ID as such doesn't make any statements about the nature of the designer, only that there must be one because of the complexity and laws of nature.
Oh please. Everyone knows it's a "wink wink nudge nudge" way of saying "God".
There are proponents of ID who are anything but religious.
Like who?
Science students should be told that evolution is not the ONLY explanation for how things came to be. There are valid SCIENTIFIC alternatives that highly educated scientists can defend with evidence at least as strong as the evidence for evolution.
Horse shit. Intelligent design is unfalsifiable, period. Tell me, what predictions does intelligent design "theory" include that would allow for it to be proven false?
The nature and origin of the designer cannot be fathomed by science and any attempt to do so should be done in a religion class, not science. In the science class, students can be told that some highly qualified scientists have compelling evidence for a designer.
In other words, they should be fed a pack of lies. Notice that none of these "highly qualified scientists" have ever once submitted their "evidence" for design to a scientific journal. They've all appealed directly to the scientifically ignorant public and bypassed their peers.
The scientific evidence both for evolution and design should be presented. However, any questions about the nature and origin of such a designer cannot and should not be answered in a science class. If students ask questions about the nature of such a designer or creator, they should be referred to their pastor, rabbi or parents.
As if priests and rabbis are more qualified to answer such questions than anyone else. The clergy's profession is that of unfounded speculation. They're completely full of shit. I could give just as authoritative answers on the nature of this supposed designer as anyone.
As I pointed out earlier, studying a human design can tell us some things about the designer. So it is also true of the designer of nature. Science however is the study of the design itself ONLY and any inferences about the designer rightfully belongs into a religion class in church or in the home.
Yes, studying humans tells us that this designer is a complete idiot. Anyone with an engineering background or software design could tell you that. There have been no new revisions of the design because everything has been built on legacy parts. There are major defects that have gone unfixed (like the choking hazard that results from using the same tube to swallow as to breathe), and even small changes to the system can cause massive damage, eg- Down Syndrome. Why hasn't this designer released Human 2.0? He's been working with the 1.x branch for millions of years.
Including God as a term in an explanation is antithetical to science. "God" provides no testable mechanisms and merely adds dead weight onto theories. It's a black-box term tacked onto existing theory which contributes nothing.
I'm sorry, I fucked that up. The eye is actually wired backward, but not in how it receives images. The photoreceptors face the wrong way, so the side connecting to the nerve bundle is on the inside of the eye, meaning that the nerve wiring must go through the back of the eye. This is part of the reason humans have a visual "blind spot".
Then send your kids to a private school, where they can shove all the nonsensical religious dogma they want down their throats. I won't stand for my tax dollars being spent on religious indoctrination of any kind.
Evolutionists since Darwin have come up with all sorts of explanations for the origin of the world around us, involving all kinds of ideas. The only idea that has been and still is consistently rejected by many scientists studying origins, is the possiblity that the activity of a mind, a highly intelligent mind, was involved in how things came to be as they are.
Nobody would propose that a complex man created device like a computer or airplane, or even a simple one like a pencil came into being without processes involving the human mind. Yet when it comes to the incredible complexity of the living world or the laws and parameters of physics, it supposedly all came into existence by *any* other means except the activity of a mind.
That's because it's a stupid idea. The claim is that not only is there a designer, he's supposedly omniscient. This does not explain why the human body has so many glaring defects, such as using the same pipe for ingesting food and oxygen or an eye that receives images upside-down. Humans' characteristics can be explained via the process of natural selection and evolution, which allows for such quirks to be passed down through the generations. An intelligent designer should have fixed them in a new revision by now.
Aside from that, "intelligent design" isn't testable. How the hell are people in a lab going to test the will of the intelligent designer? It's an ex post facto explanation. Anything that happened happened because that's what the intelligent designer wanted. It can't be used to predict the course of evolution, so it's dead weight on an already solid theory.
