Can start here, complete with a nice color photo. Apparently got nailed by a pie at one point, but I imagine a couple spindles of blank DVD's would hurt a whole lot worse. Not that I would advocate such a thing.
I'd also argue that a "we can change this contract at any time" clause in a contract should be generally illegal, or void the contract altogether. A contract that anyone can change unilaterally isn't a contract at all, and shouldn't be treated as such.
I -seriously- hope you're deliberately being ironic...
or how to use correct grammer Grammar.
and I would mark with a standard of correctness which only allowed 1 spelling mistake and 1 gramatical mistake for every 100 words. Grammatical, and you're way over your own standard already.
Now it is not that I have a problem with spell checking but, Comma goes before the "but".
in other words spell checking is their to correct typos "Their" is the possessive of "they". "There" is the one you're looking for.
grammer is correct, it is not there to spell for you and produce grammer for you Grammar, GRAMMAR. Hey, anything would be better then nothing.
Now, I'm not a spelling nazi. I couldn't care less in most posts, so long as they're clear and legible, if a few words are misspelled, or in the wrong tense, or whatever. But your post tearing people a new one for making one misspelling in 100 words, while making six or so yourself in roughly that number, is hypocrisy, and that I do object to. Oh, and teachers should be encouraging their students to learn to use technology that's relevant now, not 30 years ago. That's called a "computer", demanding handwritten only assignments would be silly.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction -you're- in, but the last I checked anywhere, those general "not our fault" clauses don't mean a thing against something done intentionally. If you are with full awareness doing something malicious, that is a totally different animal then accidentally releasing bugged software, and "not our fault" won't even begin to protect them.
On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international treaty to which the US is a signatory, specifically applies to "all people in all nations", and does not restrict itself whatsoever to governmental agencies. If we are to accept that free speech is a fundamental human right, rather than a government granted privilege, we do have a duty to protect against any suppression of it, be that suppression from the government, an angry mob, an employer, or a school.
Well, since you apparently know quite a bit on the subject, or would like to think you do, maybe next time you'll actually bother to offer up some of your evidence, instead of calling those who disagree with you "weak minded".
Now, as much as I dislike feeding trolls, your error is common enough that it demands being addressed.
The presence of "evidence" for something does not, by any means, make it scientific. Also, you are confusing "evidence" with "empirical evidence", and that is not a semantic quibble, there is a world of difference between the two. Empirical evidence means observational evidence from the real world. That can be sometimes esoteric, as in quantum theory, but even quantum theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
If the intelligent design folks want to disprove evolution, it already can be done, and they don't even need to advance a competing theory. Evolution makes several falsifiable predictions, such as speciation, natural selection, and increased complexity of organisms as the fossil record timeline marches on. These have been borne out by observation. All you have to do to disprove evolution is to prove any one of those predictions false.
What does not disprove anything is "negative evidence"-that is, "No one can explain how such a complex structure appeared naturally, so it MUST have been a god or gods." The fact that something is currently unexplained does not mean that a "god" had a hand in it-500 years ago, all manner of phenomena, from supernova stars to lightning storms were attributed to God/gods. And yet, now that we have advanced, we can explain those as natural phenomena, and are quite aware of the mechanisms by which they work (stellar decay and static electricity, respectively). The fact that a theory does not yet explain everything does show a need for further study, but it does not in itself disprove the theory. Experimental falsification of that theory's predictions will do that, if they produce a result not explained or predicted by the theory. Can you please point me to that experiment? If it exists, the Nobel Prize committee has made a significant oversight.
Until then, try to refrain from calling your opposition "weak minded"-it is an indication of a weak mind to need to resort to such tactics.
As to intelligent design being scientific, please refer to the post you responded to. ID fails to complete several steps required by the scientific method, including the making of falsifiable predictions which can be tested through experimentation. That does not make it bad or its believers idiots, as they have every right to believe as they choose. It does, however, factually, make the theory unscientific. Until such time as it can be shown that Intelligent Design -has- been formulated according to the scientific method, it isn't science.
Oh, and I don't know what science class you attended, but any decent science teacher will make very clear to the students that it is, by definition, possible to prove any scientific theory false. That's part of the method-the theory must make falsifiable predictions. Many theories, such as phlogiston, were proven false after centuries of use, and sometimes they seemed to explain things very well. But to allow anyone to come along, insert "God" at whatever point they like, and call it science, is a disservice to the students and the scientific community in general.
"This is a test of a translation from English to Spanish and back"
Translated to Spanish: Esto es una prueba de una traducción de inglés a español y a la espalda.
Which, back to English: This is a test of a translation of English to Spaniard and to the back.
