I've heard that some people were complaining about Google indexing copyrighted books. Now this announcement will have many publishers scrambling to give Google their books.
A.M.D.'s lawsuit on June 27 came after the Japanese Fair Trade Commission concluded in March that Intel had stifled competition there by offering rebates to five computer companies, including Toshiba and Sony, in exchange for their agreeing to limit purchases from A.M.D. or Transmeta, another Intel rival.
Apparently AMD does have a case. Much as I like intel's low prices, that won't last if they become a monopoly. I wonder if apple got an offer of this sort from intel?
Intel's formal response came nine weeks after A.M.D. accused Intel of unfair pricing and rebates, and of coercing customers to prevent them from using A.M.D. microprocessors.
While I rather like AMD, I really can't argue against lower prices. Um, yay intel?
I managed to get my Debian box infected with some virus (rootkit, to be pendantic. See chkrootkit). The only reason I noticed was that it broke the color in ls, and a google search revealed that that likely meant my system got infected. I have no idea how I got that, but please remember that linux has no defence against trojans.
I bet that MIT does know better (they know where the funding is). As for your definition of nanotechnology, he science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules, this seems incorrect. After all, a very large diamond is still a single molecule, as is IIRC anything made of metal. Nanotechnology is about working with small things.
You should look into synaptic. It is a GUI for apt (actually, for dselect) and is pretty much like you said. Others have told me that you can click a link to a.deb file and (with proper mimetypes, I suppose) be asked if you want to install it. Debfoster is a package that keeps track of which files you requested and which were dependencies for those, but needs integrating with synaptic IMO.
Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.
I'm a debian user. I am very lazy. I install everything with apt. If I don't know what I want installed I use synaptic (graphical installer, click to install). Soooo... `apt-get install kernel-headers-2.6-686`
Methinks you are trying to push evolutioarianism without knowing a thing about evolution.
My intended definition of "superior" was for hunting, killing, and consuming (in whatever manner) of other animals.
For evolution, superior means having more surviving offspring. Eg rabbits in oz, even though they are not carnivorous, are "superior" to much of the native life.
I think we have a duty to protect only ourselves (as we were intended to do) and that *may* include protecting other species that we depend on for our survival.
So Who intended for us to protect only ourselves? Nature has no intentions, and your favorite biblical god ordered us to "rule over" the animals, not exterminate them.
Introducing large animals from Africa to North America for tourism isn't something that is needed for our survival.
On that I couldn't agree more. We already messed up several times introducing non-native species. However, since these animals are huge and loved by poachers, I think that their populations could be held in check by allowing hunting. Not that I want a lion in my back yard, though.
Unless ID places limits on the Designer in ID it is not scientific.
Feel free to place any limits on the IDer, so long as you can support that with at least a shread of evidence. I agree with you that saying that the IDer is omnipotent and playing tricks on us has no scientific basis, but I do not see how the fact that ID allows the IDer to be omnipotent would somehow make it unscientific -- any evidence that a non-omnipotent IDer leaves behind could also be left behind by an omnipotent IDer.
Therefore any theory that does not exclude omnipotent beings cannot be disproven. Ergo, it's not science.
Feel free to tell me any theory which does exclude omnipotent beings. Last I checked general relativity does not exclude omnipotent beings. Nor does it assume them.
Keep in mind that ID is about proving the existence of an IDer, not of God. Is the simplest IDer more complex than an infinite (infinite!) metaverse? As for asking god for a sign, you might as well not, as it is quite well documented that he wouldn't. I know that if a bunch of ants came to ask me if humans were real, I'd probably ignore them or accidentally step on them:-)
Please try not to confuse creationism and Intelligent Design. They are quite separate, namely, one is actully science. Or at least tries to be, since, admittedly, most of the proponents are "somewhat" biased. Your suggestion that ID belongs in philosophy is rediculous -- philosophers are free to asume anything they want; they don't need to justify the existance of a god with science. Hell, they would first have to prove that the universe actually exists, before worrying about science.
I wouldn't mind a discussion in lessons of why the Universe is the way it is, but again, this is philosophy, not science
Not quite. See, our universe was created by something else. Something eternal. Be it a meta-universe, or god. I can tell because our universe is finite in time, according to age estimates of about 20 billion years, plus you can throw in the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that our universe will not collapse on itself again to possibly repeat an infitite cycle. So, it is legitimate to ask what caused our universe and how was it caused.
