I fear I do not share your confidence about the inherent wisdom of american farmers, but then again, I'm not debating the social/economical issues here.
I have given an example of why farmers could come to higher use of herbicides, and that makes perfect economical sense too, as long as the cost for herbicides do not overwhelm the profit which can be gained by the cultivated plants.
In any case, barring economical or social (or environmental) issues: are you denying even the possibility that farmers *can* put more herbicides onto their fields with herbicide resistant crops then they could otherwise? If not, the parent poster was still right in his claim. To deny even that would refute basic logic reasoning - though to no fault of your own, I'm sure.
The tought you express does not hold into account the possibility that there might be other reasons why my use of words and derivatives is not perfect. May it help in lowering your annoyance if you know that it's not about sounding 'jargonistic' but merely the fact that I'm not native english?
Don't take it personally neither, but, superfluous syllables aside, I do think my english is on average probably a lot better then most english speaking dudes are able to speak and write my native language.;-)
"Scarcely a month later the clamor on the list about the use of the proprietary tool had become palpable. A petition was begun to stop it before it could get started. Torvalds responded with a withering reply, saying among other things, that "If people in the open-source SCM community wake up and notice that the current open-source SCM systems aren't cutting it, that's good. But it's absolutely NOT an excuse to use them today. Sorry. I use CVS at work, and I could never use it for Linux. I took a look at subversion, and it doesn't even come close to what I wanted." He added that it was "stupid" to use inferior tools for ideological reasons."
So, clearly, when he finds it stupid to use inferior tools for ideological reasons, he prefers to use superior tools even when they don't follow the free ideology. Hence, it's the superiority that counts most for him, not the free software ideology.
Now it's your turn: show me an example or a quote, where Linus choses a technological inferior product because of a more free ideology.;-)
Then we disagree about who it is that fails to understand Linus' position. Note, however, that saying "He was open to an open source alternative that was close to BitKeeper or even had the potential to get close to BitKeeper, but there wasn't anything even close around." exactly demonstrates just that. Basically, what you are saying is, that if he had found an open source system that was about as good as Bitkeeper, he would have used *that*.
Well, no doubt about it. I never said anything else. But it *does* boil down to him chosing Bitkeeper because it was technological superior. I mean "anything close around" IS about being able to do the (technological) things that Bitkeeper could do, it's NOT 'comming close to the ideal of Free Software'.
Besides, it's well known that Linus always goes for the pragmatic, technological better system, not for the technological inferior solution (even when it's more free). So, while I do not doubt he didn't literally say 'technical-merit-before-anything-else', it clearly boils down to exactly that, and claiming the contrary flies in the face of observable reality, IMHO.
Since people keep saying the same things, I'll keep responding with the same too:
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
You seem to miss the point. First of all, there is a difference between 'will' and 'can'.
Secondly, it is not inconceivable that some farmers will do so (and I believe, some already do exactly that). For instance, it can be out of habit, or a misguided sense of 'more is better'; so when a little bit of herbicide kills 60% of unwanted plants, they think a lot of herbicide will kill even more.
Or, for instance, the bad herbes get immune against it, and the farmer has to dump increasingly large amounts of herbicide on it to have the same result. Where this dumping had a former limit to the point where his cultivated plants also became affected by the herbicide, there is now no limit (or a much higher one), because his plants are 'herbicide resistant'. Which, logically, amounts to being able to dump a LOT more of herbiceds on the fields.
Point is, it IS conceivable (and not even farfetched) that farmers do exactly that, so the parent poster was right. They CAN (and some probably will) drop more herbicides on their fields then they used to.
His first point, anout slowing demographics, is not very much debatable: it is as it is, and if it's in decline, it's in decline. Whether we will level out completely, or go down, or up again, is not as clear cut, however. The author gives as main reason that people go to cities, but I think this explanation is inadequate, and certainly not enough to explain the changing demographics.
