So what specifically is wrong in Firefox 1.0 that you would like fixed? Take note that incompatibility with badly written IE code isn't a bug, but more a conscious decision by the developers to remain strictly standards compliant. Note that disagreeing with this decision doesn't mean that the product is flawed, but more that you disagree with the developers' viewpoints. In which case it isn't right to call it a broken product.
Version 1 should be the only one unless there are new features. We have to set a mandate that Version 1.1 is not acceptable.
BTW, that sounds like the Debian release cycle. You do realize just how long it will take between releases, right? Even if all found bugs have been fixed, the developers would need to wait many more months to make sure that no further bugs are found. This would definitely create unrest among many users. Would you be willing to wait a year or two for the next version? So much for the headstart that Microsoft would be giving Firefox.
And even if the Firefox team decided to wait months and months to ensure no further bugs, there will undoubtedly be bugs when the product is finally released. It is impossible for a product to be perfect. It can come close, but there will always be something wrong. Should not these bugs be fixed ASAP? Shouldn't a new version be released ASAP addressing these bugs? But wait, you don't want a 1.1 version. Ok, then under your logic everyone must wait another year or two for the next release. That doesn't seem quite right to me.
It's not like the Firefox developers decided to release a half-ass product for the hell of it. Why would they? They didn't have a corporation on their backs forcing a deadline. Of course they did the best they could for the 1.0 release, they weren't sitting around thinking "hey this can be fixed later in 1.1." They're certainly not lazy, after all many of these people are devoted enough to work on the Mozilla project in their free time. Its just that bugs are the reality in software development. We unfortunately don't live in the ideal world.
As a test engineer, have you always been perfect in your testing? Have you managed to catch every single problem?
I'm not expect FireFox to continue with non-standard coding, but they should at least be able to dectect IE code and therefore handle it properly.
First, there is no easy way to detect IE code. IE code is simply broken HTML. How should a standards compliant browser deal with broken HTML? Should it emulate IE? Why? So that websites will continue to code for IE and continue to do things improperly? What was the point of having a standard then?
Suppose a company, such as Microsoft, took a standard, such as Mpeg4 video, and bastardized it into WMV. Should further Mpeg4 video codecs support the bastardized form of Mpeg4?
You'll hafta remember that in many cases the reason webpages do not work/display properly in Firefox is because they are coded specifically to work with IE. That doesn't make it Firefox's fault, that doesn't mean Firefox is a broken product. Firefox's aim is compliance with standards, not compatibility with IE.
Its true that Firefox isn't a perfect product, but calling it "broken sh*t" makes me believe you're making an overgeneralization and blaming Firefox for what is really IE's problem: non-compliance with standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Of the three examples, two are basic windows operations that should apply to all programs anyway. The remaining is a very basic operation that most, if not all, image manipulation tools should have. No substantial evidence has been given.
Actually concerrning straight lines:
Photoshop: Use Line tool GIMP: Pick a paintbrush. Click on canvas. Press shift key. Click on canvas.
Intuitive?
In addition, by comparing GIMP to Photoshop, then asking "Steep learning curve?" you're stating that Photoshop also doesn't have a steep learning curve. It doesn't?
That is very true. However, I never stated Photoshop was any easier.
I would like to note that more people have started out with Photoshop rather than with the GIMP. The people starting with GIMP have an easier time learning it because they're going in with a clean slate, they don't have any preconceived notions of how things should work. However, the people switching in from Photoshop would need to not only learn GIMP, but forget the assumptions learned from Photoshop.
Why is this important? Well, a large number of users (a daresay the majority) have Photoshop backgrounds. Hence, a larger learning curve than if you started out fresh.
Continuing my example, learning to drive with a steering wheel can be as equally hard as learning to drive with joysticks. However, once you've mastered the steering wheel, would you prefer the steering wheel or the joysticks?
In addition, I never stated the Photoshop UI was actually any good. Comparing GIMP to Photoshop in this regard is much like saying "we're just as good as the competition" without saying how good the competition is. Moot point.