I'd really like to see them put their software up for testing. If it really is good enough to do speech in real time, it ought to be able to blow Babblefish and the like out of the water with on-the-web translation. Up until they do that, they just -say- it works.
I think the best way to go about it would be to teach neither theory extensively in a science class, and give all theories, from intelligent design to evolution to aquatic apes and aliens, thorough treatment in a separate "origins of life" class, which would be more philosophy than science, though the two obviously have significant overlap.
He stated that he wanted to keep -both- evolution -and- creationism out of science class. Keeping creation out makes sense-it's not science, as I showed. Evolution, however, is a scientific theory, and should be treated as such. ANY science teacher who teaches that ANY scientific theory is proven beyond doubt or improvement is doing a disservice to their students, questioning established theory is the very foundation of science. But the questioning to be done should be done through the scientific method, if you wish to call it science. It is no better to put evolution on the same level as religious belief in a philosophy class then it is to put creation on the level of evolution in a science class. Evolution belongs in the science class, religion belongs in a social studies or comparative religion class.
A theory being scientific does -not- mean that it has been proven true or false. It means that it can be proven true or false, and that it is based on empirical observations of the natural world. Evolution meets these criterion, it can be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean that such testing will be "easy"-the existence of very many things must be proven indirectly, human beings haven't visited Mars, but we know it exists. No human or their equipment has ever been anywhere near a black hole, but we can be pretty certain that they exist. We haven't quite gotten a thermometer to the sun yet, but we can make a pretty accurate extrapolation of its surface temperature from what we know of heat, mass, and gravity. The fact that something has not been directly observed does not by any means that evidence cannot exist for it.
Same thing here. For one, the main point (speciation) which would make macroevolution possible is observable and provable. This is evidenced by everything from Darwin's visits to the Galapagos, to the unique Australian species, to yeast cultures in laboratories. That is observational evidence, and that is the definition of science. Granted, the theory can't be said to be "proven", but no scientist worth a crap ever considers a theory proven beyond any improvement anyway-just evidenced well enough to use as a working model. Evolution is to that stage.
On the other hand, ID could at -best- be said to be based on "negative" evidence-I don't believe the theories as to how this occurred naturally so it must have been designed. It offers no testable predictions (as evolution offers speciation and that the fossil record will grow increasingly more complex, both of which are testable and have been proven). It offers no evidence, other then some old books which have been in the hands of some very corrupt organizations known to have manipulated the public through religious propaganda. That hardly qualifies as a counter-argument to the fossil record in my book.
Last but not least, intelligent design -requires- creationism. Why do I say this? Well, let's look at it logically.
Anything which can come into being through the application of conscious thought by utilizing natural processes can by definition occur naturally and by chance. Therefore, any proponent of ID who acknowledges that evolution occurred but claims it was "set in motion" tacitly acknowledges that evolution could've occurred naturally. That doesn't mean that such a thing is likely (a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters would take a very long time to make a meaningful sentence, let alone the complete works of Shakespeare), but if that "meaningful sentence" can take things from there and reproduce and evolve on its own, it's a lot more likely. Therefore, to state that ID negates even the possibility of evolution, one -must- argue that the "intelligent designer" possessed and used abilities -outside- of the normal laws of nature.
Now, here is why that is not, and cannot be, science-there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the existence of such a designer. Absent empirical evidence, such "theories" aren't scientific theories at all. They are conjecture, or religion, or philosophy. Not that those things don't have their place. But that place is not in a science classroom.
In closing, here are the four essential steps of the scientific method, and why evolution passes where ID fails:
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
ID does pass this, it observes and describes the existence of life, as does evolution.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
Evolution hypothesizes that life came from extremely simple forms of life which evolved through the processes of micro and macroevolution to more complex forms. This process is testable, falsifiable, and empirical.
ID doesn't really put forth a hypothesis, in the sense that such a hypothesis would have to be testable, falsifiable, and be
If you want to advocate that type of philosophy class, great. Go for it. Just keep your (and everyone else's) religion out of the science classroom. Religion is not science. The two can coexist, but they cannot overlap. Teach about religion in a social studies, sociology, comparative religion, or philosophy class all you like. But do not put them forth as scientific theories. They are not, and by definition, cannot be.
"The Greeks believed in Aphrodite" is fine to teach in a social studies class, as are the effects of Christianity on the US, Islam on the Middle East, Judaism on Israel, and so on.
But here, we're talking about a biology class. Aphrodite has no place in that class, and neither does any other "intelligent designer". And I understand science perfectly well, thank you. Religion cannot, by definition, be scientific, because it requires an act of faith, not empirical testing. That does not mean the two are incompatible, it simply means that any "god" or "gods" are outside the scope of scientific endeavor.