It should be noted, for instance, that, during the middle ages, the amount of children born in cities were no less then those on the countryside. What did change, though, is the empowerement of women (also in matters of procreation) and social and medical advancements. THOSE are the real reasons why demographics go down. It also follows that, if, by some disaster or serious economic and scientific decline we would degrade into former levels of welfare and reduced possibility for the women to control any family planning, demographics would go up again. It is therefor not an absolute certitude that the world-demographics will continue to decline...this is only true as an extrapolation, if everything remains the same. However, it is exactly the danger of this sort of extrapolation that the author is (also) lamenting against.
As for GM crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only says the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated an natural earea, and the contamination is a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans or other species.
Now, he's counterargument that those don't survive in the wild seems rather weak. In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wilde' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary. So, maybe some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some will, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to other species, including humans.
Also, the reductionist view of 'we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries' is somewhat misleading too. Yes, ppl have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, those trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that 'we have always done that in breeding' I would like to see any example where this has been tried before. No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequuences (which we do know knothing about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsily, that we've been using those techniques for millenia.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects as the author claims it has or will have - more about that at the end.
The weather and nuclear fission...well, I agree with that part. I do think the greens are just dead wrong in their crusification of nuclear power. Sure, as the author says, it has it's problems of its own, but those are rzally miniscule compared to the far larger and imminent (and worldwide) threat of global warming. Fine if you shut those reactors down, IF YOU HAVE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE - but, wishful thinking aside, there currently is none. The author correctly points out, that, even if you cobine all other alternatives together, you still will only have a fraction of
The parent poster is right: 'herbicide resistant crops' mean crops that are resistant to herbicides (as opposed to being resistent to diseases).
Therefor, whether 'they' are 'going to' drop herbicides with reckless abandon will depend on the 'they' (note that some GM-users do exactly that, though), but in any case, it *does* mean one *can* dump large amounts of herbicides on the plants, without causing damage (to the plants that one is cultivating, that is).
Maybe you meant something else then 'herbicide resistent'?
Knowing the intelligence of the average slashdotter, I have no doubt that you can see it when fortune smiles at you! This is a once-in-a-lifetime deal, bigger then any enlargement of your penis!
I hereby want to inform you, that I make an honest offer of the luxurious sum of 1 EURO for a copy of the April 19, 1965 issue of Electronics. This offer expires when Intel has bought (or agreed to buy) a similar copy of a person other then me, or redraws or cancels its own offer.
That's why I provided the 'conclusions' at the bottom. Those will suffice for the MEPs that only want to have an idea (or the 'bottomline'), while the rest of the document can be read by those that actually find the issue worthy of deeper scrutiny.
That said, one shouldn't underestimate MEPs. I have the optimistic view that many MEPs will actually do an effort when they know the issue is controversial. And I believe, by now, allmost all MEPs are very aware of this particular directive.
Thanks! I was planning this for some time, and it's been made weeks ago, but I waited for reaction on the online petition (which didn't came). The real problem is getting it printed/copied 100+ times (700+, so all the meps can be reached would be ideal). Alas, time and money constraints will have to limit it.
The most annoying thing is to get it actually distributed to the meps in question. I'm willing to go to brussels for it, but it seems you have to get permision to enter the mailboxes there. I've contacted the FFII for help in this respect, but they weren't really much forthcomming.
If anyone wants to help me out in distributing the manifesto, feel free to mail me (or do so). I'm releasing this manifesto under the Creative Commons, so use it, and send it as letters to the meps or something! (it's preffered not to mass mail them, however).
"But, you refer to "SME's" a few times but don't say what it is (if an average MEP will know, then it's okay). And there are a few typos and spellos, so you should run it through a spell checker."
Indeed, I have no english spelling-checker. Maybe someone can help me out? As for the SMEs thing: indeed, you are right. I should at least explain the acronym once; not all meps are fluent in english (to use an euphemism), after all.
