding ESP are ongoing at MIT. The supporting data I am referring to are credible (by any definition that does not automatically assume an ESP report is intristically not credible) eyewitness accounts. Inability to recreate ESP in a lab isn't proof of anything, there are no shortage of conditions that are difficult to replicate in the lab.
I'm not saying I believe in ESP. I am not an individual who feels compelled to choose a side before the results are in. All I am saying is that the results aren't in and in my mind the results won't be in until we are able to reverse engineer the brain. More than that, we will probably need to reverse engineer a lot of brains to eliminate the possibility.
'How many would you need to be convinced that ESP does not exist? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?'
None. So long as there are millions of credible reports in the field no failure to replicate the condition in a lab would prove to me that the condition can not exist. As a technician there are no shortage of conditions my customers have reported that I have been unable to replicate, that hardware manufacturers and software firms have been unable to replicate. I might like to dismiss these strays reports as mistakes but if there are enough of them I am forced to accept that the conditions are occurring and the failure is on the part of myself/firms/manufacturers.
If ESP is to be shown not to occur it will be through a more perfect understanding of how the brain DOES function. There are loonies who would have you believe we know nothing of how the brain functions, the only ones worse are the neurologists who would have you believe the scant data we have on the brain constitutes anything like a rudimentary understanding of its function.
'ESP is about as likely as creationism'
Neither are especially likely or unlikely.
'the people believing in it are using the same thought processes as the made-in-seven-days crowd'
The made in seven days crowd are beginning with an elaborate myth and assuming it is true without evidence. I would agree that those who believe in ESP fall in that category as well. The same is true of anyone who believes ESP does not exist, or has a belief in creationism or a lack thereof. The only ones who do not fall into this crowd are those who refuse to adopt a belief on a topic without substantial evidence.
'Science can disprove nothing.'
Science can in fact disprove very specific things. Objective findings can eliminate possibilities. That's is what science does, it is a process by which we gather data, form possible conclusions based upon the data and hope to disprove those conclusions by continuing to gather more data.
'What it can do is collect evidence'
Right.
'give us likelyhoods'
Wrong. Science does not give likelyhoods poor scientists do. Good scientists collect data and let the data determine what is and is not.
'With no reliable evidence supporting it, ESP is as likely as the tooth fairy.'
Reliablity of evidence does not determine likelyhood. Reality is fairly likely even when we have observed NO evidence of it yet. There is no evidence of a tooth fairy credible or otherwise. ESP has not been confirmed in the lab but there are mountains of credible eyewitness accounts (even more that are not credible and that is why closed minded fools dismiss the possibility).
The lab may not be as far away as you think either. There are ongoing experiments at MIT where individuals are able to influence robots with thought in a manner that consistently beats statistical probabilities.
The brain is a complex machine and we do not understand the technology. Until we do, only an idiot would reach conclusions about its capabilities.
'Our friend Joop has also published a lot of work on ESP and paranormal activity'
What's your point? There is substantial data supporting both and thus far no data that would rule out the possibility of either. Unlike creationism both could theoretically be disproven given continued observation. Oh wait, you must be one of those crackpots who somehow thinks science is a field for people with CLOSED minds that already believe they know the answers to the big questions.
'taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network'
This is ridiculous. Simply because Joe Sixpack doesn't know how to secure his wireless does not mean he doesn't care about whether or not it is secure. Most 'techs' can't secure a wifi network properly. Further, even if we assume that caring would automatically mean the network would be secured (not a safe assumption) we certainly couldn't assume that Joe has any reason to believe his wifi isn't secure out of the box. After all, Joe bought the middle priced unit, not the cheap crap.
Even if Joe both cared and knew his network was insecure that doesn't mean Joe is technically literate enough to resolve the issue himself. Anyone who has conversed with Linksys tech support knows they can't help Joe. If Joe can't afford to pay a technician to secure the network (IMHO all setup of wireless networks, computer networks, internet connections, computers, printers, and software should be performed by competent technicians but that is another story) then Joe is basically stuck having an unsecure network or no network. Now, choosing to have an unsecure network over no network might be called a degree of apathy but only by a purist.
'So, if, hypothetically, an undersea volcanic eruption were to cause a new island to form in the Pacific, and the USA sent a warship there before anyone else, and claimed it, who would own it?'
