The other poster is right - it's quite surprising that you haven't been flamed by iPod junkies for this comment about the scroll knob. The Rio Karma is meant to be held face-up in the palm of the right hand, with the bottom of the thumb pressed against the right side for stability while the top of the thumb is raked back and forth across the scroll knob. There are other ways to hold and use it, but they demand two hands, or are awkward and partially obscure the screen.
Most people manipulate an iPod by holding it in right or left hand, resting on the fingers, with the whole thumb on the top over the scroll wheel. This is a slightly less stable position than the Karma is held, which means it's easier to drop, and that's a shame. People who apply a couple brain cells to the issue actually hold it the same way but place their index finger over the iPod, at the top of the display, which combines with the seat of the thumb to hold the iPod very solidly in place, while still giving you full access to the wheel. This wasn't as common in older versions of the iPod because the display was smaller and easier to obscure, but now, there's plenty of room to navigate, while the index finger only covers the "title bar" at the top of the screen.
So you can hold the iPod even more firmly than the Karma, and still use it. Which leads to the big difference between the scroll knob and the scroll wheel, when they're used in their intended positions: You can keep scrolling continuously with the scroll wheel, while you have to stop, lift your thumb, and place it down again to continue scrolling on the scroll knob. That action gets old when you have two dozen playlists to scroll though, and the repeated repositioning of the thumb tends to make the hand rattle the device and make the screen hard to read.
IMO, the best combination of parts that Apple could choose from all their iPod generations would be the 1st gen "mechanical" scroll wheel, combined with the 3rd gen "touch sensitive" row of buttons up apart from the wheel. That way you get tactile feedback on the wheel, and you can spin it and let it go, like you'd spin a roulette wheel - and the buttons are instantaneous, so you can navigate in and out of the submenus and skip tracks very quickly, with a couple of taps.
Bill Thompson is right, but there is a much, much larger problem that's out there: cell phones. Cell phones are always connected to a large network. There are billions of them, And very few cell phones run any kind of anti-viral or anti-trojan software.
The problem there is, they contain a wide variety of CPUs and hardware, run their own custom (generally Java-based) OSes, and are severely limited in the ways they can communicate with each other.
Although Bill may be writing to ride on the coat tail's of Apple's recent success, the Macintosh can get infected by a virus or a trojan program. In fact, some of the earliest computer viruses in the wild were found on the Mac. The Mac virus problem isn't as large as the Windows virus problem, but that's because there are many more Windows machines intermingling out there.
Well, to be accurate, you need to shorten that last sentence to "The Mac virus problem isn't.":D Frankly, I don't know why there isn't a virus problem - excluding email viruses and service-based worms, there is still the possibility of malicious code distributed inside a popular application a la BackOrifice. Maybe there is such a program out there. Unfortunately (for the hacker), that still doesn't give the infection any good way to spread... but it could exist.
Any networked device, from routers to mainframes, from Bluetooth devices to cell phones to the XBox 360, may be vulerable to malware. All need robust security.
Yeah, that's been my experience too.... the real problem with Windows is that applications frequently need to install shit in different/dangerous areas of the operating system... and then are unable or unwilling to remove that shit. Microsoft's first response to this was to develop "file protection", then "system restore points", then finally to (at long last) develop a very sophisticated built-in package installer (actually they aquired it from InstallShield) that keeps track of all these files, provides helpful diagnostic messages and install logs in a standard format, and maintains its own integrity. It's taken them a decade to get to the point where uninstalling an application really is as simple as yanking it out with the "add/remove programs" menu. They had to wrangle a lot of screwy architecture to do it.
Of course, they should have, instead, THROWN THAT ARCHITECTURE AWAY, and redesigned their library and linking system PROPERLY. But oh well.:)
Wow, you must be in a hurry. There's a lot of bad reasoning in that last response. Most of your objections are just rephrased versions of the same single objection you've been giving all along: That without observing your trumped-up version of "macroevolution", evolution must be "unlikely".
Of course, to you, that demonstration is not adequate - you don't want a "gradual improvement", you want a wholly-formed, physically apparent change to be wrought in one generation. Like, say, a brand-new, fully-functonal third eyeball on the back of your son's head.
That's not what I want--I don't care if the new functionality appears overnight or over time. But your examples are far from the kinds of things that create a truly new, functionally unique species either spontaenously or over time.
You may mock that, but a new eyeball, a wing, multiple stomachs, 8 legs instead of 2, etc. THESE would be excellent examples of macroevolution. Yet you mock me for wanting to see an example. I don't understand why. It's not a silly request.
You're right, I mock you for wanting to see an example. Now I am going to explain why.
Let's consider your request from a feasibility standpoint.
How about "creating useful new functionality" in a lab setting?
We set up two identical labs, insulated from the outside world, both with various observation equipment. Artificial light simulates night and day the same in each lab. Feeding platforms are in exactly the same place, and always give out the same food at the same time. In each lab we place an equal number of squirrels, cloned from the same batch so their genetic diversity is as close as we can get it. We name lab A the A squirrels, and lab B the B squirrels.
So far we've got an experiment with a control, and some animals to work with. We can then mimic the effects of natural selection for a particular trait by changing the layout of lab B relative to lab A. For example, if we wanted to breed squirrels with better vision, we could alter the day and night cycle in lab A so that it's consistently dimmer than lab B. We could expect to see subsequent generations of squirrels get larger and more prominent eyes.
But that's just reproducing what dog breeders have been doing for centuries, so it's not "remarkable" enough. What we're looking for is some kind of drastic change in the body plan of the animal, something that makes it so different, we would no longer be able to call it a squirrel. "Eight legs instead of two, a new eyeball, a wing"...
Well, obviously, we'd need to make more drastic modifications to lab A than just dimming the lights. We would need to change the lab in some way that a squirrel would be rewarded with increased chance for survival if it developed some amazing new trait. Perhaps we could put additional food on the ceiling. That way, only squirrels who were able to fly would be able to access the food. Wait long enough, and we'd get our flying squirrels, right?
Well, according to principles of natural selection, it's not very likely at all - a squirrel with wings might suddenly find itself at a disadvantage when doing other squirrel things, like fighting for territory, or digging holes. A flying squirrel would have to drop a considerable amount of its body weight just to be able to get off the ground - and that means a loss of bone and muscle mass. In a fight, a flying squirrel wouldn't have a chance against a regular squirrel. So we can't really expect to get a flying squirrel all in one go, nor can we reasonably expect to evolve one in that lab setting - the environment is too restricted.
How about if we slowly moved the food up the walls, so that all the squirrels would have to reach higher and higher to get the food? What could we expect from that? Well, with the food part-way up the walls, the squirrels would have to jump for it. That means stronger and more articulated legs, and a more graceful body shape so they can make midair adjustmen
You: No, you obviously don't. My point is that functionally, there is no difference.