"Also, you use the term "even when a child can see" -- that may well be, but the tone of word becomes so negative it may put the MEP in an adverse mood. Remember, you have to sweet-talk them *at least* as much as the pro-people do, so you ought to use the most positive language imaginable!;-)"
Indeed. I thought I was relatively positive; it's not the parliament that's to blame for the directive, after all, but the EC. But you could be right, and maybe I should formulate it differently.
well, I have nothing against it on itself, but it's *a lot* of pages and slashdot isn't really meant for that. Feel free to contact me through email, however, and I will send them through.
[this is my own 'manifesto' to the EU parliament which I have send as a petition and in 'correspondence with EU citizens' as provided by the EU parliamentary site. Though it says they normally respond within reasonable time (to acknowledge they have received it), untill today I didn't hear anything back. also my question about the lack of response came back unanswered. So, I guess I'll have to copy and distribute it personally to 100+ parliamntarians myself, after all...]:
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commision (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mindboggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft anymore (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commision asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position anymore, because, aparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupifying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whome were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendements made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessarry to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU softwarebusiness, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentionned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
well, actually I think we more or less agree, seen the current clarifications. To some extend, there are definitions that could apply to assumption as wel as belief, agreed. Whether the terms are true synonims, is debatable. And whether or not the scientific principles and the principles of religion are similar, is most unlikely.
d3 and d4 are not elements of science, though they are elements of almost all religions. Also, note that I said I was looking to the definitions in the context of science vs. religion, and in that case, it doesn't only refer to dogma, but you have other (differences in) definitions, such as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Which all the major religions have in common (but not science).
But I guess we basically agree, and it's just a matter of what the context is of the definitions we use.
As for your suggestions, I fear you come to late: carl sagan has been one of my favorite authors since years. I have (and have read) both books you mention, and I thought they were exellent, as far as fiction as non-fiction goes. (I thought the movie was not as good as the book, however). In fact, I'm still searching for 'pale blue dot', which, for some reason, is difficult to find in my country.:-)
It's good to see other people enjoying carl sagans' works.
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs. "
As you can see, almost all definitions of faith clearly indicate that science (or assumptions) and religion (or belief) is not the same at all, on the contrary. Especially the faith in a religious sense (as I said) is at odds with what science strifes for.
As you yourself say: faith is accepting something is true. Science never accepts something is true, it *assumes* some things are closer to the observable reality then others, but they also always assume this could turn out to be wrong.
It also assumes, ofcourse, that our senses are that which with we observe; mainly because it's the only logical option. But even there: if a new sense popped up suddenly, then they wouldn't consider our current senses as being the (only) basis for observation anymore. Christian or other religious believers claim to posses such a sense, but this poses the difficulty that they don't ever show a case where it can be demonstrated that that extra sense really exist (as in: observable for other non-believers).
I really do not see that the two things are synonimes, at least in the majority of cases (which is why I pointed to semantics).
I think we're losing ourselves into semantics, now.
What I sense is not based on faith, but on what I sense, plain and simple. My senses are biological in nature, not a matter of faith. If I move a piece of cloth before my eyes, I can see it and track it...and so does my cat. If I could only see it because I have faith in what I sense, how comes my cat notices it too? does my cat has 'faith' in her senses as well? If your answer is yes, I doubt we're talking about the same thing (= the religious meaning of the term 'faith').
If our senses were just a matter of faith, and that was identical to the faith of religion, then someone that had absolute faith in the fact that his visual senses (eyes) couldn't be blinded - because god will protect him or something) by laserlight would, indeed, not be blinded by it. I have to see the first one where that happens.
So, while one may contemplate about the semantics of it all, the fact is, 'faith' does not enter the picture when you sense something (though it may influence the feelings/thoughts surrounding the sense, of course). You do not have to believe in anything, to be able to sense. If my senses only worked because I had faith in them, then they wouldn't work at all, because I doubt them. And in fact, doubting everything is the core of scientific progress - unlike faith.