It depends on where it is. But for the sake of this example lets say it pops up in international waters. If that is the case then no, according to treaties nations can no longer plant a flag and claim international territory. That said, even in the old days those claims were only worth the weapons used to defend them and the same would be true if a nation claimed territory in defiance of treaties today.
'If the answer is the USA, would they then be allowed to sell it to private individuals? If not, why not?'
If the answer were the USA then of course they would. But here is the issue, that property doesn't really belong to the federal government, anymore than the radio waves do. It belongs to the people. I for one don't care to to trade off my rights to use that spectrum so that the FCC can sell it to the highest bidder and I likely wouldn't want to trade my right to enjoy the beaches of that pacific island so the government could sell it to the highest bidder.
Dear god, imagine that a coastline that hasn't been parceled and sold off to private citizens. Here in Miami you literally can't get to the water without paying fees, without knowing where to go you can't even get a view of the beaches without paying fees.
I see people get modded down for making anti-ms and pro-linux comments more than anything. People always make comments like yours and I do believe that the actual readership is mostly pro-linux and pro-open but there are paid Slashdroids these days.
All very useful indeed but Hurd is the only one in the list that is an operating system. The rest are tools that could be combined with a number of operating systems to make a productive system.
Enough of this nonsense. The 'GNU/Linux' people lost this debate years ago and for good reason. Any University OS Design course will teach you how to write an OPERATING SYSTEM KERNEL and no amount of support for the good work of the GNU project can change that definition.
'If I remember correctly, they were given the land of Israel by, in fact, the United Nations in 1948... or, well, they approved at least. I guess Britain technically "owned" it.'
If you ask the British or I'm sure the Jews. If you ask anyone else in the middle east I think you would hear a different story.
'Indeed.. rise and fall of nations apparently is entirely... well, mostly based on force. Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Turks, English, American...'
No question about it and that only makes sense. After all, a 'nation' is a body that imposes its will upon the peoples of as large an area as possible by threatening to harm them in some way if they don't obey it.
'Basically, both Jews and Muslims claim the "holy land" as their own. So, who do we support, then, or do we just let them blow themselves to bits?'
Sounds like a fairly reasonable choice to me. If a bunch of idiots want to classify themselves based upon some ridiculous mythology they have chosen to believe and further want to attack others who believe in different invisible men then I say let them have at it. I for one am rather annoyed that one of these invisible man worshiping idiots rigged an election and proceeded to embroil my nation into this nonsense.
'Seems to me that, if the issue IS a religious one, if the issue IS whose holy land it is, we should go with the historically accurate one... and I would argue that, to be historically accurate, we would have to say it belongs to the Jews.'
Seems to me that we have clearly established the issue is NOT a religious one and has nothing to do with holy lands. We have established rather soundly that the issue is one of nations and that nations are an issue of force. I say we fail to recognize any government in the middle east until it stabilizes (no matter how many thousands of years that might be), trade with anyone who has money and sell weapons to anyone who has money. As for the invisible men granting holy lands, lets just leave them to the nuts shall we?
The operating system is the lowest level software abstraction to the hardware. The lines have become blurred nowdays but generally speaking, that is the kernel. Contrary to what some (*cough* GNU) would have you believe the operating system is NOT the user environment and does not include a shell or utilities to interact with users.
GNU provides tools that are very useful and help make any operating system they are run on a productive interface. There probably wouldn't be a Linux OS without them. That doesn't somehow make them part of the OS however.
'Mac OS-X, (like all the Unixes), is closer to being a "real" OS than Linux or Windows'
In what world? Perhaps you have some sort of strange unspoken defintion of "real" the rest of us aren't using? OSX isn't an operating system at all. The operating system is Darwin (its kernel to be technical) and the distribution that is based on that operating system is OSX. Linux is a real and complete operating system and there are many distributions based on it. Windows is both an operating system and a distribution.
'Dissing it as "not a real OS" or "not available for general use" is an exaggeration at best, or really just a troll.'
I wouldn't really go around saying it isn't a real OS (technical distinctions aside) but 'not available for general use' certainly applies. Most of us define general use for an operating system as 'general use on commodity hardware'.
'Also, your argument about licensing out the Mac OS has been shot down so many times I won't even bother to get into it.'
It's been discussed anyway. I'm pretty sure the only ones who walk away feeling it was shut down were those who felt that way from the get go.