Sorry, I do (and did) know the difference. Your essay wasn't necessary to make your point. In fact, you just stated your point in one sentence. For the record, I disagree with your point.
Fair enough. You're using a non-standard definition that immediately makes a conversation with you incoherent, but fair enough. I assume your definition of macroevolution is "useful new functionality, perpetuated beyond the first generation". If that's your definition, then macroevolution is already being demonstrated all around you: For example, if you have a son and he grows up to be taller than you, and that trait ends up winning him a basketball scholarship, and your son marries a tall woman and gives you a grandchild who is even taller than he is, then you have just witnessed "macroevolution".
Of course, to you, that demonstration is not adequate - you don't want a "gradual improvement", you want a wholly-formed, physically apparent change to be wrought in one generation. Like, say, a brand-new, fully-functonal third eyeball on the back of your son's head. You seem to insist that such a bizarre occurrence is the only thing that can possibly drive the appearance of new functionality in general... And you can keep insisting that if you want, but it's in contradiction with what our common biology is capable of.
As I said before, you're just arguing from the position of ignorance about how evolution works. Small, even imperceptible changes can eventually result in speciation and can produce all the diverse life forms we see today. We have documented the biological processes that make this happen, and evolution not only operates perfectly within those processes, but predicted the shape of those processes to the scientists who were doing the initial research.
If I may toss another analogy into the mix, it's like we're looking at a tire, rolling in slow motion, halfway down a hill - and a tire track extends behind the wheel up to the top of the hill. The question is, "what made the track?" and the current answer is, "the wheel made it".
Still, if you think the eggheads are lying to you or distorting the facts out of some malice against theology, then I can respect your skepticism - though I question your dim view of scientists!
You're doing the typical dance of the macroevolutionist, which is to define macroevolution as "whatever level of complexity we haven't observed yet", and then to declare that since we haven't observed it, it's not likely to happen.
So? And you're (meaning science, not you personally) defining macroevolution arbitrarily as something that is able to cross a species boundary that is, itself, an arbitrary definition.
It's not arbitrary. It's the accepted definition. This is a different situation than the "dance" I describe above, where the definition conveniently changes to be repeatedly outside the bounds of observed phenomena.
The term "macroevolution" sticks at the species border, period. We have observed speciation, therefore we have observed macroevolution. If you want to keep redefining the term to suit your own purposes, go ahead - just take note that you have left the territory of regular scientific discourse, where the term is very strictly defined, as evolution above the species level and begun to play word games.
Until we've observed that, don't be surprised that people are not going to blindly believe your assertion that microevolution is the same as macroevolution.
You talk as though I'm handing out pamphlets or something. I have only used the commonly accepted definition of macroevolution. The only person who has their work cut out for them is you.
If we have all these examples of microevolution but no evidence of useful new functionality evolving, it should at leas
I truely believe that when we find a more viable form of energy and stop dumping tons of money in the middle east, that there will finally be peace there. It is kind of hard to fund a war without any money...
Your response, though long, mostly didn't even
respond to my points. I already know what
macroevolution is and its difference from
microevolution. Your essay was redundant.
No, you obviously don't. My point is that
functionally, there is no difference.
In one case, finally, a new biological species
has arisen spontaneously in a laboratory. A
strain of _Drosophila_paulistorum_ when first
collected was interfertile with other strains but
developed hybrid sterility after being isolated
in a separate culture for just a few years
(Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky 1971).
This, and every example of speciation that
I've been able to find so far, all offer
fertility and/or the interest in interbreeding as
an example of speciation. While this may satisfy
the technical definition of speciation (which you
yourself have said is an arbitrary line), we have
not seen this process produce any new useful and
beneficial functions or features in the
offspring.
You're doing the typical dance of the macroevolutionist, which is to define
macroevolution as "whatever level of complexity
we haven't observed yet", and then to declare
that since we haven't observed it, it's not
likely to happen. In order to do that dance,
you're ignoring a fundamental issue of scale
here, which is that complex useful
features and interlocking systems did not spring
up spontaneously, nor would they need to to
satisfy the fossil record. In addition, traits
that provide small advantages do not stop
evolving once they first appear - which is a very important point in the development of systems.
But, ignoring these tenets of evolutionary theory, and hugging your "complexity ceiling", you state:
We haven't seen a lizard sprout wings so it could more easily find food. We haven't seen the "nose" of a whale suddenly shift to its back so it could more easily surface for air.
Nor are such "sproutings" and "sudden shifts" necessary to make large-scale evolution occur. No one is saying they are, except for people like
you who wish to confuse the topic by begging the
question of spontanaety.
We've seen mutations, but these always seem to
be detrimental to the organism which often dies
sooner than healthy organisms, is often sterile,
and when not sterile does not pass on its genetic
defect.
Yeah, and whenever I play a game of cards, I always seem to be the guy who doesn't get all four aces. Gosh, there must be something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the game of cards because, hey, I should be getting four aces almost every time I'm dealt in!
Do you have any idea how long A BILLION YEARS is?
Before you trot out the "statistical improbability means unbelievable" response to that, and make some analogy about potato chips spelling out "I love you" on a couch and the "obvious" interpretation of that, consider again
how long a billion years is, in terms of genetic
mutation from one generation to the next. And
before you make some other analogy about
complexity or information, like say, a vase
reassembling itself, note that the biological
processes by which evolution operates do not
violate any physical laws, such as the laws of
entropy. Reassambling a vase does
violate those laws. Assuming that evolution was
guided by invisible god-hands also
violates those laws, and it is an
unneccessary assumption. Those analogies are
cute, but they don't work. The biological mechanisms of evolution and environmental influence of natural selection operate fine today, and operated fine yesterday, and operated fine six billion years ago, and can result in the conditions we find today, as well as account for the evidence we've uncovered. Unless you present some reason why they can't (see my last question), or postulate a scientific theory that fits the data even better (and ID is not scientific) then evolution will stand.
They say the evidence is overwhelming yet you seldom see any of this overwhelming evidence.
People like you (and I'm not trying to be rude or point fingers) always say there is "overwhelming evidence" but never actually provide it.
No-one disputes that life forms today are more complex than they were a few billion years ago. The question is how that happened.
You say it is valid to "extrapolate" microevolution to macroevolution, yet you provide no evidence of macroevolution.
First, let me say this about "macroevolution":
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution can be responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
In other words, the only border for distinguishing macroevolution from microevolution - the species line - is an arbitrary one made for the sake of species study, not a border based on some difference of process. The same processes proven to work on one side of this line can operate on the other side, and acheive the necessary results.
