How many people with poor social skills have an extreme attachment to daily routine and become upset - even enraged - when that routine is broken? Not many, I'd wager. Yet that's one of the key criteria for classifying someone as autistic.
While the article does say that people with highly analytical brains tend to have more Autistic children, it does not say that people with poor social skills tend to have highly analytical brains. I think it is a common fallacy around here that not knowing how to interact with other people well is some kind of badge proving how smart they are. Or to put it the slashdot way, even if you have a really fast Athlon 64 system, if you are connecting to the world with a dialup you aren't going to be able to play an online FPS well.
1) By way overanalyzing that joke, I'm going to assume you drew both.
2) If you define "poor social skills" as autism or Asperger's Syndrome, it does. Obviously those aren't the sole source of poor social skills, but I think one might be surprised to learn how often it contributes.
Dangerous mistake.
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
obvious but often denied: Come on now, how many times have I seen the same statement greeted with derision here?
Now, for what it's worth, much that seems obvious isn't true. It seems like a good notion that open software allows people to more easily figure out how to fix holes. This is certainly true. However, it also makes it easier for hackers to find holes as well.
The fact is, assuming we had two nominally identical projects, one closed-source and one open-source, bugs would be easier to find by *everybody,* good and bad. The question, which Mitnick alluded to, is this - are there sufficiently more good-guy" eyes on the code to ensure that bugs are found/fixed more quickly, to account for the fact that bad guys can find bugs faster?
The answer to that question isn't a guaranteed "Yes." In many cases it works, but I don't think in all. I realize that people around here like the notion of free software. I do too. But that doesn't mean that it works in practice the way it does in theory. We have to actually question how many people are actively maintaining the code compared to how many "bad guys" are looking to exploit it. I think for most projects this ends up working for us, but it's not guaranteed.
In other words, taking for granted that OSS is more secure because it's OSS is a dangerous mistake.
By Wikipedia's design anybody can change entries, and the Congressmen are people. Besides, it's just an extension of what they do in campaigns to project themselves with a certain image. If you're upset with it, get in an edit war with them and if you lose, that's too bad for you.
Didn't Wiki's founder get busted doing the same basic thing?
We all need to be concerned about losing our right to travel and associate and speak, a drop at a time, and look for those opportunities where it makes sense to take a stand.
I'd rather pick my battles than fight them indiscriminantly. I'm a huge 1st amendment supporter, but I don't particularly like the notion of getting on a plane with any nutjob with $100.
They wanted to search my bags before letting me take the bus home; I didn't want to be searched. The goon wouldn't tell me who he was, which suggested to me he knew he was acting illegally
Seems a bit conclusionary. Could also be he knew you were going to cause trouble for him - and you were - and he didn't want any part of it. Don't blame him. In any event, Greyhound is a private organization. If I'm running a bus, I have a vested interest in knowing what comes on it. That's not a constitutional issue.
In my opinion, both SS2 and Deus Ex (the first one) were two of the best two RPGs ever made. Why can't more developers spend more time on open-ended plot lines? I hated half-life; it was a glorified side scroller.
The right to travel to the seat of government to petition for redress is one of the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment p&i clause.
That's a tangential approach to this case... Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee you any specific *means* for this transportation. Since we're only talking air travel here, one attempting to travel to the seat of government would be free to choose Greyhound.
We have the first amendment because Peter Zenger was busted for running a printing press to print anonymous criticism of the king's goons.
Speech has a long-standing association with anonymity protection in a way that no other right has. You'd never get away with using the free-speech anonymity argument to suggest that the same "chilling effect" argument would extend to travel; there's no judicial basis for it. Particularly when, again, other means of travel exist. Even the first amendment is weighed against public interest in many cases (FCC for over-the-air broadcsat). There's a very compelling interest for safe air travel, and in the interest of safety and absence of any guarantee of anonymity, the government requires proof of identity. Personally, I'm glad - it's not like you can easily turn the plane around when you realize you have a wack-o or 5 running around the cabin.