'you seem woefully... biased in general. OS-X is... arguably the best desktop operating system'
Perhaps you should consider yourself before saying others are biased. OSX being the best desktop operating system is something that MOST informed individuals would dispute (I don't give my own opinion because its beside the point).
Like it or not, not everyone who makes a negative comment about MacOS, Mac's, or Apple is a troll and this is an open forum where people are entitled to think OSX, Linux, or Windows sucks. If you are modding people down simply because they think your pet system sucks you are abusing moderation privs. In fact, if you (or anyone) are modding people down for any reason you are probably using the moderation system incorrectly. Moderation is primarily intended for modding up worthwhile comments, not censoring comments you feel unworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
This entire story is about the tivo clause. The clause would prevent anyone from using the software without providing the means to run modified versions. In the case of embedded hardware that would mean the drivers and reading the source of the drivers gives you the specifications. Yes it is indirect, hence the qualifier 'essentially'.
'The question is, does this new system violate the leter or the spirit of GPL3? (I'm asking honestly here--I can't quite wrap my head around it.)'
It depends on how broadly you interpret the spirit of the GPL. Under this scheme you'd run Linux in a VM. Therefore, you could modify the GPL'd code and update it in the VM. Now, if you believe that is the whole of the SPIRIT of the GPL then there is no problem.
However, this is being done for the sole purpose of bypassing a clause in the GPLv3 that would require the manufacturer to essentially open the specifications of the device. The primary reason manufacturers don't want you to have the specs is that they like to take a device and disable functions in software then sell the exact same device at a higher price without the artificial limitations. If they provide the specs then 'modified' firmware that turns on all the device functions will appear, like that for Tivo, Linksys devices, etc.
I personally believe the idea behind the free software movement and the GPL is about more than just opening source. I believe that opening the source is just a mechanism for achieving a higher aim that empowers the user to be able to fully control their own system (provided they have the skill and abilities to do so). Whether it be a playstation, an xbox, a tivo, a wireless router, a cablebox, a general purpose computer, or a fancy wristwatch; a computer is a computer is a computer and the GPL was just a tool created by a group aiming to create a fully open system that empowered to program and control their own computer. After all, it isn't Sony's playstation, Microsoft's XBox, or Linksys's router; when you bought it, they lost all right to any say in how that device is used or modified.
'So long as the crackpot theories (of which there are dozens at least, and an infinite number in theory) are allowed equal consideration with the realistic ones, we are unlikely to be able to find out what exactly is going on since we do not have the immense (tending towards infinite) resources required to investigate the problem.'
Instead of debating the details to the end of time I think we can safely conclude that this is the real meat of the argument. It is a fundemental flaw in thinking that I have seen many times. It is an apparent conflict between peer review and the basic principles of logic. It is a fallacy to believe information is true or untrue based upon the source. Any time you do so you are acting based upon unsound logic. The entire discipline of statistics you mentioned earlier is unsound logically. It is fortune telling, as demonstrated by the resounding number of products that fail.
Unfortunately, you are right. In the real world there are finite resources and statistics is the best method of GUESSING the best places to look first. The problem comes in when people forget that statistics are not a true math, science, or logic and you can not actually remove anything from the possibilities list based upon statistics. The most you can do is order your list of things to do.
So, while investing claims of ESP and invisible pink unicorns might be so low on your todo list that it never happens; you are wrong if you close your mind to the possibility or ignore the finding of people who have not. If YOU witnessed the paranormal or ESP you might it suddenly rate it quite a bit higher on that todo list eh? And you wouldn't be wrong either. Unlike actual possibilities, priorities are subjective.
"ludicrous claims... allowed equal consideration with the realistic ones"
I suppose that really depends on WHY you think they are ludicrous or realistic.
'Incidentally, this is exactly the reason why we have developed, and adopted, the scientific method. It's very good at filtering out the crud and leaving us with viable theories.'
The scientific method has not ruled out crackpots, ESP, or the paranormal.
'Scientific data usually speaks to the probability of events occurring.'
:)
The data doesn't speak at all. It is the scientists who infer a probability based on that data. If the probability isn't of the observation occurring again then they are on shaky ground indeed. The GP wasn't referring to the likelihood of an observation occurring again, he was speaking of the likelihood of different as yet untested claims being true and that science does not determine.
Thank you for pointing out that a clarification was needed.
'Of course. That's why science relies on well-defined, repeatable lab experiments and peer review.'