Once two lineages are reproductively isolated from each other, they evolve more and more differences that they share but the other lineages don't. This phenomenon works whether the division is sexual, geographical, or merely physical due to some behavioral quirk (for example, parasitic worms that prefer a particular animal may never interact with similar worms that infest another species of animal, even though the two animals share territory.) There's no reason these processes can't apply to all lineages, back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion (which I'm sure you're just dying to mention) are of this kind, although some scientists additionally theorize that the gene structures of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
The process of "macroevolution" can be, and has been, explained via the same principles that cause inter-species variation to occur. As of yet, there's no need to postulate some additional, perhaps mythical, force that caused, for example, dolphins to end up with finger-bones in their flippers. If you choose to believe instead that "miracles" caused it, that's between you and Occam's Razor. Just the same as we accept that the law of gravity works on Pluto the same way as it does here - even though we have yet to send astronauts there to attempt to play basketball and find out "for sure" - we accept that the biological processes of evolution we have thoroughly documented and seen the trappings of today were just as effective ten billion years ago.
Which brings me to my second point. You bandy around those tired lines "evolution has gaps, it has not been proven, it relies on faith", but that old dog don't hunt no more. The supporting evidence, and the direct observed evidence, of speciation - that is, what you would call "macroevolution" - really is plentiful. We have moved beyond evidence that it "happened". We have actually seen it happen in the lab(*). For a nice thick sample, do peruse the slide collection for the University of Texas' Biology 304 class.
In one case, finally, a new biological species has arisen spontaneously in a laboratory. A strain of _Drosophila_paulistorum_ when first collected was interfertile with other strains but developed hybrid sterility after being isolated in a separate culture for just a f
I'm going to defer to my old friend Richard Dawkins here:
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it.
And my pal John Allen Paulos:
Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.
And my good buddy H Allen Orr:
Though people often picture science as a collection of clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced countless important experiments (let's re-create a natural species in the lab--yes, that's been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns (that's why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). By contrast, ID has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology. As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics.
Kind of like the Big Bang and evolution, both of which are supported only by data when that data is interpreted under the assumption that the respective theories are correct.
WTF are you talking about?
Big Bang: Telescopic observation of the night sky reveals abundant redshift of frequencies, increasing with the perceived distance of the mass. Most plausible explanation for the redshift: the objects are moving away from us. Most plausible explanation for the distribution of redshift: the universe is expanding at a uniform pace. Most plausible description of the universe a long time ago: Everything was a lot closer together. The evidence practically points itself at a Big Bang. Scientists aren't busily trying to "prop up" the Big Bang -- they're busily trying to find an explanation for the evidence that, on it's own, implies that one occurred.
By the way, you probably may not have an adequate grasp of what the Big Bang theory describes. The word 'Bang' is a bit of a misnomer, because the occurrence 1. Created space as it went along, 2. Defined an endpoint of time, therefore didn't exactly 'happen' in the way we experience things 'happening', and 3. Didn't make any 'noise' per se. It's the point on the space/time graph where infinite time is exchanged for zero space. If you try to go "back in time" to when it happened, you will never get there.
Evolution: Come back after a few years at a good University, and we'll discuss it. I'm beginning to suspect that your cynical interpretation of scientific investigation is based on a desire to safeguard your "faith", rather than any tangible study of the practice and/or its results.
It seems that with evolution facts are often shoe-horned into the theory rather than significantly adjusting the theory or admitting it's wrong. When there's no reasonable explanation for a fact, rather than admitting that evolution has some serious flaws, the fact is just left out "hanging" as a curiosity so that, sometime in the future, someone can take another crack at explaining how that fact somehow works into the theory.
And do you know why this is? Because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the process of evolution. An archeologist doesn't look for an "evolution friendly" explanation for why certain bones are unearthed in certain arrangements. An archeologist looks for the most likely explanation, based on the information available. And in the case of evolution, there is a lot of it, and it's everywhere.
Almost two hundred years ago, mining prospectors in Britain, studying the landscape in search of a way to predict the locations of coal seams, uncovered vast fossil beds of preserved aquatic creatures. They discovered that by comparing the creatures in each successive layer of sediment, they could predict how old the land was, and how far they had to dig to reach the layer of sediment that bordered a coal seam created during a tropical epoch. Key to their efficiency was a description of the tiny fossils in each layer - they could even tell when the land had been turned upside-down by geographic upheaval, because the skeletons became successively more primitive in one direction, and more complicated in the other. They didn't even need genetic analysis, they could just look at them. In documenting their findings, they created, among other things, a gigantic wall-sized map of Britain that still hangs in a museum today. That was then, and in two hundred years evolution has moved far beyond the realm of smoke and mirrors you purport it to be in, and become a generally accepted and thoroughly documented phenomenon. And that is why modern archeologists turn to it first.
So go ahead, draw the line at your front door, and declare that the only things that you'll believe are things you can experimentally observe with your own eyes - but realize that you're making a straw-man argument the entire time. Science is not just about making observations, it's about explaining processes in ways that do not require belief, faith, or even the existence of humans in order to be accurate. It's also about continuous refinement. If you want to drop all the accumulated properly documented experimentation in the trash can, and declare that it's a matter of faith because a science book looks the same to you as a bible, then go ahead. But if you want to pass a law that says scientists must shoehorn God into a statistical argument, then stop right there.
For decades, science teachers have been barred from even mentioning god, for fear of reprisals from twits like those in Kansas. Now that's not enough - their avoidance of the topic has to instead become a legislated endorsement of what is, on its face, a completely unscientific "explanation" of the genesis of life. You know, this whole uniquely American anti-evolution crusade crap only began about 60 years ago, when warring factions of the church decided that it would strengthen their attendance if they meddled publicly in educational reform. It's a 60-year-old P.R. move, and before that time, evolution coexisted with all religions just fine.
Yep. The fact is we don't know for sure. The numbers keep changing and, we hope, become more accurate. But as you said, "recent estimates" are 13.7 billion years. It'll be interesting to see what the estimates are 20 years from now. But even though we are not entirely sure of these facts and even though we've never seen life spontaneously generate so we have no way of knowing how statistically common it is, Godless evolutionists try to make a statistical argument
Dig up your copies of corporate charters and try and find the line that says, "Make profit by any means, no matter who gets hurt, no matter what.".
Why isn't that line there? Bad P.R. again? Or is it somehow "implied", that profits universally trump things like, say, avoiding murder, treason, oppression, or environmental damage?
As for the karma-dreaded Apple/Microsoft comparison, it actually provides an illustration of my point. Lest we forget our history, Microsoft is on the local shitlist because of its stress-inducing products and its misconduct in the marketplace. Up until about four years ago when OS X 10.1 came out, Apple was on that same list for its stagnation and irrelevance. (Linux was the sole savior of mankind. Remember those days?)
Now people are going "rah rah sis-boom-bah" because Apple is producing products that don't suck; that are in fact, pretty good, even uniquely good. Microsoft, by contrast, is still soul-searching. Their current plan is to transform into some kind of information mogul and cannibalize Google. Both Microsoft and Apple have profit as a motive - a primary motive, even - but Apple is in favor because their current means to meeting their primary goal is their secondary goal: to make products that don't suck.