I am not claiming that the IDer cannot be omnipotent/omniscient, only that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer" is not described by some freak creating the universe in such a way to hide his existence. We're talking science here, hence Occam's Razor...
Now, about the fact that some things are best explained by an intelligent designer I offer as an example this here arrowhead. Now you could tell me my arrowhead is actually a rock that got chipped into this shape by falling down a cliff, and everyone would laugh at you. In theory, one could find proof that we were designed as well. I am not saying it is likely, but if, for example, we found the entire bible written in our genes, that would be rather compelling. Or something. Right now, the best bet is to show that we could not have arisen by natural means, hence disprove evolution or abiogenesis, or find that there is only one universe, and its constants should have been a coincidence. (our own universe is so finely tuned that a change of around 10^-100, I forget, would have no stars, no elements heavier than helium, only black holes, or some other compelling reason that there would not be intelligent life. Hence, the anthropic principle is widely accepted, as rediculous as it would otherwise sound).
I don't get your point. Matter and anti-matter are annoyingly indistinguishable, and no one claims you can't make life out of antimatter. As for exactly reversed, as far as everyone is concerned, matter cannot be created without antimatter, nor can matter or antimatter be destroyed without the other. So we are quite perplexed that the universe seems to be made of matter Back to the subject though, twice of nearly impossible is still nearly impossible.
I didn't say there was any evidence -- I said it was science.
ID claims that it is impossible for us to have arisen out of pure chance, therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. This is just like an archeologist arguing that the artifact he found is was in fact designed (made by a human), except that to prove their point they would have to prove that one of abiogenesis, evolution, and the creation of the universe could not have occurred without the intervention of an intelligence. At the moment, I think their best bet is to argue from the fine-tuning of the universe, a fact which most scientists agree about (read about the antropic principle). And yes, saying that one of abiogenesis, evolution, and the creation of the universe is false is a falsifiable prediction.
The universe (the one we live in and can see) is finite in time, estimated at about 20 billion years. So about 20 billion years ago, something caused the universe. On the other hand, god was always there, he was not caused. There is no need to explain how god came to be, just like, as you said, a meta-verse that has always existed would not need a cause.
ID as I understand it says that it is impossible* for us to have evolved all the way from chemical soup to human by natural means. The reason it specifically involves us is because the only life-forms we studied are here one earth, though they could prove it for some other life on earth. There is also the fact (yes, fact**) that the universe is uniquely tuned in such a way that allows life to even be possible, and I think is actually the strongest point they have at the moment. Of course, they cannot reasonably disprove evolution, but they can point out a few holes or sore spots.
The reason that proving evolution (and abiogenesis and Big Bang and whatever caused the Big Bang, to be complete about it) would disprove ID is that if it could reasonably have arisen naturally it doesn't need an intelligent designer. As for my comparison with archeology, occasionally archeologists will argue about whether something is a rock or an arrowhead, but for most cases they can prove that they were made by humans (intelligently designed, because nature couldn't have done that).
The reason that it is important that people know that ID is science is because people have a lot more respoct for science, especially scientists, and also there are some laws restricting religion.
As for your treating electricity as water in a pipe, that is also a valid scientific model. Not as accurate as the actual model, mind you, but accurate enough to do lots of electronics with and accurate enough to be suggested in some textbooks. On the other hand, it leaves out magnetic fields and details about flow that I really don't understand.
Nobody claims that God "happenned". The claim is that God is, was, and will always be. We also claim that the universe is finite, hence the universe happened and has a cause.
Just to add to the confusion: what caused the universe? The universe is finite, hence it must have a cause, but whatever caused it must be outside of our universe. This is a subject that interests me greatly, since if someone con prove that the universe/metauniverse/thingamagig is infinite, it suddenly becomes literally infinitely easier to prove abiogenesis, evolution, and why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is.
>>>Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory.
No it isn't, it's a religious propaganda campaign.
Actually, it is pretty much both. Intelligent Design theorists could in theory prove that it is impossible for us to have arisen from a chemical soup by natural means, much like an archeologist could prove that an artifact was made by humans rather than natural processes. It can be falsified by proving evolution and abiogenesis. And it was pretty much invented to defend belief in god. But it is still science.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that some people were complaining about Google indexing copyrighted books. Now this announcement will have many publishers scrambling to give Google their books.
A.M.D.'s lawsuit on June 27 came after the Japanese Fair Trade Commission concluded in March that Intel had stifled competition there by offering rebates to five computer companies, including Toshiba and Sony, in exchange for their agreeing to limit purchases from A.M.D. or Transmeta, another Intel rival.