The decision said it best - there's nothing in the Constitution that suggests any particular mode of travel is guaranteed to be anonymous. The fact that you've taken extremely tangential approaches to attacking the problem tends to support that. Nothing against you, mind - the conplainant wasn't particularly convincing either.
You may have noticed that Congress exists, passes laws, and they aren't stricken down by the Supreme Court. So whatever the balance of power issues between the Fed and State governments, they were largely established by the Civil War, and the discussion thereof is now moot. It's not my opinion, it's the totality of judicial review, which like it or not effectively deliniates the law of the land. If you don't like that - and I don't, particularly- blame John Marshall.
As such, Congress can pass laws to require ID to travel on planes. This does not violate anything in the Constitution inasmuch as no one has ever been explicitly granted the right to anonymous travel. It's therefore not a 4th Amendment issue. The court upheld this notion. I'm not sure what's so confusing to anyone.
There also is nothing in the Constitution about the right to use the bathroom without the supervision of a Government agent. You don't value that, now do you? Would you be upset if that ability were taken away?
Atrocious comparison. And blatant, except to the four people who modded you up.
Here's a few reasons why: 1) If the bathroom is public, you don't have that right and never have. 2) Should your travel be constrained to your own property, you can travel anonymously now. 3) If you wish to travel in an enclosed area with a number of other people on a vessel that can be used to kill hundreds or thousands of people, the rest of us have a seriously vested interest in knowing a little about our fellow travelers. Nothing specific, mind you, but we want to know they're not going to try to kill us.
If you don't like that intrusion, you have the right not to travel. Incidentally, do you have a passport? A drivers' license? Based on your argument, I'd expect you to rail against those constructs too. They require you to surrender information in return for certain priveleges.
The Constitution isn't just remarkable for the rights it guarantees for citizens, but also that it (supposedly) restricts the rights of the government to what is specifically stated in the Constitution.
And that's been a fiction since before the ink was dry on the same document. And thankfully so, because using any code of laws drafted 229+ years ago isn't going to be particularly valid for our society. Not to mention which you're technically incorrect - further legislative abilities were supposed to be relegated to the states, and that's since been changed. So best case scenario for your argument, you'd get each state enacting the same things you hate which would be no less intrusive and 100 times as annoying to deal with.
Ideally, if the Constitution does not say that the government can regulate something, then they cannot regulate that thing.
And now you've learned the difference between ideality and reality.
Did you look at the site at all, or did you just assume based on the name that they didn't know what they were talking about?
I did, actually. They make many of the same mistakes - and try the same sneaky points - that many other similar sites do.
But just as the creationists find the facts that support their theory, so do the evolutionists.
OK. Again, what is the creationist theory, and what facts support it? If you examine things closer - they don't *have* a theory that's at all testable. How do you test whether there's a God and that he created the world as it is? This is religion, not science.
I'll reiterate, they don't get to be right simply because scientists don't understand exactly how each creature on earth evolved.
That's exactly what I'm saying, though. I've actually done my homework on this one. I'm extremely interested in science and I've researched both sides of this. I have to admit that creation science does have it's points that seem to support it more than evolution.
Well, I *am* a scientist, so I'm waiting for these points.
I don't know, maybe you think I sound stupid, but I just sometimes feel like maybe there is something else out there. And don't get me wrong, I'm an extremely logically-minded person.
Feelings aren't proof. You can "feel" whatever you want - that's not logic, reason, or science.
Gee, considering the name, I'm guessing they're a little biased. I'm guessing you're young, so I'll be gentle - question these guys more and learn some biology. There's some problems with sites like these:
1) Notice they don't actually have a theory - they simply attack evolution. Ask what *constructive* proof exists to prove whatever it is their theory is. They don't get to be right simply by pointing out things scientists don't understand about evolution. And anyway, why is the Christian creation myth the correct one? Why not the Norse one, which suggests that a cow licked a salt block into the shape of a man? Heck, there actually is some evidence for that - our bodies are filled with salt!