Secondary and tertiary goals are what distinguish corporations from each other. Far from not existing or being irrelevant, they're often the only things that make corporations unique, that make some corporations find their niche while others flounder, that plague some with lawsuits while others chug quietly along. Any corporation that "doesn't care about what's right for their customers or otherwise" is a corporation in decline.
1. Chaos and fear. Postulate god(s) as the explanation for the world. 2. Begin describing the world mathematically 3. Scrap the superfluous element 4. Argue with those who wish to retain it on sentimental grounds
Now before you respond that "If God set it up so perfectly that he knew it would produce life, then that same condition could have statistically happened all by itself" then I would respond that that's just speculation based on an incomplete knowledge of the universe and the origin of life. Until we see life spontaneously create itself and become more complex, any assertion as to how likely that may or may not be is entirely speculation and certainly not any more fact-based than believing in God.
"Entirely speculation" would be, for example, an ignorant shouting match in an internet forum. As soon as one starts doing research to back up one's claims, the discussion moves out of the "entirely speculation" department and becomes a bit scientific. You're ignoring the process of scientific investigation at your peril, friend. It is inherently "fact-based", in that it seeks to accumulate and refine the "facts" themselves, in pursuit of an accurate explanation for them.
How long has the universe existed? How large is it? How many atoms are in the universe? We don't even have the answers to these questions and we have never seen life spontaneously create itself to a degree necessary to believe we have any idea how statistically common it is or isn't.
The universe has been around for approximately 13.7 billion years' time, according to recent estimates based on the age of white-dwarf-class stars. That estimate has been progressively refined based on many other gathered facts and simulations, such as the layout of the galaxies, the typical formation time of stars and planets, the proportions of various elements around the universe, and yes, even that "evil" mainstay, the fossil record.
There are also similar estimates for the size of the universe. I don't have the most recent figure available, but I know the estimate is based on data from several sources, such as redshift in light from the farthest visible entities, and disturbances in the generally uniform arrangement of matter as mapped from the night sky.
How many atoms are in the universe? Come on, man. Google it. If I sound dismissive, it's because I've seen these questions pop up over and over from people who refuse to do even the most cursory investigation, even if it's just to read the current written works on the subject. But maybe these phenomena go hand in hand: For people who wish to argue on sentimental grounds, objective facts are often the enemy.
You say: A. "we have never seen life spontaneously create itself," B. therefore, we do not "have any idea how statistically common it is"
Use your powers of reasoning, pal. Statement A doesn't lead to statement B. It leads to statement C: C. therefore, it must be pretty rare, or maybe even impossible.
By contrast, we have seen small-scale evolution happen (via natural and unnatural selection) first-hand, in documentedexperiments that you can reproduce with potted plants in a greenhouse in your own back yard. What's more, the evidence for large-scale evolution is woven throughout the history of man (domestication and spread of crops, for example), as well as pre-human history.
As a Christian I do believe God has an active interest in us but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that that means He can't be actively interested in life elsewhere in the universe.
(Potshot: Yeah, because believing oneself to be one of the conduits of God's will is so much less arrogant than believing oneself to be the conduit of God's will.)
So if you've embraced the idea of intelligent life i
Why not? All corporations are, by definition, for profit organisations. They don't care about what's right for their customers or otherwise, they only call about one single thing... their bottom line.
That sounds hip and jaded, but it also belies a disturbing lack of faith in society. Next you'll declare that all employees care about, by definition, is their paycheck -- therefore they don't care if their job consists of beating children with baseball bats, as long as it pays the bills. And all politicians care about is getting elected, therefore they'll just put their feet up and masturbate once they get into office; and all men care about is sex, and all women care about is babies... et cetera.
In this specific case, what's wrong with Apple developing technology to make its products hard to emulate or reverse-engineer? Aside from its potential for harassing pirates, I don't see the harm in it. And the harm to pirates is most likely illusory anyway, since pirates and crackers are a very, very resourceful demographic.
Tamper-proof code is still ultimately only as secure as the hardware at its weakest link, and that weakest link for Apple will be this: The DVD that a new OS upgrade ships on. Put it in the drive, read it off. From there, it's only a matter of a carefully developed emulation environment and a precise sequence of code patches until the software is just as redistributable as the latest RedHat image.
Still, and as has been said a million times already, Apple doesn't need to make it impossible - just inconvenient for the layman. And even if Apple ties its OS to its hardware with a zillion steel cables,... what's the loss, for a company that refuses to license them separately? You wouldn't complain that the software operating your Honda Accord isn't portable to your Ford Taurus, would you? (Well, if you're a Linux rivethead, you'd probably point and laugh, but you still wouldn't complain.)
As for the Powerbook with strips "all over" the LCD... call AppleCare and keep complaining until they take it back. A friend of mine (who now works for Apple, ironically) sent his 15" PowerBook back THREE TIMES before receiving a machine that didn't have white spots on the LCD, and Apple paid the postage both ways each time. (They also told him they were tracking all the returns in order to build a legal case against the supplier of their LCD screens.)
And as for "why shouldn't I just buy a Dell",... I don't know, why shouldn't you just buy a Dell? Get the freaking system you'll be happy with. The rest is just slashdot-esque dick-measuring.
Ooo! Oo! I have! As a small-time IT guy doing upgrades late at night, I once ripped the one-button mouse off a workstation keyboard and jumped up and down on it repeatedly, yelling "[expletive expletive] YOU, STEVE!!". Unfortunately, I can't remember what horrible accident triggered this outburst. Then there was the time in college, around 1996, that a friend and I drove several pieces of Mac hardware out to an abandoned field and bashed them to pieces, Office-Space style.
Of course, this is nothing compared to the number of times I've expressed rage at my Windows boxen, specifically, Windows itself.
Come to think of it, computers have inspired a lot of wrath in me over the years... not very healthy...
I agree. Apple needs to seriously fix the Finder, but they've only been making it worse - I used to be able to select files by LENGTH of FILENAME, using box-select. Now that functionality has been discarded, in favor of this hybrid single-click drag-select crap that operates UNLIKE EVERY OTHER LIST IN THE WHOLE FREAKING OS. Finder windows are also the only damn windows in the whole OS that accept clicks even when NOT brought to the foreground - another inconsistency that irritates me, but in the opposite direction, since I think ALL windows on OS X should behave that way: If I can see it, I should be able to click it and get the desired operation, no matter what [expletive] context it's in.
Good point, but the whole discussion about meta data, filetypes, etc tends to get bogged down because, at the most basic level, a real "file" is just a single stream of bits. Everything else - whether it's the name, resource fork, filetype info, or even the enclosing folder structure, is meta-data - and each of those is a stream or streams of bits, so in effect the term meta-data is a term that we apply almost arbitrarily as we group the various streams. We declare that one stream is the file's "content", while all the other streams are just "meta data".