As to the rest of your examples (book of Job for language studies, pagan rituals, myths) I have no problem with comparative religion being taught in a secular manner, and I don't think very many scientists would disagree. But I've sure never heard of the Egyptian creation myth finding its way into a biology class. Why should the Christian one be in there?
However, that's a different form of artificial scarcity (although still a valid one). At the end of the day, they might be able to produce more wine then they do produce, but their production still has a fixed limit (the amount of grapes available to them, how many barrels they have to ferment them, the physical size of their facility, etc.) They are, however, not prohibited by law from making any more, nor is anyone else forbidden to make an identical product in larger quantities.
I personally don't care-I can find enough genuinely free stuff that I don't care to watch Hollywood's movies or listen to the RIAA's crap, for free or otherwise. I know where to get Windows for free, it's not hard, but I'd still much rather use Linux-even if Microsoft started giving away free CD's tomorrow. However, it's rather silly to oppose the inevitable, and that's what we see happening here. The computing power in the world today is sufficient to make multiple copies of anything which can be put into digital form, and it's already happening. It may be true that new technology may be detrimental to some businesses which modeled themselves based on the old, this is almost always the case when technological revolutions occur on a large scale. However, it is the job of those businesses to adapt to the new technology, not to legally and technologically cripple the capabilities of it.
Before computers, copyright was largely a regulation on industry, and that's why it was generally fine with most people. It may've been technically illegal to make a copy of a cassette tape for your friend to listen to, but no one complained. No one had a problem with it being illegal for someone to make thousands of copies and sell them at the flea market.
However, what was generally objected to was making a -profit- off someone else's work-not just sharing it. Before, there would've been a cost to doing so large-scale, a thousand blank cassettes would cost a non-trivial amount of money, and take a non-trivial amount of time to put copies onto. Of course, technology inevitably automates labor-intensive activities, and a side-effect of the computer's automation of mathematical computations is that it can easily copy anything and everything that can be expressed as bits. This is simply how a computer operates, and you really can't change that without crippling the computer. Nor will DRM work-it violates basic cryptography. You can't DRM something strongly enough not to be copied, ever, because by definition, you -must- give the message, cipher, AND key to the people buying the end product!
Should we, then, just eliminate copyright? I don't know. I don't think totally. It might be better to go to a "collective licensing" model and establish a massive ASCAP organization to collect. It might be solved through taxes on certain items distributed in a similar manner. It might be solved through compulsory licenses on everything. It may be a combination of those things, or an even better solution that's out there just waiting for the right person to come up with it. If I had that perfect solution in my head, I'd be the first to put it out there.
One thing that is for sure, though-when a law is broken so widely that those breaking it are generally looked at as average citizens, rather than criminals, you'd better change that law. Otherwise, it makes the entire body of law look foolish. I'm sick of the legal system restricting things that are such common practices that it in effect makes the entire population into a criminal one way or the other. It dilutes the effectiveness of the law as a whole, and it dilutes the will of the people to assist law enforcement in apprehending and convicting genuine criminals.
As to the argument of the "sliding scale"-in effect, I disagree with both of you. I don't agree that if something is priced too highly that you generally have the right to take it anyway, but I also don't agree that copyright infringement constitutes a "taking" or a "theft" or any of those other fashionable but wrong t
Actually, the apple tree here is the proper analogy, the apples in the bin are not. The apples in the bin are an appropriate analogy to stealing a real, physical DVD out of a store. But that's the problem with equating copying and theft-they're not the same thing, no matter how much nastier "theft" sounds then "copying" or "copyright infringement". If you have to use inflammatory terms to make your case, rethink your case.
Earlier posters were also correct when they referred to artificial scarcity. Physical products (apples, cars, what have you) are naturally scarce-if a store has 50 to sell, then once those 50 are sold, or given away, or stolen, there's no more for anyone. On the other hand, digital copies are not naturally scarce-if I give someone a copy, and we both give someone else a copy, and then all 4 of us give someone else a copy, and so on, the potential supply -increases- with every new copy made. If someone "steals" a copy of a file from my hard drive, I've still got the original, and if I give one away, I've still got my own as well. Information is not a naturally scarce resource. This is, again, why copyright infringement does not equate to theft, and copying a digital file doesn't equate to moving a physical item.
Copyrights were established in order to give artists and inventors incentive to make art, and invent. They may even be necessary to some degree for that. But why life+70, or 75 years for a corporate copyright? Anything made is either going to turn a profit in 5 years or never will. So why are we extending copyright for so damn long? Why are we allowing mathematical formulas (guess what, that's all software) to be patented, when that's -specifically- banned?