So, no. I don't 'belief' in my senses in the way relgious 'belief' is viewed. It could well be, that all my senses are profoundly flawed (which they are, no doubt). You do not have many regious believers that claim their beliefs are probably flawed, do you?
It may wel be that we're all living in a 'the matrix' kind of system, and all our senses are worth squat. But...how to know? Unless some proof for that is offered (which, again, you have to be able to observe in some way), you can not make the difference between a perfectly simulated world and the real world, because both are the same in every sense - literally.
Once again: science is not based on faith, but on presumtions - that may be right or wrong, but at least this is acknowledged. I don't see a priest saying: I believe in god, but that's an assumption; it may well be that there is no god at all. No; for him, it is an absolute fact that god exist. People who say "there might be a god, but it might also be not the case" are called agnostici, not believers.
In true science, there are no absolute facts, however. Therefor, (religious) faith and (scientific) assumption are not synonyms.
This is not really true. A scientific assumption inherently is temporaly in nature. It always involves doubt and the acknowledgement that what we consider today to be a valid theory, could well prove to be utter nonsense when observation contradicts that theory.
In contrast, 'belief' (as it is meant in a religious context) accepts something as being true, regardless of observation. There is no true believer that 'assumes' there is a god - but also accepts the notion that it's perfectly possible there is no god at all. They don't 'assume' God exists, they 'know' god exist; it's not a matter of possibility, but of a certitude. Therefor, to assume something and to believe something are two different things altogether.
You too, huh? I'm glad I'm not the only one! Family and friends all look at me like I have a screw lose when I say I prefer to play civ2 instead of 3.
It's like, when you don't like the 'improved' new version better, there is something wrong with you.
But, heck, I'm not sure why exactly, but civ3 misses something that civ2 does have. I agree the graphics are better in civ3 and what not..but, somehow, the added complexity gets in the way of game-pleasure. Or something like that. I don't know *what* it is, really, but I do know I much prefer civ2 - it's just more (lasting) fun, while with civ3 I get bored real quickly and have a lot less fun.
By the time the law has catched up the 3 miles it's away from current technological practise, it'll be 9 miles behind of the technology (and it's implications) we'll be using by then.
Even now, systems such as Freenet are being developed, which will pose new legal questions in the future.
"I would propose that your pseudo-definition of theft relies largely on your implied definition of what constitutes property."
As far as I can see, the definition was largely based on the characteristics of theft itself. One *could* use other definitions, ofcourse, but I must say I agree with the parent poster that 'stealing', by definition, always means you steal something *from* someone.
An example: if I steal a vase from a shop, then the shop has lost it's vase, and it could, in effect, sue me for stealing it. If I *copied* the vase, however, but never take the vase away, then that shop could not sue me for theft, because I didn't steal it. (It could possibly sue me for copy/patent infringement, if it owned the rights, but that's another story).
I agree with your statement, which is why I said BSD is, on itself, more free then GPL, BUT the latter makes more sure things stay free.
This always brings with it some form of dilemma. It's the same with being a libertarian and to allow others to express themselves: will you go so far as to allow that expression of someone else to curtail yours (or of a third party?). In my view, this is not a good thing. The core element of free speech/expression is that it has to remain free, and THAT is what you have to fight for.
another example: On itself, a country of pacifists wouldn't last long among countries of agressors, unless they have muscle and willigness enough to fight off those other countries.
So, sometimes, it's better to fight for the principles you believe in, so they are preserved. After all, of all things, it's better to be forced more freedom then anything else. (and, within a society, one is ALWAYS forced to something).
Slashdot Mirror
I fear I do not share your confidence about the inherent wisdom of american farmers, but then again, I'm not debating the social/economical issues here.
I have given an example of why farmers could come to higher use of herbicides, and that makes perfect economical sense too, as long as the cost for herbicides do not overwhelm the profit which can be gained by the cultivated plants.
In any case, barring economical or social (or environmental) issues: are you denying even the possibility that farmers *can* put more herbicides onto their fields with herbicide resistant crops then they could otherwise? If not, the parent poster was still right in his claim. To deny even that would refute basic logic reasoning - though to no fault of your own, I'm sure.