Well, the steepness of the learning curve is always debatable. However, several interesting things to note:
Having learned to use the GIMP years ago I haven't really followed GIMP history, but I do believe that suggests starting with a program that was vastly simpler than it is now, then accumulating knowledge of the program as it developed. This is always a great way to learn, unfortunately the latest version of GIMP doesn't come with a "learner's permit" mode (maybe it should?)
and later being incredibly frustrated at how little I could "intuitively" do on a friend's PC running Photoshop This is always a problem in UI design. Once people learn how to do something a specific way, people tend to prefer that way. So people beginning with GIMP find it more intuitive, people beginning with Photoshop find it more intuitive. I note that in my previous comment I implied that the Photoshop UI is easier to use. I would like to qualify that by saying that I can't state whether it really is easier to use, I can only say that more people have used it and so more people tend to perfer it.
I would disagree that the learning curve is "enormously steep". It does take a little bit of learning, though. For most users they mean the same thing:P
The UI is fine if you make an effort to learn to use it.
I believe thats exactly what everyone is complaining about. I'm sure the GUI is certainly usable once you learn it, the problem is that there is an enormously steep learning curve involved that turns the majority of potential users away.
If I replaced your car's steering wheel with joysticks, I'm sure that once you learn it you'll drive just fine. But you'll still curse me for forcing you to learn to drive that way. Most people will probably just give up. At the same time, I'm sure that there will be someone out there who will indeed be willing to learn it and say to everyone else "put some effort in, you whiny idiots."
Except in this case the hackers didn't do any damage, nor did they steal anything. It would be akin to me picklocking your door, placing a note inside your house saying that your lock needs to be replaced with something better, then leaving.
Hm, I have personally tried eBay, unfortunately I have been unable to purchase an iPod at anywhere near $99. Meanwhile, I have seen some incredibly stupid behavior, such as pushing prices above the original retail value. What is wrong with these people?
In the interest of not spoiling it for anyone who has not already figured it out, all I will say is that the problem is in the 4th step (including the step x=y).
Damn, Slashdot formatting ruined my comment. Ignore the duplicate to this one.
Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier, but I'll try my best to understand what you are saying.
>In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.
I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.
>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.
Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.
Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.
So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.
I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?
>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?
Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.
>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.
But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are
Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier >_In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.
I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.
>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.
Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.
Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.
So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.
I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?
>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?
Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.
>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.
But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are there so many genetic disorders?
So the idea is that there will be a large number of random mutations. Many of them will be harmful, many of th
>Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Um, that anonymous commentor wasn't me. No wonder I didn't get an e-mail saying that you replied to my last comment. Because you didn't. Please do because otherwise you have completely ignored my questions, implying an inability to answer them. It can be found here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914& cid=106 97878
>The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. Ok, how are these modifications made? That's what I've been asking, you have *not* answered despite my many inquiries. You have rejected genetics, so then how are these modifications not only made, but transmitted to future generations?
>> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool. >Utter nonsense. I was about to argue with this, but I actually agree. Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones.
>Again, define "gene". Again, that anonymous poster was not me. And why don't you define "gene"? Are you attacking genetics now? My my, that's quite a bold move.
>Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches. Have you written anything that I can read over? You apparently want to establish yourself as an authoritative source, surely this can be proven by linking to a published paper.
>I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't. So you now resort to insults? What professionalism.
>And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background Oh sure, I know what it means, but since you want me to define everything, why don't you do too? See how well you play at your own game.
>Life: molecular autopoiesis Define. I am well aware of what autopoiesis is, but let's play your game.
>YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND As I said in my previous comment, presumption. You don't know anything about me.
>Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough The following concerns the researchers you have suggested me to look into: Bateson - Attempted to prevent science from reducing everything down to matter. Wanted to reintroduce the concept of mind back into science. Stated that mind is basic part of material reality. How is that any better than religion and philosophy? I challenge you in saying that these ideas cannot be proven false, and under your logic are thus myths. Maturana/Varela - Formulated autopoiesis theory. Answered the question of the basic characteristic organization in living systems. Stated they are essentially autonomous systems. Does *NOT* disprove natural selection (where did you get that idea?). Actually this theory compliments natural selection. "Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates."