And how do you know about those experiments? Those experiments, and the interpretation of their results comes down to the witness who observed and interpreted them. To witness and to observe are the same thing. In science the fact that you must rely on witnesses is accepted and so peer review comes into play, where other scientists then become witnesses to corroborate. The more who have witnessed a phenomenon the more sound it is considered.
Not all science occurs within a lab. Studies that include interviews are also often used. When researching you try to control as many variables as possible but ask a meteorologist dropping instrumentation into a hurricane and you will discover that sometimes we don't get to define the variables. That doesn't make it any less science.
'But that isn't in any way a useful observation.'
It is a useful observation. Only idiots reach conclusions on topics when there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion. As for extraordinary claims, there is no such thing as an extraordinary claim. All possibilities are equal and if you believe otherwise then you have a bias that will skew your results. Claims are claims and evidence is evidence, two claims with an equal amount are supporting evidence are equally valid regardless of your subjective opinion that one is 'extraordinary'.
'This evidence has yet to materialize'
There is a great deal of evidence as previously discussed. There is no particular reason to believe otherwise and therefore the subject is still up in the air.
'so believing in it is about as rational as believing in invisible pink unicorns'
Make up your mind, are they pink or are they invisible? I agree, believing in something without evidence is not rational. It is equally irrational to disbelieve something without evidence that contradicts it. That isn't the way it works, it isn't that everything we have verifiable and repeatable evidence for exists and nothing else. Its that everything we have verifiable and repeatable evidence for exists and everything that results aren't in anything that doesn't contradict that evidence.
'More likely than not, however, if you have had such an experience chances are that you were deceived either by your own senses (which literally happens all the time since all your sensory input is constantly subject to interpretation, filtering and embellishment by your brain)'
That is certainly a possibility. That is why we have peer review or in the layman's world, other people who have had similar experiences. Again, there are far too many acccounts to simply dismiss out of hand and therefore they require an explanation. I am not saying that ESP (or the paranormal) is that explanation only that one is needed.
It wouldn't be paying to purchase stuff. If you buy something from a foreign hosted site you have purchase the material in that nation, if the material is legal there then according to treaty is legal when imported to your home nation (aka, downloaded after purchase).
That was the whole debate with allofmp3.com. IF the material really was legal under russian law, the copies you purchased were legal well. The only real debate was whether or not the material WAS legal under russian law.
'The problem is, eyewitness accounts aren't very credible, as the "gorilla experiment" dramatically showed.'
Without question. Unfortunately eyewitness accounts are the basis of our belief we exist and the core of the idea that there is a natural world to be observed. Without believing in a fundemental validity to our subjective views of reality as they correspond to the subjective views to others there can be no scientific method, no observations, and no reproducing of results.
If we do not accept that perception of reality as corroborated by those around us is valid evidence then the natural world, reality, and the scientific method are all invalid and the discussion is moot. If we do accept those concepts, then you might dismiss an eyewitness, you might dismiss a couple eyewitnesses, you can not dismiss millions of eyewitnesses. Instead you must accept that millions of eyewitnesses as an aggregate constitute objective evidence of SOMETHING. What the something is, is another matter entirely.
'("reverse engineering" the brain is producing a theory).'
The brain is an objective machine. Once we understand how a machine operates and can observe all aspects of its operation that operation IS an observation (therefore fact) and no longer a theory. No theory on the capabilities of the brain can be sound when we lack a rudimentary understanding of how it functions. You can make them all day long but they are wasted ink and breath. In fact, I would question the validity of calling them theories at all.
'But that's not what you actually MEAN, is it?'
It's exactly what I mean.
'What you mean to say is "what people, based on their own subjective notions, peer pressure, and world view believe to be their understanding of what they think they've see"'
You do realize the exact same statement can be made about the majority of scientific research. Believing that the observations of scientists are somehow superior to the observations of other credible witnesses is simple arrogance. That is what witnessing is, whether it is a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer, or the guy carrying a 'Christ is coming!' sign on the side of the road.
'which, just like a witness to a crime, can mean a whole lot of NOTHING when it comes to sizing up reality and causality.'
Exactly, which is why with all witnesses (be they scientists or otherwise) it is critical to have others independently witness the same thing. The more others the better. Millions of witnesses constitutes evidence that is strong enough it must be explained rather than dismissed.