Apparently AMD does have a case. Much as I like intel's low prices, that won't last if they become a monopoly. I wonder if apple got an offer of this sort from intel?
Intel's formal response came nine weeks after A.M.D. accused Intel of unfair pricing and rebates, and of coercing customers to prevent them from using A.M.D. microprocessors.
While I rather like AMD, I really can't argue against lower prices. Um, yay intel?
I love how Microsoft is starting to feel threatened by everything.
I thought that they were trying to outcompete everything.
I managed to get my Debian box infected with some virus (rootkit, to be pendantic. See chkrootkit). The only reason I noticed was that it broke the color in ls, and a google search revealed that that likely meant my system got infected. I have no idea how I got that, but please remember that linux has no defence against trojans.
I bet that MIT does know better (they know where the funding is). As for your definition of nanotechnology, he science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules, this seems incorrect. After all, a very large diamond is still a single molecule, as is IIRC anything made of metal. Nanotechnology is about working with small things.
I, for one, would welcome an Apple cell phone ... not sure that mixing cell phones with iPods is a good idea though.
Hey! You forgot the camara. God I love that feature!
You should look into synaptic. It is a GUI for apt (actually, for dselect) and is pretty much like you said. Others have told me that you can click a link to a .deb file and (with proper mimetypes, I suppose) be asked if you want to install it. Debfoster is a package that keeps track of which files you requested and which were dependencies for those, but needs integrating with synaptic IMO.
Oops, I am also very careless. that should read kernel-image-2.6-686
Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.
I'm a debian user. I am very lazy. I install everything with apt. If I don't know what I want installed I use synaptic (graphical installer, click to install). Soooo... `apt-get install kernel-headers-2.6-686`
Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror.
apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-686
No, it won't get the latest kernel, but it will get one that has been tested a bit first.
Methinks you are trying to push evolutioarianism without knowing a thing about evolution.
My intended definition of "superior" was for hunting, killing, and consuming (in whatever manner) of other animals.
For evolution, superior means having more surviving offspring. Eg rabbits in oz, even though they are not carnivorous, are "superior" to much of the native life.
I think we have a duty to protect only ourselves (as we were intended to do) and that *may* include protecting other species that we depend on for our survival.
So Who intended for us to protect only ourselves? Nature has no intentions, and your favorite biblical god ordered us to "rule over" the animals, not exterminate them.
Introducing large animals from Africa to North America for tourism isn't something that is needed for our survival.
On that I couldn't agree more. We already messed up several times introducing non-native species. However, since these animals are huge and loved by poachers, I think that their populations could be held in check by allowing hunting. Not that I want a lion in my back yard, though.
Unless ID places limits on the Designer in ID it is not scientific.
Feel free to place any limits on the IDer, so long as you can support that with at least a shread of evidence. I agree with you that saying that the IDer is omnipotent and playing tricks on us has no scientific basis, but I do not see how the fact that ID allows the IDer to be omnipotent would somehow make it unscientific -- any evidence that a non-omnipotent IDer leaves behind could also be left behind by an omnipotent IDer.
Therefore any theory that does not exclude omnipotent beings cannot be disproven. Ergo, it's not science.
Feel free to tell me any theory which does exclude omnipotent beings. Last I checked general relativity does not exclude omnipotent beings. Nor does it assume them.
Keep in mind that ID is about proving the existence of an IDer, not of God. Is the simplest IDer more complex than an infinite (infinite!) metaverse? As for asking god for a sign, you might as well not, as it is quite well documented that he wouldn't. I know that if a bunch of ants came to ask me if humans were real, I'd probably ignore them or accidentally step on them :-)
Please try not to confuse creationism and Intelligent Design. They are quite separate, namely, one is actully science. Or at least tries to be, since, admittedly, most of the proponents are "somewhat" biased. Your suggestion that ID belongs in philosophy is rediculous -- philosophers are free to asume anything they want; they don't need to justify the existance of a god with science. Hell, they would first have to prove that the universe actually exists, before worrying about science.
I wouldn't mind a discussion in lessons of why the Universe is the way it is, but again, this is philosophy, not science
Not quite. See, our universe was created by something else. Something eternal. Be it a meta-universe, or god. I can tell because our universe is finite in time, according to age estimates of about 20 billion years, plus you can throw in the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that our universe will not collapse on itself again to possibly repeat an infitite cycle. So, it is legitimate to ask what caused our universe and how was it caused.