The tought you express does not hold into account the possibility that there might be other reasons why my use of words and derivatives is not perfect. May it help in lowering your annoyance if you know that it's not about sounding 'jargonistic' but merely the fact that I'm not native english?
;-)
Don't take it personally neither, but, superfluous syllables aside, I do think my english is on average probably a lot better then most english speaking dudes are able to speak and write my native language.
Btw, see:
;-)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm
"Scarcely a month later the clamor on the list about the use of the proprietary tool had become palpable. A petition was begun to stop it before it could get started. Torvalds responded with a withering reply, saying among other things, that "If people in the open-source SCM community wake up and notice that the current open-source SCM systems aren't cutting it, that's good. But it's absolutely NOT an excuse to use them today. Sorry. I use CVS at work, and I could never use it for Linux. I took a look at subversion, and it doesn't even come close to what I wanted." He added that it was "stupid" to use inferior tools for ideological reasons."
So, clearly, when he finds it stupid to use inferior tools for ideological reasons, he prefers to use superior tools even when they don't follow the free ideology. Hence, it's the superiority that counts most for him, not the free software ideology.
Now it's your turn: show me an example or a quote, where Linus choses a technological inferior product because of a more free ideology.
Then we disagree about who it is that fails to understand Linus' position. Note, however, that saying "He was open to an open source alternative that was close to BitKeeper or even had the potential to get close to BitKeeper, but there wasn't anything even close around." exactly demonstrates just that. Basically, what you are saying is, that if he had found an open source system that was about as good as Bitkeeper, he would have used *that*.
Well, no doubt about it. I never said anything else. But it *does* boil down to him chosing Bitkeeper because it was technological superior. I mean "anything close around" IS about being able to do the (technological) things that Bitkeeper could do, it's NOT 'comming close to the ideal of Free Software'.
Besides, it's well known that Linus always goes for the pragmatic, technological better system, not for the technological inferior solution (even when it's more free). So, while I do not doubt he didn't literally say 'technical-merit-before-anything-else', it clearly boils down to exactly that, and claiming the contrary flies in the face of observable reality, IMHO.
Since people keep saying the same things, I'll keep responding with the same too:
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
You seem to miss the point. First of all, there is a difference between 'will' and 'can'.
Secondly, it is not inconceivable that some farmers will do so (and I believe, some already do exactly that). For instance, it can be out of habit, or a misguided sense of 'more is better'; so when a little bit of herbicide kills 60% of unwanted plants, they think a lot of herbicide will kill even more.
Or, for instance, the bad herbes get immune against it, and the farmer has to dump increasingly large amounts of herbicide on it to have the same result. Where this dumping had a former limit to the point where his cultivated plants also became affected by the herbicide, there is now no limit (or a much higher one), because his plants are 'herbicide resistant'. Which, logically, amounts to being able to dump a LOT more of herbiceds on the fields.
Point is, it IS conceivable (and not even farfetched) that farmers do exactly that, so the parent poster was right. They CAN (and some probably will) drop more herbicides on their fields then they used to.
His first point, anout slowing demographics, is not very much debatable: it is as it is, and if it's in decline, it's in decline. Whether we will level out completely, or go down, or up again, is not as clear cut, however. The author gives as main reason that people go to cities, but I think this explanation is inadequate, and certainly not enough to explain the changing demographics.
It should be noted, for instance, that, during the middle ages, the amount of children born in cities were no less then those on the countryside. What did change, though, is the empowerement of women (also in matters of procreation) and social and medical advancements. THOSE are the real reasons why demographics go down. It also follows that, if, by some disaster or serious economic and scientific decline we would degrade into former levels of welfare and reduced possibility for the women to control any family planning, demographics would go up again. It is therefor not an absolute certitude that the world-demographics will continue to decline...this is only true as an extrapolation, if everything remains the same. However, it is exactly the danger of this sort of extrapolation that the author is (also) lamenting against.