Intelligent design is a simple product of human arrogance. We see ourselves as these majestic creatures of nature, the pinnacle of its achievements. So a bunch of dumb-ass religious people, realizing that creationism had been laughed out of the classroom long ago, decided to codify the Biblical notion of man's being "created in the image of God" into something they laughably pass off as a legitimate scientific theory. They think that this theory can co-exist with evolution. They are wrong. Their claims imply that humans were designed through evolution. The problem is that evolution is not a goal-driven process. There is no "ideal life form". There is only the life form which is best suited to survive the present environment. If an asteroid hit the Earth tomorrow and killed all the humans, cockroaches and bacteria would still be around. Wow, humans are sure hot shit.
Humans are just another life form that can be wiped off the face of the planet in an instant. No one designed us. Just because we think we're awesome doesn't imply otherwise. When you see that planets are spherical, do you immediately jump to the conclusion that they must have been molded that way by the intelligent designer? No. They are spheres because they were put together by a symmetrical force: gravity. There are plenty of examples of order and symmetry in the universe which do not require ridiculous "intelligent designer"-esque explanations. Humans are no different.
Even though the apps I use every day at work aren't ported to it, I'd love to have a powerbook. Same story.
People who have multiple platforms at home are a very small subset of households. Normally, they're geeks. The average computer using household has one platform in the house. Of the million or so in growth, the number of geeks who are just adding OS X to their arsenal is probably a few orders of magnitude smaller.
There are a couple of things about this that stink of Apple propaganda to me - first of all, even if a million users worldwide switched from PC to Mac - that's still a fairly small percentage of the overall set of computer users in the world. Additionally, these mac articles never even address the fact that there might be people out there (like my parents) who bought a first generation iMac, and are now in the market for a new computer, and will probably buy a PC.
The switch works in both directions.
Irrelevant. He's examining net growth. In this case, he's assuming that any growth Apple experienced was a result of Windows switching. Not a terribly strong assumption, but not glaringly weak either. In either case, the million-user net growth already accounts for any losses.
What's to keep Dell from "pulling an Apple" and investing their own cash into a Unix-based operating system and otherwise innovative products?
Simple. It's not their thing. Look, Dell isn't in any danger of falling under. When people need a new computer for cheap, they go to Dell first. Dell sells "good enough" products for low prices, and they do it in volume. It's their schtick. As long as they continue to get über-awesome deals from Intel on chips, they'll do just fine. Dell operates on the "Nobody ever got fired for..." principle. They're conservative. And it works for them. Their machines are ugly, their products uninspiring, their name synonymous with shitty computer science lab machines everywhere, and they'll never make the cover of TIME Magazine. But hey, they work for plenty of people. They're good enough. They're utilitarian.
Apple pursues an different segment: People who have higher standards for design, aesthetics and usability. I hate using Windows. Why should I use an operating system I can't stand looking at? OS X appeals to my anal-retentive sense of detail, and that's why I use it and happily pay a little extra for it.
The best comes when you combine the two worlds. I have a PowerMac G5 with a Dell 2005fpw, which I absolutely adore. Great computing experience.
No, he explicitly said that Macs are 2x to 10x more expensive than their PC counterparts. That means that he seriously believes that a $330 custom PC is the equivalent of a $3300 Mac (since Apple doesn't sell a machine that costs over $3300 base). I know, I had trouble believing that someone could be that retarded, too.
As for the premium being around $200 over a white box PC, I'd say that's fair. But you get the operating system, iLife plus a ton of bundled software, too. I'd say they're more than worth the money.
Yes, someone can sue, and then Apple can promptly introduce the massive costs both in terms of money and reliability of supporting generic x86 hardware into evidence. Then the judge will say, "No one's twisting your arm to buy a Mac" and throw the case out.
No matter how much you might cry foul, Apple don't have Microsoft's resources. Trying to support non-Apple hardware would be a nightmare for them and would delay x86 OS X by years.
There's a premium, but it doesn't even approach an order of magnitude greater. If you seriously think a $200 custom box will be in the same ballpark of quality and reliability as the Apple one you're trying to approximate, you're delusional.
You don't need access to the source code to ascertain its accuracy. All you need are test subjects for whom the blood-alcohol level is already known and see how close the device comes to it.
Rememebr, if you want to be a counterfeitter, buy a printer in a different state (or better - a different country) with a stolen credit card. Cash might be too suspicious.
Alternatively, steal the printer.
Or pay for it with counterfeit currency. It'll be pure profit!