I am not claiming that the IDer cannot be omnipotent/omniscient, only that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer" is not described by some freak creating the universe in such a way to hide his existence. We're talking science here, hence Occam's Razor...
Now, about the fact that some things are best explained by an intelligent designer I offer as an example this here arrowhead. Now you could tell me my arrowhead is actually a rock that got chipped into this shape by falling down a cliff, and everyone would laugh at you. In theory, one could find proof that we were designed as well. I am not saying it is likely, but if, for example, we found the entire bible written in our genes, that would be rather compelling. Or something. Right now, the best bet is to show that we could not have arisen by natural means, hence disprove evolution or abiogenesis, or find that there is only one universe, and its constants should have been a coincidence. (our own universe is so finely tuned that a change of around 10^-100, I forget, would have no stars, no elements heavier than helium, only black holes, or some other compelling reason that there would not be intelligent life. Hence, the anthropic principle is widely accepted, as rediculous as it would otherwise sound).
I don't get your point. Matter and anti-matter are annoyingly indistinguishable, and no one claims you can't make life out of antimatter. As for exactly reversed, as far as everyone is concerned, matter cannot be created without antimatter, nor can matter or antimatter be destroyed without the other. So we are quite perplexed that the universe seems to be made of matter Back to the subject though, twice of nearly impossible is still nearly impossible.
I didn't say there was any evidence -- I said it was science.
ID claims that it is impossible for us to have arisen out of pure chance, therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. This is just like an archeologist arguing that the artifact he found is was in fact designed (made by a human), except that to prove their point they would have to prove that one of abiogenesis, evolution, and the creation of the universe could not have occurred without the intervention of an intelligence. At the moment, I think their best bet is to argue from the fine-tuning of the universe, a fact which most scientists agree about (read about the antropic principle). And yes, saying that one of abiogenesis, evolution, and the creation of the universe is false is a falsifiable prediction.
The universe (the one we live in and can see) is finite in time, estimated at about 20 billion years. So about 20 billion years ago, something caused the universe. On the other hand, god was always there, he was not caused. There is no need to explain how god came to be, just like, as you said, a meta-verse that has always existed would not need a cause.
I meant to say that most reasonable people define impossible as 10^-50 or 10^-300.
And you don't know the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
ID as I understand it says that it is impossible* for us to have evolved all the way from chemical soup to human by natural means. The reason it specifically involves us is because the only life-forms we studied are here one earth, though they could prove it for some other life on earth. There is also the fact (yes, fact**) that the universe is uniquely tuned in such a way that allows life to even be possible, and I think is actually the strongest point they have at the moment. Of course, they cannot reasonably disprove evolution, but they can point out a few holes or sore spots.
The reason that proving evolution (and abiogenesis and Big Bang and whatever caused the Big Bang, to be complete about it) would disprove ID is that if it could reasonably have arisen naturally it doesn't need an intelligent designer. As for my comparison with archeology, occasionally archeologists will argue about whether something is a rock or an arrowhead, but for most cases they can prove that they were made by humans (intelligently designed, because nature couldn't have done that).
The reason that it is important that people know that ID is science is because people have a lot more respoct for science, especially scientists, and also there are some laws restricting religion.
As for your treating electricity as water in a pipe, that is also a valid scientific model. Not as accurate as the actual model, mind you, but accurate enough to do lots of electronics with and accurate enough to be suggested in some textbooks. On the other hand, it leaves out magnetic fields and details about flow that I really don't understand.
Nobody claims that God "happenned". The claim is that God is, was, and will always be. We also claim that the universe is finite, hence the universe happened and has a cause.
Just to add to the confusion: what caused the universe? The universe is finite, hence it must have a cause, but whatever caused it must be outside of our universe. This is a subject that interests me greatly, since if someone con prove that the universe/metauniverse/thingamagig is infinite, it suddenly becomes literally infinitely easier to prove abiogenesis, evolution, and why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is.
>>>Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory.
No it isn't, it's a religious propaganda campaign.
Actually, it is pretty much both. Intelligent Design theorists could in theory prove that it is impossible for us to have arisen from a chemical soup by natural means, much like an archeologist could prove that an artifact was made by humans rather than natural processes. It can be falsified by proving evolution and abiogenesis. And it was pretty much invented to defend belief in god. But it is still science.