Jeez here it is, not even Tuesday and I have managed to make an observation that you'd have to be a hypocrite to disagree with and somehow managed to get half the 'objective' minds on Slashdot attempting to use rhetoric and construct a strawman. I never argued that ESP is real, I only proposed that there is not sufficient evidence to evaluate whether or not ESP is real.
'No, I happen to be a scientist who believes in the scientific method. I have read a fair amount about paranormal phenomena, and it is my belief that in all probability it's just wishful thinking. A lot of people have shown off a lot of numbers that look like they support ESP.'
A lot of people have shown a lot of numbers that look they support a lot of things. Most of the time the numbers are accepted as evidence. If there is any reason to dismiss the numbers it is that we haven't even really begun to comprehend and reverse engineer the brain and that our knowledge is too primitive to safely reach any conclusions.
That said, I tend to agree with you that in all probability ESP is probably just wishful thinking. I just hate to see someone damned for pursuing ideas outside the status quo. Joop may be a crackpot or not, he may be right, he may be wrong, but his current ideas should stand or fall on their own merit.
'So, you think science is something like democracy, if enough people believe in something then it must be true?'
I don't recall mentioning what people believe. I recall mentioning what people have WITNESSED.
'To me, credibility is pretty much linked to repeatability.'
You mean like a second person witnessing the phenomenon on a subsequent occasion?
'In order for something to be credible it must be either replicated or shown by a well-reasoned chain of evidence to be possible.'
That is a fairly poor standard in practice. There are numerous events that neither repeat nor are the most reasonable outcome. Can you honestly say you have never been in a situation where you were the only witness and what occurred was not the most likely thing? It has happened to me thousands of times in life and I doubt I am the only one.
'Yes, it does. Ask any judge, any lawyer, any juror. Would you like to be convicted of a crime based solely on unreliable evidence presented by the DA?'
They wouldn't be much of a lawyer/judge/juror. The standard for conviction is not whether it is likely you committed the crime but whether a reasonable person could believe there is a chance you did not commit the crime. The same is true of dismissing things that have been witnessed by millions of separate individuals who have demonstrated a repeated history of honesty and reliability. It would be like claiming that the existence of the squirrel is unlikely despite everyone seeing them in their backyard, the researcher who bothered to look didn't find any when he checked so they must not exist.
'If you report a phenomenon that (a) no one can repeat and (b) negates facts that we know both from the labs and from day-to-day experience, then you are in trouble.'
Lots of people have repeated this phenomenon. Nobody is even saying it CAN'T be repeated in a lab, only that it hasn't. As for (b) ESP doesn't negate any facts known from labs or day-to-day experience (not that you can safely invoke day-to-day experience after dismissing the day-to-day experiences of millions of credible eye witnesses). If it runs contrary to anything it is a few hypothesis in a rather young field.
'Yes, there is. Millions of children have put a tooth under their pillows and found a bicycle in the porch next morning.'
That isn't evidence.
'Would you mind linking to that supporting data? I've never heard of any well-executed experiments that support ESP.'
I never said anything about experiments. The only well executed experiments i know of (supporting or otherwise) regarding ESP are ongoing at MIT. The supporting data I am referring to are credible (by any definition that does not automatically assume an ESP report is intristically not credible) eyewitness accounts. Inability to recreate ESP in a lab isn't proof of anything, there are no shortage of conditions that are difficult to replicate in the lab.
I'm not saying I believe in ESP. I am not an individual who feels compelled to choose a side before the results are in. All I am saying is that the results aren't in and in my mind the results won't be in until we are able to reverse engineer the brain. More than that, we will probably need to reverse engineer a lot of brains to eliminate the possibility.
'How many would you need to be convinced that ESP does not exist? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?'
None. So long as there are millions of credible reports in the field no failure to replicate the condition in a lab would prove to me that the condition can not exist. As a technician there are no shortage of conditions my customers have reported that I have been unable to replicate, that hardware manufacturers and software firms have been unable to replicate. I might like to dismiss these strays reports as mistakes but if there are enough of them I am forced to accept that the conditions are occurring and the failure is on the part of myself/firms/manufacturers.
If ESP is to be shown not to occur it will be through a more perfect understanding of how the brain DOES function. There are loonies who would have you believe we know nothing of how the brain functions, the only ones worse are the neurologists who would have you believe the scant data we have on the brain constitutes anything like a rudimentary understanding of its function.
'ESP is about as likely as creationism'
Neither are especially likely or unlikely.