2) They focus their attacks very narrowly. It's a bit of a forest vs. trees argument - they confuse laymen with arguments over individual fossil records or techniques. What they don't understand (or want you to understand) is that they have to disprove an enormous amount of evidence to be correct.
3) Much of their biology is in fact wrong. This site isn't done by scientists.
4) I don't usually make credibility-based arguments, but for the most part, scientists question things and make good deductions. You will not find a single scientist who isn't strongly religious who believes evolution is wrong.
Name some? Non-scientists always bring this up, but they never have any legitimate criticisms.
Why is it such a problem to inform kids in school about both theories (
This is my favorite argument that requires some critical thinking to debunk. It's dangerous (as outlined below), but it's obvious. Since you don't seem to be trolling, I'll answer it.
The reason it's bad is the word "both." Because by definition that assumes that there are two and two only. That means you've just chosen a religion, which is state-sanctioned religion, which fails separation of church and state.
If you chose, I would have no problem teaching a Religions class based upon creation myths of various cultures including the Maya, Norse, Greeks, Zulu, and Jews. That would probably be an interesting and instructive class for the closed-minded religious fundamentalists out there.
However, if you're suggesting teaching one chosen creation myth - the Christian one - along with actual science in a Science class, then I do have a problem with that. The problem is 1) endorsement of religion, 2) teaching non-science as science, and 3) establishment of a science curriculum by people completely ignorant of the subject.
I'd say, there's definitely a certain Apple image. It's not really for me, despite the fact that I am typing this on a Powerbook and plan to have a Guinness with dinner.;)
Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television
No-one insists that religious education classes should give over equal time to teaching the Big Bang alongside Genesis.
I'd be shocked if some sarcastic physicist hasn't suggested it at a school board meeting. Let's put it this way - I would, if they tried it in my district (which they'd have no chance in hell of accomplishing).
Well said. Is anyone else sick of this kind of attitude in the "scientific" community? Referring specifically to matters of the origin of life and the idea of intraspecies evolution, neither theory is even close to establishing scientific proof of their ideas, yet the intellectually "elite" have no problem ridiculing those who don't believe in evolution wholesale.
Hold your praise, because I don't particularly agree with that. Evolution is as close to established fact as any "theory" can be. Additionally, ID/Creationism isn't a "theory," rather "dogma," because it seeks to mold facts around its ideas rather than the other way around. Evolution has been shown very solidly to explain transitions between specific species. The fact that not every fossil of every creature has been found is not a weakness.
How else do you explain the venom that they spew at those who question what they consider sacred?
Because the religious nuts are trying to screw with public schools where the rest of us have to send our kids? No one cares if they miseducate their own kids in parochial schools. I agree that tolerance is called for - of the people. However, ID simply IS NOT SCIENCE, nor should be treated as such. It is not testable or disprovable. I will not even consider it until it yields a testable hypothesis. As Pauli would say, "That's not right. That's not even wrong!" The meaning there is that a theory isn't a theory unless it could potentially be tested and found to be flawed. Same with ID. You can't prove the existence of God, it's not worth the effort.
If their theory has so much evidence behind it, you'd think they'd welcome the chance to convince the rest of us further...
It's kind of like teaching a pig to sing...wastes your time and annoys the pig. If someone has chosen to generally reject the scientific method and accept religion, that's fine. But they're not doing it based on available evidence, and as such there's no real reason to believe that more evidence will convince them. I've realized the futility of this long ago. So I don't try to convince creationists. I just want them out of public office.
To summarize, ID is religion in sheep's clothing. The one thing I do agree with you about is this: science isn't religion, and shouldn't be treated as such - and vice versa.
Then you should choose better examples and better arguments. What you allude to as your "argument" was a mindless, baseless, and incorrect ad hominem attack.