>You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't. Since you would like to insult me, I will take that challenge. Would you like to parlay? Name some specific works for me to read and give me some reading time. You have given some researchers, but I will require the titles of some published work. I *will* be back.
>Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact The fact that you have not really addressed many of my questions means that you are certainly not open to any other views than your own. At least I have attempted to find out more about your beliefs and make judgements, you haven't done anything but call me wrong.
You really haven't convinced me at any point, and its not because I lack the background knowledge as you so choose to presume (you seriously don't know anything about me BTW). I do believe that there is a major language barrier here to surmount, but at the same time you haven't really answered many of my questions, at least not to any reasonable satisfaction. After this, I will most likely stop replying because its not worth the effort.
> You, like most people, just lack the background. Presumption
> Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense. Presumption
> What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve Why, how?
>>Why do things evolve the way they do? >Oh my!!!...The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together So you are saying that there is absolutely no underlying principle for how things evolve? In natural selection, survival is the underlying theme that links all organisms together. Are you saying that there isn't such an underlying theme in all organisms on this planet?
Are you then saying that there is no real order to evolution?
>NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer. It gives reasonable explanations to what I have pointed out. Alternative theories must do so as well.
>> Why is it non-parsimonious? >Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it. Then please do so! Explain how evolution operates without natural selection, which is what I've been asking for this whole time.
>Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder:) If an idea is in use by many fields, generally its accepted as valid. I don't think you can reasonably compare science to Microsoft. And you haven't proven my point wrong, you've only thrown in a Latin phrase and jumped directly to the conclusion that I must therefore be wrong.
>Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing. You completely ignored my point that something untestible does not immediately make it false.
>>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false? >No. You have thereby admitted that even if something cannot be disproved, that something isn't immediately false.
>Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY. I thought you said natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century?
>Gustavian Conceptual Chainsaw Uh-huh, ok, further demonstrating that language is inadequate for the world of ideas. Doesn't prove the ideas wrong.
>without being able to give a definition of life Hm, I'm interested to know what yours is then. You criticize institutions for not being able to give a good definition, but can anyone? Can you?
>evolution (biological) is a property of life, just as metabolism I think this is the first substantial thing you've said! You still need to explain why it is a property of life though, and how it operates. Saying "it operates because its a property of life" leaves out a lot of information.
>forget advantages (a p.o.p.), focus on evolution; biological evolution is not about advantages, evolution is about LIFE. My goodness, do you seriously hope to explain evolution with a four letter word? I've been asking you to elucidate this entire time and you've simply been repeating the same thing over and over.
Its like asking how a car works and telling a person that it uses miniature explosions, and then refusing to say more. Talk about lack of explanation.
What do you mean by "LIFE"? Define, how does it cause evolution?
Another program that is one of my favorites is Primordial Life: http://www.io.com/~spofford/
In this program you set physical constraints for organisms to operate in, but these don't directly correlate to fitness values. Its essentially the same as setting physical constants in the universe, such as the gravitation constant on Earth. Because there is no function evaluating fitness, this program meets your requirement of demonstrating natural selection.
BTW, I went back into your previous comments on evolution, and they show that you *do* believe natural selection to be a mystical force that does wonderful things.
>So, where does the criteria for sorting comes from? God? The aliens?
These criteria simply arise from circumstance, they are not criteria hard-coded into nature. These criteria depend entirely on what is needed to survive. For example, if an animal needs to be strong in order to compete with animals of the same species, then stronger animals will have more of a chance succeeding in life and reproducing.
You are assigning a form of intentionality to Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is a very common mistake, often made by creationists. I never expected to see it in an evolutionist. In natural selection, everything is unintentional, it simply arises from natural circumstance.