The elasticity of the term becomes apparent when you try to implement things like filesystem-level compression: A folder gets compressed into a single stream. (Where does the meta-data go? Does it vanish, or is it still considered meta-data even though it's now one component of a stream?)
Either way, an OS decides how to deal with a file based on an examination of one - or all - of the streams. For the OS to be reasonably successful, the stream examined must not be overly large or complicated, and must follow a clear standard. But if this is a discussion about efficiency - the "proper" way to maintain a filesystem - then it's one we can't solve from the middle out. We can only solve it from both ends.
On one end, we need to be presented with a view of the filesystem that subdivides streams exactly as much as we need, to get our work done. For example, a photograph file carries encapsulated EXIF data around automatically, but a slideshow needs to provide us with some way to manipulate the encapsulated photos.
On the other end, the filesystem needs to subdivide or combine streams in a way that makes reading, moving, changing, and compressing them as fast as possible for the operating system. And that could require a structure very different than the one we stare at on the screen...
6. Having all files be "commands" in that if you double-click...
...this idea could have been implemented 20 years earlier, it does not rely on GUI
Maybe you need to rephrase that.;)
Aside from being nit picky, this also makes a point: Before the GUI, it was not necessary to have the computer automatically connect a file with a command - there was no way to interact with the computer where the proper program wasn't selected deliberately, or established from context. Aaaah the magic of the CLI.
Considering that you may be moving into a region that has NO ability to provide amenities, you may want to treat the whole experience like a wilderness backpacking trip. However, if you're going to stay in one place where you can keep supplies, you should prepare a disaster stockpile. A these items are what you should have on hand at home - and presumably take with you at large. ( List compiled by my pal Breakpoint, shortly after his fifth Burning Man trip )
Slashdot Mirror
So you can hold the iPod even more firmly than the Karma, and still use it. Which leads to the big difference between the scroll knob and the scroll wheel, when they're used in their intended positions: You can keep scrolling continuously with the scroll wheel, while you have to stop, lift your thumb, and place it down again to continue scrolling on the scroll knob. That action gets old when you have two dozen playlists to scroll though, and the repeated repositioning of the thumb tends to make the hand rattle the device and make the screen hard to read.
IMO, the best combination of parts that Apple could choose from all their iPod generations would be the 1st gen "mechanical" scroll wheel, combined with the 3rd gen "touch sensitive" row of buttons up apart from the wheel. That way you get tactile feedback on the wheel, and you can spin it and let it go, like you'd spin a roulette wheel - and the buttons are instantaneous, so you can navigate in and out of the submenus and skip tracks very quickly, with a couple of taps.
Ahh yes, that's right. Let me wipe this egg off my face. :)
The problem there is, they contain a wide variety of CPUs and hardware, run their own custom (generally Java-based) OSes, and are severely limited in the ways they can communicate with each other.
Although Bill may be writing to ride on the coat tail's of Apple's recent success, the Macintosh can get infected by a virus or a trojan program. In fact, some of the earliest computer viruses in the wild were found on the Mac. The Mac virus problem isn't as large as the Windows virus problem, but that's because there are many more Windows machines intermingling out there.
Well, to be accurate, you need to shorten that last sentence to "The Mac virus problem isn't." :D ... but it could exist.
Frankly, I don't know why there isn't a virus problem - excluding email viruses and service-based worms, there is still the possibility of malicious code distributed inside a popular application a la BackOrifice. Maybe there is such a program out there. Unfortunately (for the hacker), that still doesn't give the infection any good way to spread
Any networked device, from routers to mainframes, from Bluetooth devices to cell phones to the XBox 360, may be vulerable to malware. All need robust security.
Well said.
Yeah, that's been my experience too. ... the real problem with Windows is that applications frequently need to install shit in different/dangerous areas of the operating system ... and then are unable or unwilling to remove that shit. Microsoft's first response to this was to develop "file protection", then "system restore points", then finally to (at long last) develop a very sophisticated built-in package installer (actually they aquired it from InstallShield) that keeps track of all these files, provides helpful diagnostic messages and install logs in a standard format, and maintains its own integrity. It's taken them a decade to get to the point where uninstalling an application really is as simple as yanking it out with the "add/remove programs" menu. They had to wrangle a lot of screwy architecture to do it.
Of course, they should have, instead, THROWN THAT ARCHITECTURE AWAY, and redesigned their library and linking system PROPERLY. But oh well. :)
Of course, to you, that demonstration is not adequate - you don't want a "gradual improvement", you want a wholly-formed, physically apparent change to be wrought in one generation. Like, say, a brand-new, fully-functonal third eyeball on the back of your son's head.
That's not what I want--I don't care if the new functionality appears overnight or over time. But your examples are far from the kinds of things that create a truly new, functionally unique species either spontaenously or over time.
You may mock that, but a new eyeball, a wing, multiple stomachs, 8 legs instead of 2, etc. THESE would be excellent examples of macroevolution. Yet you mock me for wanting to see an example. I don't understand why. It's not a silly request.
You're right, I mock you for wanting to see an example. Now I am going to explain why.
Let's consider your request from a feasibility standpoint.
How about "creating useful new functionality" in a lab setting?
We set up two identical labs, insulated from the outside world, both with various observation equipment. Artificial light simulates night and day the same in each lab. Feeding platforms are in exactly the same place, and always give out the same food at the same time. In each lab we place an equal number of squirrels, cloned from the same batch so their genetic diversity is as close as we can get it. We name lab A the A squirrels, and lab B the B squirrels.
So far we've got an experiment with a control, and some animals to work with. We can then mimic the effects of natural selection for a particular trait by changing the layout of lab B relative to lab A. For example, if we wanted to breed squirrels with better vision, we could alter the day and night cycle in lab A so that it's consistently dimmer than lab B. We could expect to see subsequent generations of squirrels get larger and more prominent eyes.
But that's just reproducing what dog breeders have been doing for centuries, so it's not "remarkable" enough. What we're looking for is some kind of drastic change in the body plan of the animal, something that makes it so different, we would no longer be able to call it a squirrel. "Eight legs instead of two, a new eyeball, a wing" ...
Well, obviously, we'd need to make more drastic modifications to lab A than just dimming the lights. We would need to change the lab in some way that a squirrel would be rewarded with increased chance for survival if it developed some amazing new trait. Perhaps we could put additional food on the ceiling. That way, only squirrels who were able to fly would be able to access the food. Wait long enough, and we'd get our flying squirrels, right?
Well, according to principles of natural selection, it's not very likely at all - a squirrel with wings might suddenly find itself at a disadvantage when doing other squirrel things, like fighting for territory, or digging holes. A flying squirrel would have to drop a considerable amount of its body weight just to be able to get off the ground - and that means a loss of bone and muscle mass. In a fight, a flying squirrel wouldn't have a chance against a regular squirrel. So we can't really expect to get a flying squirrel all in one go, nor can we reasonably expect to evolve one in that lab setting - the environment is too restricted.