True, but when start seeing record rainfall here, record heatwave there, coldest winter over there, record amount of hurricanes elsewhere not stop you cannot help but to start to see patterns and draw some conculsions
And, until you prove causality, you end up with bad science. There's *always* something weird about the weather, and if you look at it enough, you'll find something. Without proof, that's meaningless.
See, I understand all that, but the problem is it makes a difficult case to prove. If the theory is that global warming can cause anything, then you can't point to any single piece of evidence to support global warming. It's called an untestable hypothesis. Since global warming has so many supposed symptoms that are also caused by myriad other things, a whole lot more evidence is required to link them. In most cases, people blame everything up to the Kennedy assassination on global warming with absolutely no support. As a scientist, I find this annoying.
That kind of weather is not normal in that part of India - it adds to the picture of the global climate in crisis, not detracts from it.
At the same time, the fact that many people can use absolutely any piece of climatological data (like record cold, as you just did) to point to global warming doesn't really help the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I can't believe the guy got through law school and came out still that naive. Law school usually beats that out of people.
Did you know that the abbreviation for gigabytes is GB, not MB?
But not, I think, Ansperger's.
1) By way overanalyzing that joke, I'm going to assume you drew both.
2) If you define "poor social skills" as autism or Asperger's Syndrome, it does. Obviously those aren't the sole source of poor social skills, but I think one might be surprised to learn how often it contributes.
Now, for what it's worth, much that seems obvious isn't true. It seems like a good notion that open software allows people to more easily figure out how to fix holes. This is certainly true. However, it also makes it easier for hackers to find holes as well.
The fact is, assuming we had two nominally identical projects, one closed-source and one open-source, bugs would be easier to find by *everybody,* good and bad. The question, which Mitnick alluded to, is this - are there sufficiently more good-guy" eyes on the code to ensure that bugs are found/fixed more quickly, to account for the fact that bad guys can find bugs faster?
The answer to that question isn't a guaranteed "Yes." In many cases it works, but I don't think in all. I realize that people around here like the notion of free software. I do too. But that doesn't mean that it works in practice the way it does in theory. We have to actually question how many people are actively maintaining the code compared to how many "bad guys" are looking to exploit it. I think for most projects this ends up working for us, but it's not guaranteed.
In other words, taking for granted that OSS is more secure because it's OSS is a dangerous mistake.
Proof that the dork and nerd genes are linked. Shocker, that.
Didn't Wiki's founder get busted doing the same basic thing?
I'd rather pick my battles than fight them indiscriminantly. I'm a huge 1st amendment supporter, but I don't particularly like the notion of getting on a plane with any nutjob with $100.
They wanted to search my bags before letting me take the bus home; I didn't want to be searched. The goon wouldn't tell me who he was, which suggested to me he knew he was acting illegally
Seems a bit conclusionary. Could also be he knew you were going to cause trouble for him - and you were - and he didn't want any part of it. Don't blame him. In any event, Greyhound is a private organization. If I'm running a bus, I have a vested interest in knowing what comes on it. That's not a constitutional issue.
In my opinion, both SS2 and Deus Ex (the first one) were two of the best two RPGs ever made. Why can't more developers spend more time on open-ended plot lines? I hated half-life; it was a glorified side scroller.
That's a tangential approach to this case... Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee you any specific *means* for this transportation. Since we're only talking air travel here, one attempting to travel to the seat of government would be free to choose Greyhound.
We have the first amendment because Peter Zenger was busted for running a printing press to print anonymous criticism of the king's goons.
Speech has a long-standing association with anonymity protection in a way that no other right has. You'd never get away with using the free-speech anonymity argument to suggest that the same "chilling effect" argument would extend to travel; there's no judicial basis for it. Particularly when, again, other means of travel exist. Even the first amendment is weighed against public interest in many cases (FCC for over-the-air broadcsat). There's a very compelling interest for safe air travel, and in the interest of safety and absence of any guarantee of anonymity, the government requires proof of identity. Personally, I'm glad - it's not like you can easily turn the plane around when you realize you have a wack-o or 5 running around the cabin.