BTW, this came from the same post:
>Do try to program it! Again, don't cheat. Don't come to me with tautological "higher fitness". Where does this fitness come from? Program this. No fixed values out of the blue, no omniscient agent that could not exist in nature (God, aliens, kernel, whatever). Then try to simulate NS. Won't work. Please let me know if you were to accomplish this!
http://www.evolutionz.ca/frame.htm
There you go. In that program, organisms simply compete for food. There are no fixed values of fitness, it is simply whether or not the organisms are able to get to the food and get enough of it. If they do, they survive. If not, they die. Simple, isn't it?
> LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).
I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear. Life evolves because of life? That doesn't appear to explain anything, and is very much akin to "I think because I think."
From what I can make of your statement, I don't think it explains any underlying mechanism for how things evolve, only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist. I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do? Why are some changes made versus others? Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.
>NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism
Why is it non-parsimonious? Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?
>contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics)
How does it contradict these fields? Please cite examples rather than make broad, overgeneralized statements.
>Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.
However, this is where your logic fails. You have *not* proven natural selection wrong. All you have stated is that you do not consider it to be "parsimonious," but as you state that does not immediately prove it invalid. As you have not offered any concrete proof for its invalidity, we cannot presume it to be so.
>And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something.
Wrong. If it cannot be disproven, then you simply can't tell whether or not its right, it does not immediately mean that the theory is wrong.
String theory, for example, was long thought to be untestable. This does not immediately rule out its validity however. The reason it is largely untestable is because it works on a scale of the universe that we can never ever probe with scientific instruments. So the reason it is untestable is simply because we do not have the technological capacity to do so, and according to the laws of physics, we never will.
I make the claim that natural selection is largely untestable because it is nearly impossible and impractical to attempt. That does not immediately rule out its validty.
I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
>After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact.
Natural selection has actually accumulated a great deal of evidence in its support. Examples follow, please disprove them if you can:
http://www.fhcrc.org/pubs/center_news/2004/oct7/ sa rt3.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12403174&dopt=Abstrac t http://www.hhmi.org/news/kruglyak3.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948001&dopt=Abstrac t http://scied.fullerton.edu/biol409/images/Modul e5S ampleTemplat.dot
There are many more if you want. However, I do believe that these recent publications go against your claim that natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century. If that is so, why is research still actively conducted?
>It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested.
Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?
Natural selection isn't some strange mystical force that you seem to believe it to be. It is simply a phenomenon that arises out of, as you say "basic biology". It *is* simply "life itself and reproduction". To put it simply, those who have advantageous features are more likely to survive. Life/death. Reproduction. I don't understand why you want to argue this point, it appears to me we are in agreement.
As for the test you would like from me, I don't know what you're really expecting. Please be reasonable. Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?
BTW, not having a reference doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, it only means that it is unproven. If not having a reference means that an assertion is wrong, then I challenge you. Where is your reference stating that natural selection is wrong?
"But by mid 20th century all and any doubt that NS was possible was erased." How so?
"I dare you: give me one reference of a falsation test of NS (H1) being accepted because evolution by other mechanisms (H0) was rejected. ONE reference." So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true? If you're willing to take the offense, at least have a good defense as well.
Please cite your sources for the following line: "Even Richard Dawkins a leading proponent for evolution can't give a single example of a genitc mutation that adds information to the genome." I am very interested in hear where this came from.
Anybody can make anything up on the spot, please do prove it or else no one should/will listen to it. For example, even the Pope, a leading proponent for creationism, can give a single unified proof for the existence of God and the validity of Christian viewpoints.
BTW, if you happen to disagree with this, I must ask if you've actually read the Origin of Species. In the book he attempts to draw a parallel between artificial selection and natural selection. His strategy for proving natural selection valid is why he brought up artificial selection up in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So what specifically is wrong in Firefox 1.0 that you would like fixed? Take note that incompatibility with badly written IE code isn't a bug, but more a conscious decision by the developers to remain strictly standards compliant. Note that disagreeing with this decision doesn't mean that the product is flawed, but more that you disagree with the developers' viewpoints. In which case it isn't right to call it a broken product.