I think the problem here is not that copyrights and patents are inherently bad (they can have a benefit), but that they are out of control. They are also looked at the wrong way. They are supposed to work toward maximum benefit of the PUBLIC, -absolutely not- toward the maximum benefit of the "rights" holder. They are supposed to give the MINIMUM that will incentivize a decent amount of creation, not set it up so that the creator can wring every last nickel out. And what way does Joe Average have to meaningfully protest aside from civil disobedience?
You tell me the **AA's would fold up shop if they only had 5 years to sell their stuff-that's when they make the vast majority of their profit off of it. Yes, occasionally, they might sell a "greatest hits" album or something later on, but they're still plundering the public domain for the sake of a few extra bucks. A rich public domain is just as, or more, important to creativity as is the opportunity to get rich.
In my experience, those with broad powers to keep secrets will eventually misuse such power in order to cover up wrongdoing. The temptation is simply too great-you screwed up, badly, you can either:
A: Admit it, or
B: Keep it secret.
While there are exceptions, most will choose to keep it secret. That's an unfortunate reality but a true one.
And in fact, it's been found that classification has quite often been used unnecessarily or even maliciously. It has also been found that information is kept classified far longer then it need be (i.e., it held strategic value 50 years ago, and needed to be classified, it lost its strategic value 40 years ago and could've safely been declassified, but it stayed classified until 2 years ago because it would've embarrassed someone. Coincidentally, of course, that person died 2 years ago.)
A democratic government (or ANY government which claims to serve, rather than rule, the people it represents) must by definition be open. If we cannot get a complete picture of what any given leader or organization is up to, then we cannot make an informed choice as to whether to re-elect that leader. If we do not know a problem exists, we cannot protest it to our Congressmen/Senators. If the press are routinely denied access to critical information on potential wrongdoing, their "freedom of the press" becomes a farce.
We are indeed "better safe then sorry"-and we are safest when we can keep a close, critical eye on our government. Not when they're allowed to keep anything secret they wish with no oversight and no consequences for misuse of that authority.
If I -ever- heard a politician later -genuinely- admit that they were wrong, BEFORE a massive scandal erupted, I'd be so shocked I'd likely not say a word. Currently, all we get are flashy ads, that manage to distort everything in 30 seconds or less, and any speeches are written, not by the politician, but by his/her speechwriter, with all meaning carefully removed, and worded so that in all cases possible it sounds like the nice guy is actually on -both- sides!
I'd gladly trade that in for some real speech. I don't want to hear what their speechwriter thinks, I don't want to hear what the party thinks, I want to hear what my own damn Congressmen and Senators think. I want to hear it in their words and without all the careful obfuscation quite deliberately constructed to avoid taking a stand on anything.
And if that meant cutting them some slack in later recanting what they said, I'd be happy to do it. Anyone that expects -anyone- else never to make a mistake or say something that upon further reflection wasn't quite right is an idiot.
However, that is also the EXACT reason that comments are necessary. While it certainly might bring out some morons, it would also allow two-way communication between the people reading the blog and the official, and if something was out of line or not thought through, it'll give them feedback before it ever gets to the media.
I must agree. the whole thing's seemed a bit off from the beginning to me as well. Bit offtopic, but my email's posted, feel free to shoot me one if you'd like to discuss it further.
Excellent analysis, but one point is incorrect, and another seems a bit so:
it more or less destroy's the position of publishers to offer their own for-pay search services or licence their libraries to other search services. On balance, because of that issue, I'd say that this point weighs weakly against Google.
This is factually incorrect. Under Fair Use, the courts are not allowed to look at everything someone -might someday- do with the work, only how it affects the market right now. Also, generally, such a service (even if the publisher was providing it) would generally be considered a factual database that cannot be copyrighted-a publisher cannot keep, for example, amazon.com from listing their works.
All the courts look at is if a third party's distribution of copies -directly- interferes with the demand for the copyright holder's distributed copies. A negative critique of a book, for example, might certainly have a detrimental impact on sales, but that's still fair use if it quotes from the book to point out the flaws. In this case, they're providing free, targeted advertising on behalf of the book, and actually will be -increasing- lawful demand for it, rather then unlawfully supplanting it. This weighs HEAVILY toward Google.
The only -potential- argument they have is the "whole copy" one, and even that seems to fall a bit flat as they're taking major steps to ensure that that "whole copy" is seen only by computers, never by a human. Kind of like the old tree riddle-if a copy's made but no one can ever read it, is it a copy at all? And even if so, if it -must- be copied to a machine for the purpose of excerpting, but the machine doesn't and can't serve a whole copy, how can this be a problem? If (in theory) Google bought stacks upon stacks upon stacks of every book known to man, hired a million people, and had them manually go through those books and email recommendations and excerpts back to people, would this be any type of problem? Somehow, I can't imagine they'd even -consider- that such a service wouldn't be fair use. So why is automating it any different, provided that the safeguards against abuse work?