'the people believing in it are using the same thought processes as the made-in-seven-days crowd'
The made in seven days crowd are beginning with an elaborate myth and assuming it is true without evidence. I would agree that those who believe in ESP fall in that category as well. The same is true of anyone who believes ESP does not exist, or has a belief in creationism or a lack thereof. The only ones who do not fall into this crowd are those who refuse to adopt a belief on a topic without substantial evidence.
'Science can disprove nothing.'
Science can in fact disprove very specific things. Objective findings can eliminate possibilities. That's is what science does, it is a process by which we gather data, form possible conclusions based upon the data and hope to disprove those conclusions by continuing to gather more data.
'What it can do is collect evidence'
Right.
'give us likelyhoods'
Wrong. Science does not give likelyhoods poor scientists do. Good scientists collect data and let the data determine what is and is not.
'With no reliable evidence supporting it, ESP is as likely as the tooth fairy.'
Reliablity of evidence does not determine likelyhood. Reality is fairly likely even when we have observed NO evidence of it yet. There is no evidence of a tooth fairy credible or otherwise. ESP has not been confirmed in the lab but there are mountains of credible eyewitness accounts (even more that are not credible and that is why closed minded fools dismiss the possibility).
The lab may not be as far away as you think either. There are ongoing experiments at MIT where individuals are able to influence robots with thought in a manner that consistently beats statistical probabilities.
The brain is a complex machine and we do not understand the technology. Until we do, only an idiot would reach conclusions about its capabilities.
'Our friend Joop has also published a lot of work on ESP and paranormal activity'
What's your point? There is substantial data supporting both and thus far no data that would rule out the possibility of either. Unlike creationism both could theoretically be disproven given continued observation. Oh wait, you must be one of those crackpots who somehow thinks science is a field for people with CLOSED minds that already believe they know the answers to the big questions.
'The Bible doesn't say anything at all about life forms on other planets. Intelligent life I might have issues with, but microbes? No problem there.'
No worries, if it were intelligent life it wouldn't believe in the bible either.
'taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network'
This is ridiculous. Simply because Joe Sixpack doesn't know how to secure his wireless does not mean he doesn't care about whether or not it is secure. Most 'techs' can't secure a wifi network properly. Further, even if we assume that caring would automatically mean the network would be secured (not a safe assumption) we certainly couldn't assume that Joe has any reason to believe his wifi isn't secure out of the box. After all, Joe bought the middle priced unit, not the cheap crap.
Even if Joe both cared and knew his network was insecure that doesn't mean Joe is technically literate enough to resolve the issue himself. Anyone who has conversed with Linksys tech support knows they can't help Joe. If Joe can't afford to pay a technician to secure the network (IMHO all setup of wireless networks, computer networks, internet connections, computers, printers, and software should be performed by competent technicians but that is another story) then Joe is basically stuck having an unsecure network or no network. Now, choosing to have an unsecure network over no network might be called a degree of apathy but only by a purist.
'So, if, hypothetically, an undersea volcanic eruption were to cause a new island to form in the Pacific, and the USA sent a warship there before anyone else, and claimed it, who would own it?'
It depends on where it is. But for the sake of this example lets say it pops up in international waters. If that is the case then no, according to treaties nations can no longer plant a flag and claim international territory. That said, even in the old days those claims were only worth the weapons used to defend them and the same would be true if a nation claimed territory in defiance of treaties today.
'If the answer is the USA, would they then be allowed to sell it to private individuals? If not, why not?'
If the answer were the USA then of course they would. But here is the issue, that property doesn't really belong to the federal government, anymore than the radio waves do. It belongs to the people. I for one don't care to to trade off my rights to use that spectrum so that the FCC can sell it to the highest bidder and I likely wouldn't want to trade my right to enjoy the beaches of that pacific island so the government could sell it to the highest bidder.
Dear god, imagine that a coastline that hasn't been parceled and sold off to private citizens. Here in Miami you literally can't get to the water without paying fees, without knowing where to go you can't even get a view of the beaches without paying fees.
'Doesn't that describe slashdot pretty well?'
Yeah but the Slashdot editors don't submit the slashdot version of the articles to other sites.
'that's theoretically 3 megs but more like 1.5'
I guess it varies from area to area but on Comcast I pay for 8 and get it. Nothing is no ports are blocked, no slow torrents (or any other protocol).