Version 1 should be the only one unless there are new features. We have to set a mandate that Version 1.1 is not acceptable.
BTW, that sounds like the Debian release cycle. You do realize just how long it will take between releases, right? Even if all found bugs have been fixed, the developers would need to wait many more months to make sure that no further bugs are found. This would definitely create unrest among many users. Would you be willing to wait a year or two for the next version? So much for the headstart that Microsoft would be giving Firefox.
And even if the Firefox team decided to wait months and months to ensure no further bugs, there will undoubtedly be bugs when the product is finally released. It is impossible for a product to be perfect. It can come close, but there will always be something wrong. Should not these bugs be fixed ASAP? Shouldn't a new version be released ASAP addressing these bugs? But wait, you don't want a 1.1 version. Ok, then under your logic everyone must wait another year or two for the next release. That doesn't seem quite right to me.
It's not like the Firefox developers decided to release a half-ass product for the hell of it. Why would they? They didn't have a corporation on their backs forcing a deadline. Of course they did the best they could for the 1.0 release, they weren't sitting around thinking "hey this can be fixed later in 1.1." They're certainly not lazy, after all many of these people are devoted enough to work on the Mozilla project in their free time. Its just that bugs are the reality in software development. We unfortunately don't live in the ideal world.
As a test engineer, have you always been perfect in your testing? Have you managed to catch every single problem?
I'm not expect FireFox to continue with non-standard coding, but they should at least be able to dectect IE code and therefore handle it properly.
First, there is no easy way to detect IE code. IE code is simply broken HTML. How should a standards compliant browser deal with broken HTML? Should it emulate IE? Why? So that websites will continue to code for IE and continue to do things improperly? What was the point of having a standard then?
Suppose a company, such as Microsoft, took a standard, such as Mpeg4 video, and bastardized it into WMV. Should further Mpeg4 video codecs support the bastardized form of Mpeg4?
TitanTV actually displays just fine for me.
You'll hafta remember that in many cases the reason webpages do not work/display properly in Firefox is because they are coded specifically to work with IE. That doesn't make it Firefox's fault, that doesn't mean Firefox is a broken product. Firefox's aim is compliance with standards, not compatibility with IE.
Its true that Firefox isn't a perfect product, but calling it "broken sh*t" makes me believe you're making an overgeneralization and blaming Firefox for what is really IE's problem: non-compliance with standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I haven't seen anyone ever make this claim. Also, making use of Slashdot as evidence is questionable at best :P
Of the three examples, two are basic windows operations that should apply to all programs anyway. The remaining is a very basic operation that most, if not all, image manipulation tools should have. No substantial evidence has been given.
Actually concerrning straight lines:
Photoshop: Use Line tool
GIMP: Pick a paintbrush. Click on canvas. Press shift key. Click on canvas.
Intuitive?
In addition, by comparing GIMP to Photoshop, then asking "Steep learning curve?" you're stating that Photoshop also doesn't have a steep learning curve. It doesn't?
Where did I ever deny that the UI has improved? The question is: has it improved enough?
That is very true. However, I never stated Photoshop was any easier.
I would like to note that more people have started out with Photoshop rather than with the GIMP. The people starting with GIMP have an easier time learning it because they're going in with a clean slate, they don't have any preconceived notions of how things should work. However, the people switching in from Photoshop would need to not only learn GIMP, but forget the assumptions learned from Photoshop.
Why is this important? Well, a large number of users (a daresay the majority) have Photoshop backgrounds. Hence, a larger learning curve than if you started out fresh.
Continuing my example, learning to drive with a steering wheel can be as equally hard as learning to drive with joysticks. However, once you've mastered the steering wheel, would you prefer the steering wheel or the joysticks?
In addition, I never stated the Photoshop UI was actually any good. Comparing GIMP to Photoshop in this regard is much like saying "we're just as good as the competition" without saying how good the competition is. Moot point.
