Once they've prevented IBM from distributing AIX, IBM will have to distribute Linux on all their systems. IBM will suck up all available Linux, leaving the rest of us with nowhere to turn but SCO's Dark Lord, Microsoft.
Incidentally, was anyone else here geeky enough that when they first started seeing those Armani Exchange ("A|X") tee shirts they started wondering why all these attractive people were into AIX?
...brain implants that let you tap into people's memories . . . it's not science fiction, it's science fact.
Ooh, I'm all goose-pimply. I don't know about y'all, but when I see something like that in the first paragraph it takes a mighty effort of will to read the second.
I'm afraid I've never been very good at explaining this point, but you are mistaken. Since we can only ask the question in universes and on planets where life evolved, we are dealing with a pre-selected subset of N.
The second inhabited planet does not suffer from this problem. If we find evidence of life, even long extinct, on Mars, and if it doesn't appear to share a comman ancestor with life on Earth, then we can say that 1/1 of the habitable worlds besides our own is inhabited. From that we can draw a much stronger (albeit still tentative, as you pointed out) conclusion.
But we can draw strong conclusions from the amount of time life took to accomplish various milestones on Earth. From what we can tell, life evolved very early -- practically the moment it was possible for life to exist here, given the uncertainties in dating, etc. That suggests that the probability of basic life on a habitable world is high.
However, it took a very long time for the arrival of complex, energy-efficient cells that could form complex bodies, and a very long time before the arrival of the kinds of intelligence seen in reptiles, birds, and mammals, and a moderate amount of time for an intelligence arms race to cause the explosion of intelligence seen in humans, chimps, and dolphins, and a very short time for the advent of a technological society.
So we might conclude that the universe is filled with worlds inhabited by creatures like bacteria, but that worlds that harbor complex life are few, and that worlds with technological societies on them are a large subset of those few.
The poster you're responding to is correct in this case, although your reasoning is valid in the general case.
The problem is not just that we're dealing with a sample size of one inhabitable world. We're also dealing with a set that has been pre-selected to contain only those universes that contain intelligent life.
That is to say, we can draw no conclusion* about the likelihood of life evolving on any given planet from the fact that we're here, since we can only ask the question if we're in a world where life evolved. We're filtering our set ahead of time.
Now, if you have TWO worlds that have spawned life, you've got something to go on. If we know of one potentially inhabited world besides our own, and that one is or was inhabited, then we can say that the odds of life evolving on any inhabitable planet are probably very good, as long as we can show that the life evolved independently.
Even then, we can't rule out the possibility that the only two instances of life just happened to evolve on adjacent worlds. It's just darned unlikely.
*Well, okay, except the fact that the probability is greater than zero.
Interesting, but I'm not convinced it would be a good thing to do with bullets. It may be that the bullet does more damage on the way out than in, but that may be because as the bullet deforms it sheds more kinetic energy as it passes through flesh.
If you stop the bullet inside the body, that means that it gave up all its K.E. to the body. It might be better to have the bullet pass straight through, and take the energy with it (much to the distress of the guy standing behind you).
I've heard that Feudal Japanese warriors wore loose, tightly-woven silk undergarments. In addition to being really sexy, they were protection against arrows. The arrow wouldn't cut through the silk, although it would still drive it straight into your flesh. The advantage is that you could remove the arrow by pulling on the fabric. It would keep the barbs from engaging and the arrow would pop right out. I would guess that it would decrease the penetrating ability of the arrow as well.
Whether obscurity enhances security is an empirical question. If it does, then the companies involved in this initiative will prosper, and rightfully so. If it does not, then they will suffer, and rightfully so.
I don't see this as an attack on open-source, or academic freedom, or civil liberties. If the open model really is better then this will be a good thing for open-source software, because the obscure-model software will really be less secure, exploits will be more widely used, etc.
Let's let them do as they have a right to do, and we'll see if our ideology really is better than theirs. If not, then we should emulate them. If so, they will eventually emulate us.
Too many people are discussing this as though the problem is what it does to diversity. It's not that it will make it harder to find good music (it's already nearly impossible) or that you won't hear a wide enough diversity of opinion (you already don't).
It's not about consumer rights, it's about democracy. Concentrated ownership allows them to lie unchallenged. Even if the lies are caught and publicised on political websites, etc., the majority will never hear anything but the lies. Exit democracy, exit a functioning republic.
It's amusing and delightful, but the IBM suit isn't about patents or copyright, it's about an NDA. IBM signed a contract that said they woudn't disclose certain info, and (SCO claims) they did.