I think the reason video phones never took off is a combination of practical and psychological reasons. Firstly, in order for a video phone to work, you have to look at it. With a regular phone, you can be wherever you want, in whatever position you want. Even if a video phone was portable, holding it out in front of you for every call would strain the arm. Plus there's no way to really ditch the device like you can with a headset on a normal phone. Because of this, the video phone has basically migrated from an extension of the phone to an extension of the computer with video chat. And really, it's probably more appropriate there.
Secondly, with a normal phone, people are free to be two-faced. We only need to maintain a certain tone of voice on the phone. Our appearance is irrelevant. This provides some measure of security in communications. I know for damn sure that I wouldn't want some of the callers on the other end of my support line to see my face while I was talking to them. When I was fighting with my then-girlfriend over the phone, there were times when I'd just roll my eyes, put it down and watch TV while she pissed and whined on the other end. (One time I just watched Demolition Man was on HBO while we were fighting.) Again, not an option with the video phone.
It's not that people are stupid. Everyone around here likes to use this excuse to seperate themselves from the masses. Americans are not stupid.
When 55% of Americans believe in creationism, I think it's safe to question the value this country places on intellectualism. Sometimes I have to double-check my calendar just to make sure it's really the year 2005. Aren't we supposed to be past all this tripe about mythical snakes subverting humans with poisonous fruit by now?
The question is whether they are bringing civil or criminal charges. Private citizens can lodge criminal complaints; that's how assault charges work. If it's criminal, the US Attorney or an Oregon district attorney brings the case to trial, then it's the RIAA vs. the government. Then no one really has to worry about Ms. Anderson having enough lawyers, because she'll simply turn into a prosecution witness.
RICO statutes are criminal, so I don't think they can settle their way out of this. But I think that the case would have to be brought before a judge by an Oregon district attorney though.
I'm not familiar with Vista, but the "Run as..." service has existed since at least Win2k. It is perfectly possible to run as a limited user account and only run those things that absolutely require admin access as an admin account. Some recent installers even make use of the facility to have Windows prompt you for details of an account with admin access.
Yes but that is not the case by default in XP. If you are logged in as an admin, you are never once prompted for your password for an installation. On Mac OS X, for example, administrators run with least-required privileges and are required to enter a password if they want to perform an action which requires elevated privileges. It is, of course, possible to set up a normal user in XP and enter your administrator password whenever you want to do something which requires elevated privileges, but most people simply are not going to do that.
When discussing the security of operating systems, the default configuration is the most important one. Sure, Windows can be made as secure as Linux or OS X, but it's not by default, and hence it will not be secure in the hands of most users.
No. Entrapment involves an agent of the state soliciting that someone commit an illegal act. As an example, the following qualifies as entrapment.
UNDERCOVER COP: Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?
HAPLESS FOOL: Sure!
[FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
COP: You're under arrest, fool!
The cop in the above example was the person who suggested breaking the law, so that qualifies as entrapment. The following, however, does not.
HAPLESS FOOL: Hey man, can I buy some coke off you?
UNDERCOVER COP: Sure!
[FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
COP: You're under arrest, fool!
The above is not entrapment since it was not the cop who suggested breaking the law. This is how they bust child molesters and kiddie porn peddlers. A police officer can sign on to AOL with a screen name like "13NHORNY", go into a chat room and literally be bombarded with solicitations for kiddie porn and meeting proposals. So they say, "Sure I'll meet you" or "Yeah gimme some porn!", arrange to meet the guy and bust him right there. All while avoiding entrapment because the perverts are the ones approaching them.
The problem is that a lot of this stuff is installed voluntarily. If P2PFreeMovies.exe and BritaneySperesNaked!!!.exe say they need admin access to install, people will just type the password in. Better use of capabilities and code signing would help, and, unlike mainstream Linux, Windows actually has an advanced security model that would allow this.
This is true, but there is only so much the operating system can do for the user. Windows, Mac OS X, Linux et al are not psychic. All they can do is warn users of the potential hazards of running untrusted software and create certain reasonable barriers to entry for installation programs. On the former, Windows, when configured properly, does a pretty good job of it. On the latter, it's abysmal. Windows Vista is embracing the idea of lesser privileges and a `sudo'-like authentication model, so things are looking better for it. An XP administrator is completely at the mercy of any malicious executable if he double-clicks it.