Well, the steepness of the learning curve is always debatable. However, several interesting things to note:
:P
Having learned to use the GIMP years ago
I haven't really followed GIMP history, but I do believe that suggests starting with a program that was vastly simpler than it is now, then accumulating knowledge of the program as it developed. This is always a great way to learn, unfortunately the latest version of GIMP doesn't come with a "learner's permit" mode (maybe it should?)
and later being incredibly frustrated at how little I could "intuitively" do on a friend's PC running Photoshop
This is always a problem in UI design. Once people learn how to do something a specific way, people tend to prefer that way. So people beginning with GIMP find it more intuitive, people beginning with Photoshop find it more intuitive. I note that in my previous comment I implied that the Photoshop UI is easier to use. I would like to qualify that by saying that I can't state whether it really is easier to use, I can only say that more people have used it and so more people tend to perfer it.
I would disagree that the learning curve is "enormously steep". It does take a little bit of learning, though.
For most users they mean the same thing
The UI is fine if you make an effort to learn to use it.
I believe thats exactly what everyone is complaining about. I'm sure the GUI is certainly usable once you learn it, the problem is that there is an enormously steep learning curve involved that turns the majority of potential users away.
If I replaced your car's steering wheel with joysticks, I'm sure that once you learn it you'll drive just fine. But you'll still curse me for forcing you to learn to drive that way. Most people will probably just give up. At the same time, I'm sure that there will be someone out there who will indeed be willing to learn it and say to everyone else "put some effort in, you whiny idiots."
Except in this case the hackers didn't do any damage, nor did they steal anything. It would be akin to me picklocking your door, placing a note inside your house saying that your lock needs to be replaced with something better, then leaving.
Hm, I have personally tried eBay, unfortunately I have been unable to purchase an iPod at anywhere near $99. Meanwhile, I have seen some incredibly stupid behavior, such as pushing prices above the original retail value. What is wrong with these people?
Well that was unclear :P I mean the problem occurs when you divide by (x - y)
In the interest of not spoiling it for anyone who has not already figured it out, all I will say is that the problem is in the 4th step (including the step x=y).
Damn, Slashdot formatting ruined my comment. Ignore the duplicate to this one.
Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier, but I'll try my best to understand what you are saying.
>In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.
I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.
>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.
Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.
Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.
So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.
I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?
>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?
Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.
>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.
But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are
Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier >_In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.
I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.
>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.
Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.
Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.
So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.
I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?
>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?
Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.
>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.
But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are there so many genetic disorders?
So the idea is that there will be a large number of random mutations. Many of them will be harmful, many of th
I have also made another comment that you have not responded to here:
1 06 95913
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914&cid=
Note that all spaces must be removed in order for the link to work right. The same applies to the link in my other comment.
This debate would be much easier to conduct over e-mail. May I have your e-mail address?
>Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level.
Um, that anonymous commentor wasn't me. No wonder I didn't get an e-mail saying that you replied to my last comment. Because you didn't. Please do because otherwise you have completely ignored my questions, implying an inability to answer them. It can be found here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914& cid=106 97878
>The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification.
Ok, how are these modifications made? That's what I've been asking, you have *not* answered despite my many inquiries. You have rejected genetics, so then how are these modifications not only made, but transmitted to future generations?
>> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.
>Utter nonsense.
I was about to argue with this, but I actually agree. Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones.
>Again, define "gene".
Again, that anonymous poster was not me. And why don't you define "gene"? Are you attacking genetics now? My my, that's quite a bold move.
>Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.
Have you written anything that I can read over? You apparently want to establish yourself as an authoritative source, surely this can be proven by linking to a published paper.
>I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.
So you now resort to insults? What professionalism.
>And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background
Oh sure, I know what it means, but since you want me to define everything, why don't you do too? See how well you play at your own game.
>Life: molecular autopoiesis
Define. I am well aware of what autopoiesis is, but let's play your game.
>YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND
As I said in my previous comment, presumption. You don't know anything about me.
>Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough
The following concerns the researchers you have suggested me to look into:
Bateson - Attempted to prevent science from reducing everything down to matter. Wanted to reintroduce the concept of mind back into science. Stated that mind is basic part of material reality. How is that any better than religion and philosophy? I challenge you in saying that these ideas cannot be proven false, and under your logic are thus myths.
Maturana/Varela - Formulated autopoiesis theory. Answered the question of the basic characteristic organization in living systems. Stated they are essentially autonomous systems. Does *NOT* disprove natural selection (where did you get that idea?). Actually this theory compliments natural selection. "Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates."
>You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't.
Since you would like to insult me, I will take that challenge. Would you like to parlay? Name some specific works for me to read and give me some reading time. You have given some researchers, but I will require the titles of some published work. I *will* be back.
>Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact
The fact that you have not really addressed many of my questions means that you are certainly not open to any other views than your own. At least I have attempted to find out more about your beliefs and make judgements, you haven't done anything but call me wrong.
>I'd lov
You really haven't convinced me at any point, and its not because I lack the background knowledge as you so choose to presume (you seriously don't know anything about me BTW). I do believe that there is a major language barrier here to surmount, but at the same time you haven't really answered many of my questions, at least not to any reasonable satisfaction. After this, I will most likely stop replying because its not worth the effort.
:)
> You, like most people, just lack the background.
Presumption
> Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense.
Presumption
> What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve
Why, how?
>>Why do things evolve the way they do?
>Oh my!!!...The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together
So you are saying that there is absolutely no underlying principle for how things evolve? In natural selection, survival is the underlying theme that links all organisms together. Are you saying that there isn't such an underlying theme in all organisms on this planet?
Are you then saying that there is no real order to evolution?
>NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer.
It gives reasonable explanations to what I have pointed out. Alternative theories must do so as well.
>> Why is it non-parsimonious?
>Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it.
Then please do so! Explain how evolution operates without natural selection, which is what I've been asking for this whole time.
>Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder
If an idea is in use by many fields, generally its accepted as valid. I don't think you can reasonably compare science to Microsoft. And you haven't proven my point wrong, you've only thrown in a Latin phrase and jumped directly to the conclusion that I must therefore be wrong.
>Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing.
You completely ignored my point that something untestible does not immediately make it false.
>>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
>No.
You have thereby admitted that even if something cannot be disproved, that something isn't immediately false.
>Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY.
I thought you said natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century?
>Gustavian Conceptual Chainsaw
Uh-huh, ok, further demonstrating that language is inadequate for the world of ideas. Doesn't prove the ideas wrong.
>without being able to give a definition of life
Hm, I'm interested to know what yours is then. You criticize institutions for not being able to give a good definition, but can anyone? Can you?
>evolution (biological) is a property of life, just as metabolism
I think this is the first substantial thing you've said! You still need to explain why it is a property of life though, and how it operates. Saying "it operates because its a property of life" leaves out a lot of information.
>forget advantages (a p.o.p.), focus on evolution; biological evolution is not about advantages, evolution is about LIFE.
My goodness, do you seriously hope to explain evolution with a four letter word? I've been asking you to elucidate this entire time and you've simply been repeating the same thing over and over.
Its like asking how a car works and telling a person that it uses miniature explosions, and then refusing to say more. Talk about lack of explanation.
What do you mean by "LIFE"? Define, how does it cause evolution?
Another program that is one of my favorites is Primordial Life:
http://www.io.com/~spofford/
In this program you set physical constraints for organisms to operate in, but these don't directly correlate to fitness values. Its essentially the same as setting physical constants in the universe, such as the gravitation constant on Earth. Because there is no function evaluating fitness, this program meets your requirement of demonstrating natural selection.
BTW, I went back into your previous comments on evolution, and they show that you *do* believe natural selection to be a mystical force that does wonderful things.
>So, where does the criteria for sorting comes from? God? The aliens?
These criteria simply arise from circumstance, they are not criteria hard-coded into nature. These criteria depend entirely on what is needed to survive. For example, if an animal needs to be strong in order to compete with animals of the same species, then stronger animals will have more of a chance succeeding in life and reproducing.