How about if we slowly moved the food up the walls, so that all the squirrels would have to reach higher and higher to get the food? What could we expect from that? Well, with the food part-way up the walls, the squirrels would have to jump for it. That means stronger and more articulated legs, and a more graceful body shape so they can make midair adjustmen
Like I said - I love debates like these!
You: No, you obviously don't. My point is that functionally, there is no difference.
Sorry, I do (and did) know the difference. Your essay wasn't necessary to make your point. In fact, you just stated your point in one sentence. For the record, I disagree with your point.
Fair enough. You're using a non-standard definition that immediately makes a conversation with you incoherent, but fair enough. I assume your definition of macroevolution is "useful new functionality, perpetuated beyond the first generation". If that's your definition, then macroevolution is already being demonstrated all around you: For example, if you have a son and he grows up to be taller than you, and that trait ends up winning him a basketball scholarship, and your son marries a tall woman and gives you a grandchild who is even taller than he is, then you have just witnessed "macroevolution".
Of course, to you, that demonstration is not adequate - you don't want a "gradual improvement", you want a wholly-formed, physically apparent change to be wrought in one generation. Like, say, a brand-new, fully-functonal third eyeball on the back of your son's head. You seem to insist that such a bizarre occurrence is the only thing that can possibly drive the appearance of new functionality in general... And you can keep insisting that if you want, but it's in contradiction with what our common biology is capable of.
As I said before, you're just arguing from the position of ignorance about how evolution works. Small, even imperceptible changes can eventually result in speciation and can produce all the diverse life forms we see today. We have documented the biological processes that make this happen, and evolution not only operates perfectly within those processes, but predicted the shape of those processes to the scientists who were doing the initial research.
If I may toss another analogy into the mix, it's like we're looking at a tire, rolling in slow motion, halfway down a hill - and a tire track extends behind the wheel up to the top of the hill. The question is, "what made the track?" and the current answer is, "the wheel made it".
Still, if you think the eggheads are lying to you or distorting the facts out of some malice against theology, then I can respect your skepticism - though I question your dim view of scientists!
You're doing the typical dance of the macroevolutionist, which is to define macroevolution as "whatever level of complexity we haven't observed yet", and then to declare that since we haven't observed it, it's not likely to happen.
So? And you're (meaning science, not you personally) defining macroevolution arbitrarily as something that is able to cross a species boundary that is, itself, an arbitrary definition.
It's not arbitrary. It's the accepted definition. This is a different situation than the "dance" I describe above, where the definition conveniently changes to be repeatedly outside the bounds of observed phenomena.
The term "macroevolution" sticks at the species border, period. We have observed speciation, therefore we have observed macroevolution. If you want to keep redefining the term to suit your own purposes, go ahead - just take note that you have left the territory of regular scientific discourse, where the term is very strictly defined, as evolution above the species level and begun to play word games.
Until we've observed that, don't be surprised that people are not going to blindly believe your assertion that microevolution is the same as macroevolution.
You talk as though I'm handing out pamphlets or something. I have only used the commonly accepted definition of macroevolution. The only person who has their work cut out for them is you.
If we have all these examples of microevolution but no evidence of useful new functionality evolving, it should at leas
Oh yeah, that's the best way to run a science class! By mob rule!! That'll pick up the pace of innovation, and create geniuses by the truckload!!
ARRRGGGHHH
Well said. I couldn't agree with you more.
No, you obviously don't. My point is that functionally, there is no difference.
In one case, finally, a new biological species has arisen spontaneously in a laboratory. A strain of _Drosophila_paulistorum_ when first collected was interfertile with other strains but developed hybrid sterility after being isolated in a separate culture for just a few years (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky 1971).
This, and every example of speciation that I've been able to find so far, all offer fertility and/or the interest in interbreeding as an example of speciation. While this may satisfy the technical definition of speciation (which you yourself have said is an arbitrary line), we have not seen this process produce any new useful and beneficial functions or features in the offspring.
You're doing the typical dance of the macroevolutionist, which is to define macroevolution as "whatever level of complexity we haven't observed yet", and then to declare that since we haven't observed it, it's not likely to happen. In order to do that dance, you're ignoring a fundamental issue of scale here, which is that complex useful features and interlocking systems did not spring up spontaneously, nor would they need to to satisfy the fossil record. In addition, traits that provide small advantages do not stop evolving once they first appear - which is a very important point in the development of systems.
But, ignoring these tenets of evolutionary theory, and hugging your "complexity ceiling", you state:
We haven't seen a lizard sprout wings so it could more easily find food. We haven't seen the "nose" of a whale suddenly shift to its back so it could more easily surface for air.
Nor are such "sproutings" and "sudden shifts" necessary to make large-scale evolution occur. No one is saying they are, except for people like you who wish to confuse the topic by begging the question of spontanaety.
We've seen mutations, but these always seem to be detrimental to the organism which often dies sooner than healthy organisms, is often sterile, and when not sterile does not pass on its genetic defect.
Yeah, and whenever I play a game of cards, I always seem to be the guy who doesn't get all four aces. Gosh, there must be something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the game of cards because, hey, I should be getting four aces almost every time I'm dealt in!
Do you have any idea how long A BILLION YEARS is?
Before you trot out the "statistical improbability means unbelievable" response to that, and make some analogy about potato chips spelling out "I love you" on a couch and the "obvious" interpretation of that, consider again how long a billion years is, in terms of genetic mutation from one generation to the next. And before you make some other analogy about complexity or information, like say, a vase reassembling itself, note that the biological processes by which evolution operates do not violate any physical laws, such as the laws of entropy. Reassambling a vase does violate those laws. Assuming that evolution was guided by invisible god-hands also violates those laws, and it is an unneccessary assumption. Those analogies are cute, but they don't work. The biological mechanisms of evolution and environmental influence of natural selection operate fine today, and operated fine yesterday, and operated fine six billion years ago, and can result in the conditions we find today, as well as account for the evidence we've uncovered. Unless you present some reason why they can't (see my last question), or postulate a scientific theory that fits the data even better (and ID is not scientific) then evolution will stand.
To say that microevolution is all that's needed
They say the evidence is overwhelming yet you seldom see any of this overwhelming evidence.
People like you (and I'm not trying to be rude or point fingers) always say there is "overwhelming evidence" but never actually provide it.
No-one disputes that life forms today are more complex than they were a few billion years ago. The question is how that happened.
You say it is valid to "extrapolate" microevolution to macroevolution, yet you provide no evidence of macroevolution.
First, let me say this about "macroevolution":
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution can be responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
In other words, the only border for distinguishing macroevolution from microevolution - the species line - is an arbitrary one made for the sake of species study, not a border based on some difference of process. The same processes proven to work on one side of this line can operate on the other side, and acheive the necessary results.