As for GM crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only says the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated an natural earea, and the contamination is a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans or other species.
Now, he's counterargument that those don't survive in the wild seems rather weak. In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wilde' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary. So, maybe some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some will, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to other species, including humans.
Also, the reductionist view of 'we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries' is somewhat misleading too. Yes, ppl have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, those trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that 'we have always done that in breeding' I would like to see any example where this has been tried before. No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequuences (which we do know knothing about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsily, that we've been using those techniques for millenia.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects as the author claims it has or will have - more about that at the end.
The weather and nuclear fission...well, I agree with that part. I do think the greens are just dead wrong in their crusification of nuclear power. Sure, as the author says, it has it's problems of its own, but those are rzally miniscule compared to the far larger and imminent (and worldwide) threat of global warming. Fine if you shut those reactors down, IF YOU HAVE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE - but, wishful thinking aside, there currently is none. The author correctly points out, that, even if you cobine all other alternatives together, you still will only have a fraction of
The parent poster is right: 'herbicide resistant crops' mean crops that are resistant to herbicides (as opposed to being resistent to diseases).
Therefor, whether 'they' are 'going to' drop herbicides with reckless abandon will depend on the 'they' (note that some GM-users do exactly that, though), but in any case, it *does* mean one *can* dump large amounts of herbicides on the plants, without causing damage (to the plants that one is cultivating, that is).
Maybe you meant something else then 'herbicide resistent'?
Dear slashdot readers,
Knowing the intelligence of the average slashdotter, I have no doubt that you can see it when fortune smiles at you! This is a once-in-a-lifetime deal, bigger then any enlargement of your penis!
I hereby want to inform you, that I make an honest offer of the luxurious sum of 1 EURO for a copy of the April 19, 1965 issue of Electronics. This offer expires when Intel has bought (or agreed to buy) a similar copy of a person other then me, or redraws or cancels its own offer.
sincerely,
Newsbyte
That's why I provided the 'conclusions' at the bottom. Those will suffice for the MEPs that only want to have an idea (or the 'bottomline'), while the rest of the document can be read by those that actually find the issue worthy of deeper scrutiny.
That said, one shouldn't underestimate MEPs. I have the optimistic view that many MEPs will actually do an effort when they know the issue is controversial. And I believe, by now, allmost all MEPs are very aware of this particular directive.
"First of all: nice read!"
;-)"
Thanks! I was planning this for some time, and it's been made weeks ago, but I waited for reaction on the online petition (which didn't came). The real problem is getting it printed/copied 100+ times (700+, so all the meps can be reached would be ideal). Alas, time and money constraints will have to limit it.
The most annoying thing is to get it actually distributed to the meps in question. I'm willing to go to brussels for it, but it seems you have to get permision to enter the mailboxes there. I've contacted the FFII for help in this respect, but they weren't really much forthcomming.
If anyone wants to help me out in distributing the manifesto, feel free to mail me (or do so). I'm releasing this manifesto under the Creative Commons, so use it, and send it as letters to the meps or something! (it's preffered not to mass mail them, however).
"But, you refer to "SME's" a few times but don't say what it is (if an average MEP will know, then it's okay). And there are a few typos and spellos, so you should run it through a spell checker."
Indeed, I have no english spelling-checker. Maybe someone can help me out? As for the SMEs thing: indeed, you are right. I should at least explain the acronym once; not all meps are fluent in english (to use an euphemism), after all.
"Also, you use the term "even when a child can see" -- that may well be, but the tone of word becomes so negative it may put the MEP in an adverse mood. Remember, you have to sweet-talk them *at least* as much as the pro-people do, so you ought to use the most positive language imaginable!
Indeed. I thought I was relatively positive; it's not the parliament that's to blame for the directive, after all, but the EC. But you could be right, and maybe I should formulate it differently.
thanks for the input!
well, I have nothing against it on itself, but it's *a lot* of pages and slashdot isn't really meant for that. Feel free to contact me through email, however, and I will send them through.