At the end of the day, operating systems can only identify suspicious behavior. It will always be up to the user to make the final call. If your users can't make good decisions, nothing short of a total system lock-down will help.
Seriously, forget the TAs, and if your professor is a dick, forget him too. Find the one kid in the class who knows what's going on and latch on to him. Have group study sessions, and you'll find that other people are lost on subjects you can grasp easily, and others are grasping easily the subjects you're lost on. And by explaining what you understand to fellow students, you'll achieve an even deeper understanding of it. There's also the psychological benefit of knowing that you're not the only one in that boat.
I skimmed through it, and it's pretty thorough. Great for lab admins to have handy. I do wish they would have mentioned something about chroot for SFTP though.
Slashdot Mirror
Including God as a term in an explanation is antithetical to science. "God" provides no testable mechanisms and merely adds dead weight onto theories. It's a black-box term tacked onto existing theory which contributes nothing.
I'm sorry, I fucked that up. The eye is actually wired backward, but not in how it receives images. The photoreceptors face the wrong way, so the side connecting to the nerve bundle is on the inside of the eye, meaning that the nerve wiring must go through the back of the eye. This is part of the reason humans have a visual "blind spot".
Then send your kids to a private school, where they can shove all the nonsensical religious dogma they want down their throats. I won't stand for my tax dollars being spent on religious indoctrination of any kind.
Aside from that, "intelligent design" isn't testable. How the hell are people in a lab going to test the will of the intelligent designer? It's an ex post facto explanation. Anything that happened happened because that's what the intelligent designer wanted. It can't be used to predict the course of evolution, so it's dead weight on an already solid theory.
Intelligent design is a simple product of human arrogance. We see ourselves as these majestic creatures of nature, the pinnacle of its achievements. So a bunch of dumb-ass religious people, realizing that creationism had been laughed out of the classroom long ago, decided to codify the Biblical notion of man's being "created in the image of God" into something they laughably pass off as a legitimate scientific theory. They think that this theory can co-exist with evolution. They are wrong. Their claims imply that humans were designed through evolution. The problem is that evolution is not a goal-driven process. There is no "ideal life form". There is only the life form which is best suited to survive the present environment. If an asteroid hit the Earth tomorrow and killed all the humans, cockroaches and bacteria would still be around. Wow, humans are sure hot shit.
Humans are just another life form that can be wiped off the face of the planet in an instant. No one designed us. Just because we think we're awesome doesn't imply otherwise. When you see that planets are spherical, do you immediately jump to the conclusion that they must have been molded that way by the intelligent designer? No. They are spheres because they were put together by a symmetrical force: gravity. There are plenty of examples of order and symmetry in the universe which do not require ridiculous "intelligent designer"-esque explanations. Humans are no different.
Get over yourself.
Regardless of their decision, the true sadness lies in the idea of what is and isn't science being determined by politicians.
Apple pursues an different segment: People who have higher standards for design, aesthetics and usability. I hate using Windows. Why should I use an operating system I can't stand looking at? OS X appeals to my anal-retentive sense of detail, and that's why I use it and happily pay a little extra for it.
The best comes when you combine the two worlds. I have a PowerMac G5 with a Dell 2005fpw, which I absolutely adore. Great computing experience.
No, he explicitly said that Macs are 2x to 10x more expensive than their PC counterparts. That means that he seriously believes that a $330 custom PC is the equivalent of a $3300 Mac (since Apple doesn't sell a machine that costs over $3300 base). I know, I had trouble believing that someone could be that retarded, too.
As for the premium being around $200 over a white box PC, I'd say that's fair. But you get the operating system, iLife plus a ton of bundled software, too. I'd say they're more than worth the money.
Yes, someone can sue, and then Apple can promptly introduce the massive costs both in terms of money and reliability of supporting generic x86 hardware into evidence. Then the judge will say, "No one's twisting your arm to buy a Mac" and throw the case out.
No matter how much you might cry foul, Apple don't have Microsoft's resources. Trying to support non-Apple hardware would be a nightmare for them and would delay x86 OS X by years.