As to the nature of the copyrighted work, I don't know if a book of facts is any "less" copyrighted-facts themselves aren't copyrightable, but a given presentation of them is. However, the "nature" of the work, in this case, is printed books, and for millennia it's been acceptable practice to maintain libraries and use excerpts from books for the purposes of recommending for and against them. I'd think that would weigh very much in Google's favor. This thing's just a huge card catalog, and sorry, but however they want to spin it, that's fair use.
The "lower-level" employee was also accused of throwing chairs across the room while threatening to "fucking bury these antitrust guys", according to a Microsoft statement. His identity has not been released, but Microsoft has promised that "appropriate action" will be taken.
"We've decided that Mr. Bal-erm-this low-level goon is only allowed to have beanbag chairs in his office from now on. And if he throws any more furniture he's paying for his own wall." said Jack Priceup, a low-level marketing goon for Microsoft. Asked if low-level people within the organization were allowed to make large-scale decisions with competitors, he said "No way, they don't even let us take a piss without askin..." After checking his pager, which started furiously going off at that time, he then stated that time for comments was up.
I don't think anyone but an idiot could possibly be confused into thinking that The Onion is "presidentially supported or endorsed". Given that, how could the White House POSSIBLY...?
Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant. With such probable cause/warrant, they can do any number of things, from subpoenaing the suspect's ISP to placing surveillance devices right in the suspect's house. They've already got ways to eavesdrop if they follow the procedures they're required to follow.
Now, if the FBI had this wiretap authority, they could in effect tap any call, anytime. They would still in theory be required to get a warrant in order to use the stuff in court, but they'd have the switch to flip on. And there's been a push in recent years by you-know-who to allow secret evidence in court proceedings that the suspect gets no opportunity to even view, let alone challenge.
So, either law enforcement wants to be lazy, or they want an easier way to do an end-run around the rules. Neither way is a comforting thought to me.
Parent is not a troll, I get stuff in HTML and.doc and.rtf all the time that uses no formatting at all that couldn't be done in plaintext. (Line breaks, and...that's about it.) It's silly, it wastes bandwidth, it wastes space, and it wastes time. Even most of the posts I see here, despite the fact HTML is usable, make use of nothing but good old text and line breaks. Most of the correspondence I receive is the same. I do encourage people to send me stuff in plaintext unless they really need the formatting capability, and then to send it in OpenDocument.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not BEER you smell on my breath, it's coffee. COFFEE! Hey, put those damn handcuffs away!
Can start here, complete with a nice color photo. Apparently got nailed by a pie at one point, but I imagine a couple spindles of blank DVD's would hurt a whole lot worse. Not that I would advocate such a thing.
I'd also argue that a "we can change this contract at any time" clause in a contract should be generally illegal, or void the contract altogether. A contract that anyone can change unilaterally isn't a contract at all, and shouldn't be treated as such.
I -seriously- hope you're deliberately being ironic...
or how to use correct grammer
Grammar.
and I would mark with a standard of correctness which only allowed 1 spelling mistake and 1 gramatical mistake for every 100 words.
Grammatical, and you're way over your own standard already.
Now it is not that I have a problem with spell checking but,
Comma goes before the "but".
in other words spell checking is their to correct typos
"Their" is the possessive of "they". "There" is the one you're looking for.
grammer is correct, it is not there to spell for you and produce grammer for you
Grammar, GRAMMAR. Hey, anything would be better then nothing.
Now, I'm not a spelling nazi. I couldn't care less in most posts, so long as they're clear and legible, if a few words are misspelled, or in the wrong tense, or whatever. But your post tearing people a new one for making one misspelling in 100 words, while making six or so yourself in roughly that number, is hypocrisy, and that I do object to. Oh, and teachers should be encouraging their students to learn to use technology that's relevant now, not 30 years ago. That's called a "computer", demanding handwritten only assignments would be silly.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction -you're- in, but the last I checked anywhere, those general "not our fault" clauses don't mean a thing against something done intentionally. If you are with full awareness doing something malicious, that is a totally different animal then accidentally releasing bugged software, and "not our fault" won't even begin to protect them.
On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international treaty to which the US is a signatory, specifically applies to "all people in all nations", and does not restrict itself whatsoever to governmental agencies. If we are to accept that free speech is a fundamental human right, rather than a government granted privilege, we do have a duty to protect against any suppression of it, be that suppression from the government, an angry mob, an employer, or a school.
Well, since you apparently know quite a bit on the subject, or would like to think you do, maybe next time you'll actually bother to offer up some of your evidence, instead of calling those who disagree with you "weak minded".
Now, as much as I dislike feeding trolls, your error is common enough that it demands being addressed.