[this is my own 'manifesto' to the EU parliament which I have send as a petition and in 'correspondence with EU citizens' as provided by the EU parliamentary site. Though it says they normally respond within reasonable time (to acknowledge they have received it), untill today I didn't hear anything back. also my question about the lack of response came back unanswered. So, I guess I'll have to copy and distribute it personally to 100+ parliamntarians myself, after all...]:
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commision (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mindboggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft anymore (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commision asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position anymore, because, aparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupifying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whome were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendements made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessarry to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU softwarebusiness, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentionned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
well, actually I think we more or less agree, seen the current clarifications. To some extend, there are definitions that could apply to assumption as wel as belief, agreed. Whether the terms are true synonims, is debatable. And whether or not the scientific principles and the principles of religion are similar, is most unlikely.
:-)
d3 and d4 are not elements of science, though they are elements of almost all religions. Also, note that I said I was looking to the definitions in the context of science vs. religion, and in that case, it doesn't only refer to dogma, but you have other (differences in) definitions, such as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Which all the major religions have in common (but not science).
But I guess we basically agree, and it's just a matter of what the context is of the definitions we use.
As for your suggestions, I fear you come to late: carl sagan has been one of my favorite authors since years. I have (and have read) both books you mention, and I thought they were exellent, as far as fiction as non-fiction goes. (I thought the movie was not as good as the book, however). In fact, I'm still searching for 'pale blue dot', which, for some reason, is difficult to find in my country.
It's good to see other people enjoying carl sagans' works.
"faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs. "
As you can see, almost all definitions of faith clearly indicate that science (or assumptions) and religion (or belief) is not the same at all, on the contrary. Especially the faith in a religious sense (as I said) is at odds with what science strifes for.
As you yourself say: faith is accepting something is true. Science never accepts something is true, it *assumes* some things are closer to the observable reality then others, but they also always assume this could turn out to be wrong.
It also assumes, ofcourse, that our senses are that which with we observe; mainly because it's the only logical option. But even there: if a new sense popped up suddenly, then they wouldn't consider our current senses as being the (only) basis for observation anymore. Christian or other religious believers claim to posses such a sense, but this poses the difficulty that they don't ever show a case where it can be demonstrated that that extra sense really exist (as in: observable for other non-believers).
I really do not see that the two things are synonimes, at least in the majority of cases (which is why I pointed to semantics).
"Everything you can sense is based on faith"
I think we're losing ourselves into semantics, now.
What I sense is not based on faith, but on what I sense, plain and simple. My senses are biological in nature, not a matter of faith. If I move a piece of cloth before my eyes, I can see it and track it...and so does my cat. If I could only see it because I have faith in what I sense, how comes my cat notices it too? does my cat has 'faith' in her senses as well? If your answer is yes, I doubt we're talking about the same thing (= the religious meaning of the term 'faith').
If our senses were just a matter of faith, and that was identical to the faith of religion, then someone that had absolute faith in the fact that his visual senses (eyes) couldn't be blinded - because god will protect him or something) by laserlight would, indeed, not be blinded by it. I have to see the first one where that happens.
So, while one may contemplate about the semantics of it all, the fact is, 'faith' does not enter the picture when you sense something (though it may influence the feelings/thoughts surrounding the sense, of course). You do not have to believe in anything, to be able to sense. If my senses only worked because I had faith in them, then they wouldn't work at all, because I doubt them. And in fact, doubting everything is the core of scientific progress - unlike faith.
So, no. I don't 'belief' in my senses in the way relgious 'belief' is viewed. It could well be, that all my senses are profoundly flawed (which they are, no doubt). You do not have many regious believers that claim their beliefs are probably flawed, do you?
It may wel be that we're all living in a 'the matrix' kind of system, and all our senses are worth squat. But...how to know? Unless some proof for that is offered (which, again, you have to be able to observe in some way), you can not make the difference between a perfectly simulated world and the real world, because both are the same in every sense - literally.