It doesn't matter whether SCO owned it in the first place, although that may go into the damages equation.
Any lawyers want to comment?
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, was anyone else here geeky enough that when they first started seeing those Armani Exchange ("A|X") tee shirts they started wondering why all these attractive people were into AIX?
Ooh, I'm all goose-pimply. I don't know about y'all, but when I see something like that in the first paragraph it takes a mighty effort of will to read the second.
The second inhabited planet does not suffer from this problem. If we find evidence of life, even long extinct, on Mars, and if it doesn't appear to share a comman ancestor with life on Earth, then we can say that 1/1 of the habitable worlds besides our own is inhabited. From that we can draw a much stronger (albeit still tentative, as you pointed out) conclusion.
But we can draw strong conclusions from the amount of time life took to accomplish various milestones on Earth. From what we can tell, life evolved very early -- practically the moment it was possible for life to exist here, given the uncertainties in dating, etc. That suggests that the probability of basic life on a habitable world is high.
However, it took a very long time for the arrival of complex, energy-efficient cells that could form complex bodies, and a very long time before the arrival of the kinds of intelligence seen in reptiles, birds, and mammals, and a moderate amount of time for an intelligence arms race to cause the explosion of intelligence seen in humans, chimps, and dolphins, and a very short time for the advent of a technological society.
So we might conclude that the universe is filled with worlds inhabited by creatures like bacteria, but that worlds that harbor complex life are few, and that worlds with technological societies on them are a large subset of those few.
It might be a problem for those who use sign language to speak to their passengers, but then, maybe signing while driving isn't such a great idea.
But first we have to convince them to have some of their labs use English units.
It's the next inevitable phase
The poster you're responding to is correct in this case, although your reasoning is valid in the general case. The problem is not just that we're dealing with a sample size of one inhabitable world. We're also dealing with a set that has been pre-selected to contain only those universes that contain intelligent life. That is to say, we can draw no conclusion* about the likelihood of life evolving on any given planet from the fact that we're here, since we can only ask the question if we're in a world where life evolved. We're filtering our set ahead of time. Now, if you have TWO worlds that have spawned life, you've got something to go on. If we know of one potentially inhabited world besides our own, and that one is or was inhabited, then we can say that the odds of life evolving on any inhabitable planet are probably very good, as long as we can show that the life evolved independently. Even then, we can't rule out the possibility that the only two instances of life just happened to evolve on adjacent worlds. It's just darned unlikely. *Well, okay, except the fact that the probability is greater than zero.
Waitaminute!!! You're saying that everything in the world tastes like chicken, and chicken DOESN'T???
Interesting, but I'm not convinced it would be a good thing to do with bullets. It may be that the bullet does more damage on the way out than in, but that may be because as the bullet deforms it sheds more kinetic energy as it passes through flesh. If you stop the bullet inside the body, that means that it gave up all its K.E. to the body. It might be better to have the bullet pass straight through, and take the energy with it (much to the distress of the guy standing behind you).
I've heard that Feudal Japanese warriors wore loose, tightly-woven silk undergarments. In addition to being really sexy, they were protection against arrows. The arrow wouldn't cut through the silk, although it would still drive it straight into your flesh. The advantage is that you could remove the arrow by pulling on the fabric. It would keep the barbs from engaging and the arrow would pop right out. I would guess that it would decrease the penetrating ability of the arrow as well.
Whether obscurity enhances security is an empirical question. If it does, then the companies involved in this initiative will prosper, and rightfully so. If it does not, then they will suffer, and rightfully so. I don't see this as an attack on open-source, or academic freedom, or civil liberties. If the open model really is better then this will be a good thing for open-source software, because the obscure-model software will really be less secure, exploits will be more widely used, etc. Let's let them do as they have a right to do, and we'll see if our ideology really is better than theirs. If not, then we should emulate them. If so, they will eventually emulate us.
Too many people are discussing this as though the problem is what it does to diversity. It's not that it will make it harder to find good music (it's already nearly impossible) or that you won't hear a wide enough diversity of opinion (you already don't). It's not about consumer rights, it's about democracy. Concentrated ownership allows them to lie unchallenged. Even if the lies are caught and publicised on political websites, etc., the majority will never hear anything but the lies. Exit democracy, exit a functioning republic.
It's amusing and delightful, but the IBM suit isn't about patents or copyright, it's about an NDA. IBM signed a contract that said they woudn't disclose certain info, and (SCO claims) they did. It doesn't matter whether SCO owned it in the first place, although that may go into the damages equation. Any lawyers want to comment?