Once two lineages are reproductively isolated from each other, they evolve more and more differences that they share but the other lineages don't. This phenomenon works whether the division is sexual, geographical, or merely physical due to some behavioral quirk (for example, parasitic worms that prefer a particular animal may never interact with similar worms that infest another species of animal, even though the two animals share territory.) There's no reason these processes can't apply to all lineages, back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion (which I'm sure you're just dying to mention) are of this kind, although some scientists additionally theorize that the gene structures of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
The process of "macroevolution" can be, and has been, explained via the same principles that cause inter-species variation to occur. As of yet, there's no need to postulate some additional, perhaps mythical, force that caused, for example, dolphins to end up with finger-bones in their flippers. If you choose to believe instead that "miracles" caused it, that's between you and Occam's Razor. Just the same as we accept that the law of gravity works on Pluto the same way as it does here - even though we have yet to send astronauts there to attempt to play basketball and find out "for sure" - we accept that the biological processes of evolution we have thoroughly documented and seen the trappings of today were just as effective ten billion years ago.
Which brings me to my second point. You bandy around those tired lines "evolution has gaps, it has not been proven, it relies on faith", but that old dog don't hunt no more. The supporting evidence, and the direct observed evidence, of speciation - that is, what you would call "macroevolution" - really is plentiful. We have moved beyond evidence that it "happened". We have actually seen it happen in the lab(*). For a nice thick sample, do peruse the slide collection for the University of Texas' Biology 304 class.
(*) Futuyma, _Evolutionary Biology_, 2nd edition, 1986:
WTF are you talking about?
Big Bang: Telescopic observation of the night sky reveals abundant redshift of frequencies, increasing with the perceived distance of the mass. Most plausible explanation for the redshift: the objects are moving away from us. Most plausible explanation for the distribution of redshift: the universe is expanding at a uniform pace. Most plausible description of the universe a long time ago: Everything was a lot closer together. The evidence practically points itself at a Big Bang. Scientists aren't busily trying to "prop up" the Big Bang -- they're busily trying to find an explanation for the evidence that, on it's own, implies that one occurred.
By the way, you probably may not have an adequate grasp of what the Big Bang theory describes. The word 'Bang' is a bit of a misnomer, because the occurrence 1. Created space as it went along, 2. Defined an endpoint of time, therefore didn't exactly 'happen' in the way we experience things 'happening', and 3. Didn't make any 'noise' per se. It's the point on the space/time graph where infinite time is exchanged for zero space. If you try to go "back in time" to when it happened, you will never get there.
Evolution: Come back after a few years at a good University, and we'll discuss it. I'm beginning to suspect that your cynical interpretation of scientific investigation is based on a desire to safeguard your "faith", rather than any tangible study of the practice and/or its results.
And do you know why this is? Because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the process of evolution. An archeologist doesn't look for an "evolution friendly" explanation for why certain bones are unearthed in certain arrangements. An archeologist looks for the most likely explanation, based on the information available. And in the case of evolution, there is a lot of it, and it's everywhere.
Almost two hundred years ago, mining prospectors in Britain, studying the landscape in search of a way to predict the locations of coal seams, uncovered vast fossil beds of preserved aquatic creatures. They discovered that by comparing the creatures in each successive layer of sediment, they could predict how old the land was, and how far they had to dig to reach the layer of sediment that bordered a coal seam created during a tropical epoch. Key to their efficiency was a description of the tiny fossils in each layer - they could even tell when the land had been turned upside-down by geographic upheaval, because the skeletons became successively more primitive in one direction, and more complicated in the other. They didn't even need genetic analysis, they could just look at them. In documenting their findings, they created, among other things, a gigantic wall-sized map of Britain that still hangs in a museum today. That was then, and in two hundred years evolution has moved far beyond the realm of smoke and mirrors you purport it to be in, and become a generally accepted and thoroughly documented phenomenon. And that is why modern archeologists turn to it first.
So go ahead, draw the line at your front door, and declare that the only things that you'll believe are things you can experimentally observe with your own eyes - but realize that you're making a straw-man argument the entire time. Science is not just about making observations, it's about explaining processes in ways that do not require belief, faith, or even the existence of humans in order to be accurate. It's also about continuous refinement. If you want to drop all the accumulated properly documented experimentation in the trash can, and declare that it's a matter of faith because a science book looks the same to you as a bible, then go ahead. But if you want to pass a law that says scientists must shoehorn God into a statistical argument, then stop right there .
For decades, science teachers have been barred from even mentioning god, for fear of reprisals from twits like those in Kansas. Now that's not enough - their avoidance of the topic has to instead become a legislated endorsement of what is, on its face, a completely unscientific "explanation" of the genesis of life. You know, this whole uniquely American anti-evolution crusade crap only began about 60 years ago, when warring factions of the church decided that it would strengthen their attendance if they meddled publicly in educational reform. It's a 60-year-old P.R. move, and before that time, evolution coexisted with all religions just fine.
Yep. The fact is we don't know for sure. The numbers keep changing and, we hope, become more accurate. But as you said, "recent estimates" are 13.7 billion years. It'll be interesting to see what the estimates are 20 years from now. But even though we are not entirely sure of these facts and even though we've never seen life spontaneously generate so we have no way of knowing how statistically common it is, Godless evolutionists try to make a statistical argument
Dig up your copies of corporate charters and try and find the line that says, "Make profit by any means, no matter who gets hurt, no matter what.".
Why isn't that line there? Bad P.R. again? Or is it somehow "implied", that profits universally trump things like, say, avoiding murder, treason, oppression, or environmental damage?
As for the karma-dreaded Apple/Microsoft comparison, it actually provides an illustration of my point. Lest we forget our history, Microsoft is on the local shitlist because of its stress-inducing products and its misconduct in the marketplace. Up until about four years ago when OS X 10.1 came out, Apple was on that same list for its stagnation and irrelevance. (Linux was the sole savior of mankind. Remember those days?)
Now people are going "rah rah sis-boom-bah" because Apple is producing products that don't suck; that are in fact, pretty good, even uniquely good. Microsoft, by contrast, is still soul-searching. Their current plan is to transform into some kind of information mogul and cannibalize Google. Both Microsoft and Apple have profit as a motive - a primary motive, even - but Apple is in favor because their current means to meeting their primary goal is their secondary goal: to make products that don't suck.
Secondary and tertiary goals are what distinguish corporations from each other. Far from not existing or being irrelevant, they're often the only things that make corporations unique, that make some corporations find their niche while others flounder, that plague some with lawsuits while others chug quietly along. Any corporation that "doesn't care about what's right for their customers or otherwise" is a corporation in decline.
2. Begin describing the world mathematically
3. Scrap the superfluous element
4. Argue with those who wish to retain it on sentimental grounds
Welcome to step 4, everyone!
Now before you respond that "If God set it up so perfectly that he knew it would produce life, then that same condition could have statistically happened all by itself" then I would respond that that's just speculation based on an incomplete knowledge of the universe and the origin of life. Until we see life spontaneously create itself and become more complex, any assertion as to how likely that may or may not be is entirely speculation and certainly not any more fact-based than believing in God.