Once again: science is not based on faith, but on presumtions - that may be right or wrong, but at least this is acknowledged. I don't see a priest saying: I believe in god, but that's an assumption; it may well be that there is no god at all. No; for him, it is an absolute fact that god exist. People who say "there might be a god, but it might also be not the case" are called agnostici, not believers.
In true science, there are no absolute facts, however. Therefor, (religious) faith and (scientific) assumption are not synonyms.
"*assumption* and belief are still synonyms"
This is not really true. A scientific assumption inherently is temporaly in nature. It always involves doubt and the acknowledgement that what we consider today to be a valid theory, could well prove to be utter nonsense when observation contradicts that theory.
In contrast, 'belief' (as it is meant in a religious context) accepts something as being true, regardless of observation. There is no true believer that 'assumes' there is a god - but also accepts the notion that it's perfectly possible there is no god at all. They don't 'assume' God exists, they 'know' god exist; it's not a matter of possibility, but of a certitude. Therefor, to assume something and to believe something are two different things altogether.
You too, huh? I'm glad I'm not the only one! Family and friends all look at me like I have a screw lose when I say I prefer to play civ2 instead of 3.
It's like, when you don't like the 'improved' new version better, there is something wrong with you.
But, heck, I'm not sure why exactly, but civ3 misses something that civ2 does have. I agree the graphics are better in civ3 and what not..but, somehow, the added complexity gets in the way of game-pleasure. Or something like that. I don't know *what* it is, really, but I do know I much prefer civ2 - it's just more (lasting) fun, while with civ3 I get bored real quickly and have a lot less fun.
The GPL allows you to copy and use it, *without* the necessity of providing source or anything whatsoever, as long as it's used indoors.
:-)
I'm perfectly happy to do the same for RIAA'ed music.
"Expect the law will catch up at some point."
No it won't.
By the time the law has catched up the 3 miles it's away from current technological practise, it'll be 9 miles behind of the technology (and it's implications) we'll be using by then.
Even now, systems such as Freenet are being developed, which will pose new legal questions in the future.
"I would propose that your pseudo-definition of theft relies largely on your implied definition of what constitutes property."
As far as I can see, the definition was largely based on the characteristics of theft itself. One *could* use other definitions, ofcourse, but I must say I agree with the parent poster that 'stealing', by definition, always means you steal something *from* someone.
An example: if I steal a vase from a shop, then the shop has lost it's vase, and it could, in effect, sue me for stealing it. If I *copied* the vase, however, but never take the vase away, then that shop could not sue me for theft, because I didn't steal it. (It could possibly sue me for copy/patent infringement, if it owned the rights, but that's another story).
So, yes, his definition of 'theft' seems valid.
I agree with your statement, which is why I said BSD is, on itself, more free then GPL, BUT the latter makes more sure things stay free.
This always brings with it some form of dilemma. It's the same with being a libertarian and to allow others to express themselves: will you go so far as to allow that expression of someone else to curtail yours (or of a third party?). In my view, this is not a good thing. The core element of free speech/expression is that it has to remain free, and THAT is what you have to fight for.
another example: On itself, a country of pacifists wouldn't last long among countries of agressors, unless they have muscle and willigness enough to fight off those other countries.
So, sometimes, it's better to fight for the principles you believe in, so they are preserved. After all, of all things, it's better to be forced more freedom then anything else. (and, within a society, one is ALWAYS forced to something).
Free licence are free, and if they aren't, they shouldn't be portrayed as such.
We're not going into that debate again, I hope? the same thing with "which is more free: BSD or GPL".
There is NO difficulty here: BSD, by nature, is more free, yes. But to *keep* it free, GPL is better suited.
And such is the case with all 'open' licenses: some may be more free, others may suit some particular need better.
You forgot to offer chocolate for it...
Let's hope it's the OTHER half. ;-)