The decision said it best - there's nothing in the Constitution that suggests any particular mode of travel is guaranteed to be anonymous. The fact that you've taken extremely tangential approaches to attacking the problem tends to support that. Nothing against you, mind - the conplainant wasn't particularly convincing either.
You may have noticed that Congress exists, passes laws, and they aren't stricken down by the Supreme Court. So whatever the balance of power issues between the Fed and State governments, they were largely established by the Civil War, and the discussion thereof is now moot. It's not my opinion, it's the totality of judicial review, which like it or not effectively deliniates the law of the land. If you don't like that - and I don't, particularly- blame John Marshall.
As such, Congress can pass laws to require ID to travel on planes. This does not violate anything in the Constitution inasmuch as no one has ever been explicitly granted the right to anonymous travel. It's therefore not a 4th Amendment issue. The court upheld this notion. I'm not sure what's so confusing to anyone.
Atrocious comparison. And blatant, except to the four people who modded you up.
Here's a few reasons why: 1) If the bathroom is public, you don't have that right and never have. 2) Should your travel be constrained to your own property, you can travel anonymously now. 3) If you wish to travel in an enclosed area with a number of other people on a vessel that can be used to kill hundreds or thousands of people, the rest of us have a seriously vested interest in knowing a little about our fellow travelers. Nothing specific, mind you, but we want to know they're not going to try to kill us.
If you don't like that intrusion, you have the right not to travel. Incidentally, do you have a passport? A drivers' license? Based on your argument, I'd expect you to rail against those constructs too. They require you to surrender information in return for certain priveleges.
The Constitution isn't just remarkable for the rights it guarantees for citizens, but also that it (supposedly) restricts the rights of the government to what is specifically stated in the Constitution.
And that's been a fiction since before the ink was dry on the same document. And thankfully so, because using any code of laws drafted 229+ years ago isn't going to be particularly valid for our society. Not to mention which you're technically incorrect - further legislative abilities were supposed to be relegated to the states, and that's since been changed. So best case scenario for your argument, you'd get each state enacting the same things you hate which would be no less intrusive and 100 times as annoying to deal with.
Ideally, if the Constitution does not say that the government can regulate something, then they cannot regulate that thing.
And now you've learned the difference between ideality and reality.
Yeah, we did that when I was in the Boy Scouts too. The next year we made go-karts out of spare parts.
I did, actually. They make many of the same mistakes - and try the same sneaky points - that many other similar sites do.
But just as the creationists find the facts that support their theory, so do the evolutionists.
OK. Again, what is the creationist theory, and what facts support it? If you examine things closer - they don't *have* a theory that's at all testable. How do you test whether there's a God and that he created the world as it is? This is religion, not science.
I'll reiterate, they don't get to be right simply because scientists don't understand exactly how each creature on earth evolved.
Well, I *am* a scientist, so I'm waiting for these points.
I don't know, maybe you think I sound stupid, but I just sometimes feel like maybe there is something else out there. And don't get me wrong, I'm an extremely logically-minded person.
Feelings aren't proof. You can "feel" whatever you want - that's not logic, reason, or science.
The amount of evidence I found just on this one site http://creationscience.com/ actually surprised me.
Gee, considering the name, I'm guessing they're a little biased. I'm guessing you're young, so I'll be gentle - question these guys more and learn some biology. There's some problems with sites like these:
1) Notice they don't actually have a theory - they simply attack evolution. Ask what *constructive* proof exists to prove whatever it is their theory is. They don't get to be right simply by pointing out things scientists don't understand about evolution. And anyway, why is the Christian creation myth the correct one? Why not the Norse one, which suggests that a cow licked a salt block into the shape of a man? Heck, there actually is some evidence for that - our bodies are filled with salt!
2) They focus their attacks very narrowly. It's a bit of a forest vs. trees argument - they confuse laymen with arguments over individual fossil records or techniques. What they don't understand (or want you to understand) is that they have to disprove an enormous amount of evidence to be correct.