"Entirely speculation" would be, for example, an ignorant shouting match in an internet forum. As soon as one starts doing research to back up one's claims, the discussion moves out of the "entirely speculation" department and becomes a bit scientific. You're ignoring the process of scientific investigation at your peril, friend. It is inherently "fact-based", in that it seeks to accumulate and refine the "facts" themselves, in pursuit of an accurate explanation for them.
How long has the universe existed? How large is it? How many atoms are in the universe? We don't even have the answers to these questions and we have never seen life spontaneously create itself to a degree necessary to believe we have any idea how statistically common it is or isn't.
The universe has been around for approximately 13.7 billion years' time, according to recent estimates based on the age of white-dwarf-class stars. That estimate has been progressively refined based on many other gathered facts and simulations, such as the layout of the galaxies, the typical formation time of stars and planets, the proportions of various elements around the universe, and yes, even that "evil" mainstay, the fossil record.
There are also similar estimates for the size of the universe. I don't have the most recent figure available, but I know the estimate is based on data from several sources, such as redshift in light from the farthest visible entities, and disturbances in the generally uniform arrangement of matter as mapped from the night sky.
How many atoms are in the universe? Come on, man. Google it. If I sound dismissive, it's because I've seen these questions pop up over and over from people who refuse to do even the most cursory investigation, even if it's just to read the current written works on the subject. But maybe these phenomena go hand in hand: For people who wish to argue on sentimental grounds, objective facts are often the enemy.
You say:
A. "we have never seen life spontaneously create itself,"
B. therefore, we do not "have any idea how statistically common it is"
Use your powers of reasoning, pal. Statement A doesn't lead to statement B. It leads to statement C:
C. therefore, it must be pretty rare, or maybe even impossible.
(For further ironic perspective, consult the Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn)
By contrast, we have seen small-scale evolution happen (via natural and unnatural selection) first-hand, in documented experiments that you can reproduce with potted plants in a greenhouse in your own back yard. What's more, the evidence for large-scale evolution is woven throughout the history of man (domestication and spread of crops, for example), as well as pre-human history.
As a Christian I do believe God has an active interest in us but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that that means He can't be actively interested in life elsewhere in the universe.
(Potshot: Yeah, because believing oneself to be one of the conduits of God's will is so much less arrogant than believing oneself to be the conduit of God's will.)
So if you've embraced the idea of intelligent life i
Given the above debate, what do you think of this chain of reasoning?
That sounds hip and jaded, but it also belies a disturbing lack of faith in society. Next you'll declare that all employees care about, by definition, is their paycheck -- therefore they don't care if their job consists of beating children with baseball bats, as long as it pays the bills. And all politicians care about is getting elected, therefore they'll just put their feet up and masturbate once they get into office; and all men care about is sex, and all women care about is babies ... et cetera.
In this specific case, what's wrong with Apple developing technology to make its products hard to emulate or reverse-engineer? Aside from its potential for harassing pirates, I don't see the harm in it. And the harm to pirates is most likely illusory anyway, since pirates and crackers are a very, very resourceful demographic.
Tamper-proof code is still ultimately only as secure as the hardware at its weakest link, and that weakest link for Apple will be this: The DVD that a new OS upgrade ships on. Put it in the drive, read it off. From there, it's only a matter of a carefully developed emulation environment and a precise sequence of code patches until the software is just as redistributable as the latest RedHat image.
Still, and as has been said a million times already, Apple doesn't need to make it impossible - just inconvenient for the layman. And even if Apple ties its OS to its hardware with a zillion steel cables, ... what's the loss, for a company that refuses to license them separately? You wouldn't complain that the software operating your Honda Accord isn't portable to your Ford Taurus, would you? (Well, if you're a Linux rivethead, you'd probably point and laugh, but you still wouldn't complain.)
As for the Powerbook with strips "all over" the LCD ... call AppleCare and keep complaining until they take it back. A friend of mine (who now works for Apple, ironically) sent his 15" PowerBook back THREE TIMES before receiving a machine that didn't have white spots on the LCD, and Apple paid the postage both ways each time. (They also told him they were tracking all the returns in order to build a legal case against the supplier of their LCD screens.)
And as for "why shouldn't I just buy a Dell", ... I don't know, why shouldn't you just buy a Dell? Get the freaking system you'll be happy with. The rest is just slashdot-esque dick-measuring.
Of course, this is nothing compared to the number of times I've expressed rage at my Windows boxen, specifically, Windows itself.
Come to think of it, computers have inspired a lot of wrath in me over the years ... not very healthy...
I agree. Apple needs to seriously fix the Finder, but they've only been making it worse - I used to be able to select files by LENGTH of FILENAME, using box-select. Now that functionality has been discarded, in favor of this hybrid single-click drag-select crap that operates UNLIKE EVERY OTHER LIST IN THE WHOLE FREAKING OS. Finder windows are also the only damn windows in the whole OS that accept clicks even when NOT brought to the foreground - another inconsistency that irritates me, but in the opposite direction, since I think ALL windows on OS X should behave that way: If I can see it, I should be able to click it and get the desired operation, no matter what [expletive] context it's in.
The elasticity of the term becomes apparent when you try to implement things like filesystem-level compression: A folder gets compressed into a single stream. (Where does the meta-data go? Does it vanish, or is it still considered meta-data even though it's now one component of a stream?)
Either way, an OS decides how to deal with a file based on an examination of one - or all - of the streams. For the OS to be reasonably successful, the stream examined must not be overly large or complicated, and must follow a clear standard. But if this is a discussion about efficiency - the "proper" way to maintain a filesystem - then it's one we can't solve from the middle out. We can only solve it from both ends.
On one end, we need to be presented with a view of the filesystem that subdivides streams exactly as much as we need, to get our work done. For example, a photograph file carries encapsulated EXIF data around automatically, but a slideshow needs to provide us with some way to manipulate the encapsulated photos.
On the other end, the filesystem needs to subdivide or combine streams in a way that makes reading, moving, changing, and compressing them as fast as possible for the operating system. And that could require a structure very different than the one we stare at on the screen...
Maybe you need to rephrase that. ;)
Aside from being nit picky, this also makes a point: Before the GUI, it was not necessary to have the computer automatically connect a file with a command - there was no way to interact with the computer where the proper program wasn't selected deliberately, or established from context. Aaaah the magic of the CLI.
The PDF printer device. Read the thread before you ask a snippy question, next time.
Considering that you may be moving into a region that has NO ability to provide amenities, you may want to treat the whole experience like a wilderness backpacking trip. However, if you're going to stay in one place where you can keep supplies, you should prepare a disaster stockpile. A these items are what you should have on hand at home - and presumably take with you at large. ( List compiled by my pal Breakpoint, shortly after his fifth Burning Man trip )
How would you compare the process to building an app in xcode?