You are assigning a form of intentionality to Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is a very common mistake, often made by creationists. I never expected to see it in an evolutionist. In natural selection, everything is unintentional, it simply arises from natural circumstance.
BTW, this came from the same post:
>Do try to program it! Again, don't cheat. Don't come to me with tautological "higher fitness". Where does this fitness come from? Program this. No fixed values out of the blue, no omniscient agent that could not exist in nature (God, aliens, kernel, whatever). Then try to simulate NS. Won't work. Please let me know if you were to accomplish this!
http://www.evolutionz.ca/frame.htm
There you go. In that program, organisms simply compete for food. There are no fixed values of fitness, it is simply whether or not the organisms are able to get to the food and get enough of it. If they do, they survive. If not, they die. Simple, isn't it?
> LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).
.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12403174&dopt=Abstrac t /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948001&dopt=Abstrac t
I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear. Life evolves because of life? That doesn't appear to explain anything, and is very much akin to "I think because I think."
From what I can make of your statement, I don't think it explains any underlying mechanism for how things evolve, only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist. I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do? Why are some changes made versus others? Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.
>NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism
Why is it non-parsimonious? Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?
>contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics)
How does it contradict these fields? Please cite examples rather than make broad, overgeneralized statements.
>Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.
However, this is where your logic fails. You have *not* proven natural selection wrong. All you have stated is that you do not consider it to be "parsimonious," but as you state that does not immediately prove it invalid. As you have not offered any concrete proof for its invalidity, we cannot presume it to be so.
>And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something.
Wrong. If it cannot be disproven, then you simply can't tell whether or not its right, it does not immediately mean that the theory is wrong.
String theory, for example, was long thought to be untestable. This does not immediately rule out its validity however. The reason it is largely untestable is because it works on a scale of the universe that we can never ever probe with scientific instruments. So the reason it is untestable is simply because we do not have the technological capacity to do so, and according to the laws of physics, we never will.
I make the claim that natural selection is largely untestable because it is nearly impossible and impractical to attempt. That does not immediately rule out its validty.
I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
>After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact.
Natural selection has actually accumulated a great deal of evidence in its support. Examples follow, please disprove them if you can:
http://www.fhcrc.org/pubs/center_news/2004/oct7/ sa rt3.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query
http://www.hhmi.org/news/kruglyak3.html
http:/
http://scied.fullerton.edu/biol409/images/Modul e5S ampleTemplat.dot
There are many more if you want. However, I do believe that these recent publications go against your claim that natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century. If that is so, why is research still actively conducted?
>It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested.
Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?
Natural selection isn't some strange mystical force that you seem to believe it to be. It is simply a phenomenon that arises out of, as you say "basic biology". It *is* simply "life itself and reproduction". To put it simply, those who have advantageous features are more likely to survive. Life/death. Reproduction. I don't understand why you want to argue this point, it appears to me we are in agreement.
As for the test you would like from me, I don't know what you're really expecting. Please be reasonable. Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?
BTW, not having a reference doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, it only means that it is unproven. If not having a reference means that an assertion is wrong, then I challenge you. Where is your reference stating that natural selection is wrong?
"But by mid 20th century all and any doubt that NS was possible was erased."
How so?
"I dare you: give me one reference of a falsation test of NS (H1) being accepted because evolution by other mechanisms (H0) was rejected. ONE reference."
So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true? If you're willing to take the offense, at least have a good defense as well.
Please cite your sources for the following line:
"Even Richard Dawkins a leading proponent for evolution can't give a single example of a genitc mutation that adds information to the genome." I am very interested in hear where this came from.
Anybody can make anything up on the spot, please do prove it or else no one should/will listen to it. For example, even the Pope, a leading proponent for creationism, can give a single unified proof for the existence of God and the validity of Christian viewpoints.
BTW, if you happen to disagree with this, I must ask if you've actually read the Origin of Species. In the book he attempts to draw a parallel between artificial selection and natural selection. His strategy for proving natural selection valid is why he brought up artificial selection up in the first place.