3) Much of their biology is in fact wrong. This site isn't done by scientists.
4) I don't usually make credibility-based arguments, but for the most part, scientists question things and make good deductions. You will not find a single scientist who isn't strongly religious who believes evolution is wrong.
Name some? Non-scientists always bring this up, but they never have any legitimate criticisms.
Why is it such a problem to inform kids in school about both theories (
This is my favorite argument that requires some critical thinking to debunk. It's dangerous (as outlined below), but it's obvious. Since you don't seem to be trolling, I'll answer it.
The reason it's bad is the word "both." Because by definition that assumes that there are two and two only. That means you've just chosen a religion, which is state-sanctioned religion, which fails separation of church and state.
If you chose, I would have no problem teaching a Religions class based upon creation myths of various cultures including the Maya, Norse, Greeks, Zulu, and Jews. That would probably be an interesting and instructive class for the closed-minded religious fundamentalists out there.
However, if you're suggesting teaching one chosen creation myth - the Christian one - along with actual science in a Science class, then I do have a problem with that. The problem is 1) endorsement of religion, 2) teaching non-science as science, and 3) establishment of a science curriculum by people completely ignorant of the subject.
I'd say, there's definitely a certain Apple image. It's not really for me, despite the fact that I am typing this on a Powerbook and plan to have a Guinness with dinner. ;)
Yeah, it's called emo.
I'd be shocked if some sarcastic physicist hasn't suggested it at a school board meeting. Let's put it this way - I would, if they tried it in my district (which they'd have no chance in hell of accomplishing).
Hold your praise, because I don't particularly agree with that. Evolution is as close to established fact as any "theory" can be. Additionally, ID/Creationism isn't a "theory," rather "dogma," because it seeks to mold facts around its ideas rather than the other way around. Evolution has been shown very solidly to explain transitions between specific species. The fact that not every fossil of every creature has been found is not a weakness.
How else do you explain the venom that they spew at those who question what they consider sacred?
Because the religious nuts are trying to screw with public schools where the rest of us have to send our kids? No one cares if they miseducate their own kids in parochial schools. I agree that tolerance is called for - of the people. However, ID simply IS NOT SCIENCE, nor should be treated as such. It is not testable or disprovable. I will not even consider it until it yields a testable hypothesis. As Pauli would say, "That's not right. That's not even wrong!" The meaning there is that a theory isn't a theory unless it could potentially be tested and found to be flawed. Same with ID. You can't prove the existence of God, it's not worth the effort.
If their theory has so much evidence behind it, you'd think they'd welcome the chance to convince the rest of us further...
It's kind of like teaching a pig to sing...wastes your time and annoys the pig. If someone has chosen to generally reject the scientific method and accept religion, that's fine. But they're not doing it based on available evidence, and as such there's no real reason to believe that more evidence will convince them. I've realized the futility of this long ago. So I don't try to convince creationists. I just want them out of public office.
To summarize, ID is religion in sheep's clothing. The one thing I do agree with you about is this: science isn't religion, and shouldn't be treated as such - and vice versa.
Then you should choose better examples and better arguments. What you allude to as your "argument" was a mindless, baseless, and incorrect ad hominem attack.
And, until you prove causality, you end up with bad science. There's *always* something weird about the weather, and if you look at it enough, you'll find something. Without proof, that's meaningless.
See, I understand all that, but the problem is it makes a difficult case to prove. If the theory is that global warming can cause anything, then you can't point to any single piece of evidence to support global warming. It's called an untestable hypothesis. Since global warming has so many supposed symptoms that are also caused by myriad other things, a whole lot more evidence is required to link them. In most cases, people blame everything up to the Kennedy assassination on global warming with absolutely no support. As a scientist, I find this annoying.
Wow. Fantastic deduction.
At the same time, the fact that many people can use absolutely any piece of climatological data (like record cold, as you just did) to point to global warming doesn't really help the case.