The presence of "evidence" for something does not, by any means, make it scientific. Also, you are confusing "evidence" with "empirical evidence", and that is not a semantic quibble, there is a world of difference between the two. Empirical evidence means observational evidence from the real world. That can be sometimes esoteric, as in quantum theory, but even quantum theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
If the intelligent design folks want to disprove evolution, it already can be done, and they don't even need to advance a competing theory. Evolution makes several falsifiable predictions, such as speciation, natural selection, and increased complexity of organisms as the fossil record timeline marches on. These have been borne out by observation. All you have to do to disprove evolution is to prove any one of those predictions false.
What does not disprove anything is "negative evidence"-that is, "No one can explain how such a complex structure appeared naturally, so it MUST have been a god or gods." The fact that something is currently unexplained does not mean that a "god" had a hand in it-500 years ago, all manner of phenomena, from supernova stars to lightning storms were attributed to God/gods. And yet, now that we have advanced, we can explain those as natural phenomena, and are quite aware of the mechanisms by which they work (stellar decay and static electricity, respectively). The fact that a theory does not yet explain everything does show a need for further study, but it does not in itself disprove the theory. Experimental falsification of that theory's predictions will do that, if they produce a result not explained or predicted by the theory. Can you please point me to that experiment? If it exists, the Nobel Prize committee has made a significant oversight.
Until then, try to refrain from calling your opposition "weak minded"-it is an indication of a weak mind to need to resort to such tactics.
As to intelligent design being scientific, please refer to the post you responded to. ID fails to complete several steps required by the scientific method, including the making of falsifiable predictions which can be tested through experimentation. That does not make it bad or its believers idiots, as they have every right to believe as they choose. It does, however, factually, make the theory unscientific. Until such time as it can be shown that Intelligent Design -has- been formulated according to the scientific method, it isn't science.
Oh, and I don't know what science class you attended, but any decent science teacher will make very clear to the students that it is, by definition, possible to prove any scientific theory false. That's part of the method-the theory must make falsifiable predictions. Many theories, such as phlogiston, were proven false after centuries of use, and sometimes they seemed to explain things very well. But to allow anyone to come along, insert "God" at whatever point they like, and call it science, is a disservice to the students and the scientific community in general.
I worded that poorly, you're absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that.
Even something relatively simple...
"This is a test of a translation from English to Spanish and back"
Translated to Spanish: Esto es una prueba de una traducción de inglés a español y a la espalda.
Which, back to English: This is a test of a translation of English to Spaniard and to the back.
I'd really like to see them put their software up for testing. If it really is good enough to do speech in real time, it ought to be able to blow Babblefish and the like out of the water with on-the-web translation. Up until they do that, they just -say- it works.
From the post you're apparently citing:
I think the best way to go about it would be to teach neither theory extensively in a science class, and give all theories, from intelligent design to evolution to aquatic apes and aliens, thorough treatment in a separate "origins of life" class, which would be more philosophy than science, though the two obviously have significant overlap.
He stated that he wanted to keep -both- evolution -and- creationism out of science class. Keeping creation out makes sense-it's not science, as I showed. Evolution, however, is a scientific theory, and should be treated as such. ANY science teacher who teaches that ANY scientific theory is proven beyond doubt or improvement is doing a disservice to their students, questioning established theory is the very foundation of science. But the questioning to be done should be done through the scientific method, if you wish to call it science. It is no better to put evolution on the same level as religious belief in a philosophy class then it is to put creation on the level of evolution in a science class. Evolution belongs in the science class, religion belongs in a social studies or comparative religion class.
A theory being scientific does -not- mean that it has been proven true or false. It means that it can be proven true or false, and that it is based on empirical observations of the natural world. Evolution meets these criterion, it can be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean that such testing will be "easy"-the existence of very many things must be proven indirectly, human beings haven't visited Mars, but we know it exists. No human or their equipment has ever been anywhere near a black hole, but we can be pretty certain that they exist. We haven't quite gotten a thermometer to the sun yet, but we can make a pretty accurate extrapolation of its surface temperature from what we know of heat, mass, and gravity. The fact that something has not been directly observed does not by any means that evidence cannot exist for it.
Same thing here. For one, the main point (speciation) which would make macroevolution possible is observable and provable. This is evidenced by everything from Darwin's visits to the Galapagos, to the unique Australian species, to yeast cultures in laboratories. That is observational evidence, and that is the definition of science. Granted, the theory can't be said to be "proven", but no scientist worth a crap ever considers a theory proven beyond any improvement anyway-just evidenced well enough to use as a working model. Evolution is to that stage.