There's a premium, but it doesn't even approach an order of magnitude greater. If you seriously think a $200 custom box will be in the same ballpark of quality and reliability as the Apple one you're trying to approximate, you're delusional.
You don't need access to the source code to ascertain its accuracy. All you need are test subjects for whom the blood-alcohol level is already known and see how close the device comes to it.
h.264 is also known as MPEG-4 AVC, Advanced Video Coding. It's part of the spec, just a very advanced one.
I think the reason video phones never took off is a combination of practical and psychological reasons. Firstly, in order for a video phone to work, you have to look at it. With a regular phone, you can be wherever you want, in whatever position you want. Even if a video phone was portable, holding it out in front of you for every call would strain the arm. Plus there's no way to really ditch the device like you can with a headset on a normal phone. Because of this, the video phone has basically migrated from an extension of the phone to an extension of the computer with video chat. And really, it's probably more appropriate there.
Secondly, with a normal phone, people are free to be two-faced. We only need to maintain a certain tone of voice on the phone. Our appearance is irrelevant. This provides some measure of security in communications. I know for damn sure that I wouldn't want some of the callers on the other end of my support line to see my face while I was talking to them. When I was fighting with my then-girlfriend over the phone, there were times when I'd just roll my eyes, put it down and watch TV while she pissed and whined on the other end. (One time I just watched Demolition Man was on HBO while we were fighting.) Again, not an option with the video phone.
Doesn't even work on my OS X box. Video plays, but there's no sound.
The question is whether they are bringing civil or criminal charges. Private citizens can lodge criminal complaints; that's how assault charges work. If it's criminal, the US Attorney or an Oregon district attorney brings the case to trial, then it's the RIAA vs. the government. Then no one really has to worry about Ms. Anderson having enough lawyers, because she'll simply turn into a prosecution witness.
RICO statutes are criminal, so I don't think they can settle their way out of this. But I think that the case would have to be brought before a judge by an Oregon district attorney though.
When discussing the security of operating systems, the default configuration is the most important one. Sure, Windows can be made as secure as Linux or OS X, but it's not by default, and hence it will not be secure in the hands of most users.
No. Entrapment involves an agent of the state soliciting that someone commit an illegal act. As an example, the following qualifies as entrapment.
UNDERCOVER COP: Hey man, you wanna buy some cocaine?
HAPLESS FOOL: Sure!
[FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
COP: You're under arrest, fool!
The cop in the above example was the person who suggested breaking the law, so that qualifies as entrapment. The following, however, does not.
HAPLESS FOOL: Hey man, can I buy some coke off you?
UNDERCOVER COP: Sure!
[FOOL gives COP money for cocaine, and COP gives FOOL cocoaine.]
COP: You're under arrest, fool!
The above is not entrapment since it was not the cop who suggested breaking the law. This is how they bust child molesters and kiddie porn peddlers. A police officer can sign on to AOL with a screen name like "13NHORNY", go into a chat room and literally be bombarded with solicitations for kiddie porn and meeting proposals. So they say, "Sure I'll meet you" or "Yeah gimme some porn!", arrange to meet the guy and bust him right there. All while avoiding entrapment because the perverts are the ones approaching them.
At the end of the day, operating systems can only identify suspicious behavior. It will always be up to the user to make the final call. If your users can't make good decisions, nothing short of a total system lock-down will help.
Seriously, forget the TAs, and if your professor is a dick, forget him too. Find the one kid in the class who knows what's going on and latch on to him. Have group study sessions, and you'll find that other people are lost on subjects you can grasp easily, and others are grasping easily the subjects you're lost on. And by explaining what you understand to fellow students, you'll achieve an even deeper understanding of it. There's also the psychological benefit of knowing that you're not the only one in that boat.
Are we still talking about that stupid rootkit that actually requires root privileges to install?
Why is it that people can't accept that Windows simply has the unenviable position of being the most popular and the most insecure OS around?
The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim. The person claiming existence must provide evidence, not the other way around.
I skimmed through it, and it's pretty thorough. Great for lab admins to have handy. I do wish they would have mentioned something about chroot for SFTP though.