'Operating System Kernel is part of an Operating System'
An operating system kernel IS an operating system. The GNU side lost the GNU/Linux debate long ago, lets not bring it back.
I see people get modded down for making anti-ms and pro-linux comments more than anything. People always make comments like yours and I do believe that the actual readership is mostly pro-linux and pro-open but there are paid Slashdroids these days.
'* Shell - bash
* Libraries - glibc
* Tools - GNU coreutils
* Kernel - Hurd
All very useful indeed but Hurd is the only one in the list that is an operating system. The rest are tools that could be combined with a number of operating systems to make a productive system.
Enough of this nonsense. The 'GNU/Linux' people lost this debate years ago and for good reason. Any University OS Design course will teach you how to write an OPERATING SYSTEM KERNEL and no amount of support for the good work of the GNU project can change that definition.
'If I remember correctly, they were given the land of Israel by, in fact, the United Nations in 1948... or, well, they approved at least. I guess Britain technically "owned" it.'
... well, mostly based on force. Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Turks, English, American...'
If you ask the British or I'm sure the Jews. If you ask anyone else in the middle east I think you would hear a different story.
'Indeed.. rise and fall of nations apparently is entirely
No question about it and that only makes sense. After all, a 'nation' is a body that imposes its will upon the peoples of as large an area as possible by threatening to harm them in some way if they don't obey it.
'Basically, both Jews and Muslims claim the "holy land" as their own. So, who do we support, then, or do we just let them blow themselves to bits?'
Sounds like a fairly reasonable choice to me. If a bunch of idiots want to classify themselves based upon some ridiculous mythology they have chosen to believe and further want to attack others who believe in different invisible men then I say let them have at it. I for one am rather annoyed that one of these invisible man worshiping idiots rigged an election and proceeded to embroil my nation into this nonsense.
'Seems to me that, if the issue IS a religious one, if the issue IS whose holy land it is, we should go with the historically accurate one... and I would argue that, to be historically accurate, we would have to say it belongs to the Jews.'
Seems to me that we have clearly established the issue is NOT a religious one and has nothing to do with holy lands. We have established rather soundly that the issue is one of nations and that nations are an issue of force. I say we fail to recognize any government in the middle east until it stabilizes (no matter how many thousands of years that might be), trade with anyone who has money and sell weapons to anyone who has money. As for the invisible men granting holy lands, lets just leave them to the nuts shall we?
The operating system is the lowest level software abstraction to the hardware. The lines have become blurred nowdays but generally speaking, that is the kernel. Contrary to what some (*cough* GNU) would have you believe the operating system is NOT the user environment and does not include a shell or utilities to interact with users.
GNU provides tools that are very useful and help make any operating system they are run on a productive interface. There probably wouldn't be a Linux OS without them. That doesn't somehow make them part of the OS however.
I believe you are confusing me with the great grandparent the other poster was responding to.
'Mac OS-X, (like all the Unixes), is closer to being a "real" OS than Linux or Windows'
In what world? Perhaps you have some sort of strange unspoken defintion of "real" the rest of us aren't using? OSX isn't an operating system at all. The operating system is Darwin (its kernel to be technical) and the distribution that is based on that operating system is OSX. Linux is a real and complete operating system and there are many distributions based on it. Windows is both an operating system and a distribution.
'Dissing it as "not a real OS" or "not available for general use" is an exaggeration at best, or really just a troll.'
I wouldn't really go around saying it isn't a real OS (technical distinctions aside) but 'not available for general use' certainly applies. Most of us define general use for an operating system as 'general use on commodity hardware'.
'Also, your argument about licensing out the Mac OS has been shot down so many times I won't even bother to get into it.'
It's been discussed anyway. I'm pretty sure the only ones who walk away feeling it was shut down were those who felt that way from the get go.
'you seem woefully... biased in general. OS-X is... arguably the best desktop operating system'
Perhaps you should consider yourself before saying others are biased. OSX being the best desktop operating system is something that MOST informed individuals would dispute (I don't give my own opinion because its beside the point).
Like it or not, not everyone who makes a negative comment about MacOS, Mac's, or Apple is a troll and this is an open forum where people are entitled to think OSX, Linux, or Windows sucks. If you are modding people down simply because they think your pet system sucks you are abusing moderation privs. In fact, if you (or anyone) are modding people down for any reason you are probably using the moderation system incorrectly. Moderation is primarily intended for modding up worthwhile comments, not censoring comments you feel unworthy.