On the other hand, ID could at -best- be said to be based on "negative" evidence-I don't believe the theories as to how this occurred naturally so it must have been designed. It offers no testable predictions (as evolution offers speciation and that the fossil record will grow increasingly more complex, both of which are testable and have been proven). It offers no evidence, other then some old books which have been in the hands of some very corrupt organizations known to have manipulated the public through religious propaganda. That hardly qualifies as a counter-argument to the fossil record in my book.
Last but not least, intelligent design -requires- creationism. Why do I say this? Well, let's look at it logically.
Anything which can come into being through the application of conscious thought by utilizing natural processes can by definition occur naturally and by chance. Therefore, any proponent of ID who acknowledges that evolution occurred but claims it was "set in motion" tacitly acknowledges that evolution could've occurred naturally. That doesn't mean that such a thing is likely (a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters would take a very long time to make a meaningful sentence, let alone the complete works of Shakespeare), but if that "meaningful sentence" can take things from there and reproduce and evolve on its own, it's a lot more likely. Therefore, to state that ID negates even the possibility of evolution, one -must- argue that the "intelligent designer" possessed and used abilities -outside- of the normal laws of nature.
Now, here is why that is not, and cannot be, science-there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the existence of such a designer. Absent empirical evidence, such "theories" aren't scientific theories at all. They are conjecture, or religion, or philosophy. Not that those things don't have their place. But that place is not in a science classroom.
In closing, here are the four essential steps of the scientific method, and why evolution passes where ID fails:
ID does pass this, it observes and describes the existence of life, as does evolution.
Evolution hypothesizes that life came from extremely simple forms of life which evolved through the processes of micro and macroevolution to more complex forms. This process is testable, falsifiable, and empirical.
ID doesn't really put forth a hypothesis, in the sense that such a hypothesis would have to be testable, falsifiable, and be
If you want to advocate that type of philosophy class, great. Go for it. Just keep your (and everyone else's) religion out of the science classroom. Religion is not science. The two can coexist, but they cannot overlap. Teach about religion in a social studies, sociology, comparative religion, or philosophy class all you like. But do not put them forth as scientific theories. They are not, and by definition, cannot be.
"The Greeks believed in Aphrodite" is fine to teach in a social studies class, as are the effects of Christianity on the US, Islam on the Middle East, Judaism on Israel, and so on.
But here, we're talking about a biology class. Aphrodite has no place in that class, and neither does any other "intelligent designer". And I understand science perfectly well, thank you. Religion cannot, by definition, be scientific, because it requires an act of faith, not empirical testing. That does not mean the two are incompatible, it simply means that any "god" or "gods" are outside the scope of scientific endeavor.
As to the rest of your examples (book of Job for language studies, pagan rituals, myths) I have no problem with comparative religion being taught in a secular manner, and I don't think very many scientists would disagree. But I've sure never heard of the Egyptian creation myth finding its way into a biology class. Why should the Christian one be in there?
However, that's a different form of artificial scarcity (although still a valid one). At the end of the day, they might be able to produce more wine then they do produce, but their production still has a fixed limit (the amount of grapes available to them, how many barrels they have to ferment them, the physical size of their facility, etc.) They are, however, not prohibited by law from making any more, nor is anyone else forbidden to make an identical product in larger quantities.
I personally don't care-I can find enough genuinely free stuff that I don't care to watch Hollywood's movies or listen to the RIAA's crap, for free or otherwise. I know where to get Windows for free, it's not hard, but I'd still much rather use Linux-even if Microsoft started giving away free CD's tomorrow. However, it's rather silly to oppose the inevitable, and that's what we see happening here. The computing power in the world today is sufficient to make multiple copies of anything which can be put into digital form, and it's already happening. It may be true that new technology may be detrimental to some businesses which modeled themselves based on the old, this is almost always the case when technological revolutions occur on a large scale. However, it is the job of those businesses to adapt to the new technology, not to legally and technologically cripple the capabilities of it.
Before computers, copyright was largely a regulation on industry, and that's why it was generally fine with most people. It may've been technically illegal to make a copy of a cassette tape for your friend to listen to, but no one complained. No one had a problem with it being illegal for someone to make thousands of copies and sell them at the flea market.
However, what was generally objected to was making a -profit- off someone else's work-not just sharing it. Before, there would've been a cost to doing so large-scale, a thousand blank cassettes would cost a non-trivial amount of money, and take a non-trivial amount of time to put copies onto. Of course, technology inevitably automates labor-intensive activities, and a side-effect of the computer's automation of mathematical computations is that it can easily copy anything and everything that can be expressed as bits. This is simply how a computer operates, and you really can't change that without crippling the computer. Nor will DRM work-it violates basic cryptography. You can't DRM something strongly enough not to be copied, ever, because by definition, you -must- give the message, cipher, AND key to the people buying the end product!
Should we, then, just eliminate copyright? I don't know. I don't think totally. It might be better to go to a "collective licensing" model and establish a massive ASCAP organization to collect. It might be solved through taxes on certain items distributed in a similar manner. It might be solved through compulsory licenses on everything. It may be a combination of those things, or an even better solution that's out there just waiting for the right person to come up with it. If I had that perfect solution in my head, I'd be the first to put it out there.
One thing that is for sure, though-when a law is broken so widely that those breaking it are generally looked at as average citizens, rather than criminals, you'd better change that law. Otherwise, it makes the entire body of law look foolish. I'm sick of the legal system restricting things that are such common practices that it in effect makes the entire population into a criminal one way or the other. It dilutes the effectiveness of the law as a whole, and it dilutes the will of the people to assist law enforcement in apprehending and convicting genuine criminals.
As to the argument of the "sliding scale"-in effect, I disagree with both of you. I don't agree that if something is priced too highly that you generally have the right to take it anyway, but I also don't agree that copyright infringement constitutes a "taking" or a "theft" or any of those other fashionable but wrong t
Actually, the apple tree here is the proper analogy, the apples in the bin are not. The apples in the bin are an appropriate analogy to stealing a real, physical DVD out of a store. But that's the problem with equating copying and theft-they're not the same thing, no matter how much nastier "theft" sounds then "copying" or "copyright infringement". If you have to use inflammatory terms to make your case, rethink your case.
Earlier posters were also correct when they referred to artificial scarcity. Physical products (apples, cars, what have you) are naturally scarce-if a store has 50 to sell, then once those 50 are sold, or given away, or stolen, there's no more for anyone. On the other hand, digital copies are not naturally scarce-if I give someone a copy, and we both give someone else a copy, and then all 4 of us give someone else a copy, and so on, the potential supply -increases- with every new copy made. If someone "steals" a copy of a file from my hard drive, I've still got the original, and if I give one away, I've still got my own as well. Information is not a naturally scarce resource. This is, again, why copyright infringement does not equate to theft, and copying a digital file doesn't equate to moving a physical item.
Copyrights were established in order to give artists and inventors incentive to make art, and invent. They may even be necessary to some degree for that. But why life+70, or 75 years for a corporate copyright? Anything made is either going to turn a profit in 5 years or never will. So why are we extending copyright for so damn long? Why are we allowing mathematical formulas (guess what, that's all software) to be patented, when that's -specifically- banned?
I think the problem here is not that copyrights and patents are inherently bad (they can have a benefit), but that they are out of control. They are also looked at the wrong way. They are supposed to work toward maximum benefit of the PUBLIC, -absolutely not- toward the maximum benefit of the "rights" holder. They are supposed to give the MINIMUM that will incentivize a decent amount of creation, not set it up so that the creator can wring every last nickel out. And what way does Joe Average have to meaningfully protest aside from civil disobedience?
You tell me the **AA's would fold up shop if they only had 5 years to sell their stuff-that's when they make the vast majority of their profit off of it. Yes, occasionally, they might sell a "greatest hits" album or something later on, but they're still plundering the public domain for the sake of a few extra bucks. A rich public domain is just as, or more, important to creativity as is the opportunity to get rich.
"Unusual" can also mean "rare"-I think that's the context it's used in here.
In my experience, those with broad powers to keep secrets will eventually misuse such power in order to cover up wrongdoing. The temptation is simply too great-you screwed up, badly, you can either:
A: Admit it, or
B: Keep it secret.
While there are exceptions, most will choose to keep it secret. That's an unfortunate reality but a true one.
And in fact, it's been found that classification has quite often been used unnecessarily or even maliciously. It has also been found that information is kept classified far longer then it need be (i.e., it held strategic value 50 years ago, and needed to be classified, it lost its strategic value 40 years ago and could've safely been declassified, but it stayed classified until 2 years ago because it would've embarrassed someone. Coincidentally, of course, that person died 2 years ago.)
A democratic government (or ANY government which claims to serve, rather than rule, the people it represents) must by definition be open. If we cannot get a complete picture of what any given leader or organization is up to, then we cannot make an informed choice as to whether to re-elect that leader. If we do not know a problem exists, we cannot protest it to our Congressmen/Senators. If the press are routinely denied access to critical information on potential wrongdoing, their "freedom of the press" becomes a farce.
We are indeed "better safe then sorry"-and we are safest when we can keep a close, critical eye on our government. Not when they're allowed to keep anything secret they wish with no oversight and no consequences for misuse of that authority.
If I -ever- heard a politician later -genuinely- admit that they were wrong, BEFORE a massive scandal erupted, I'd be so shocked I'd likely not say a word. Currently, all we get are flashy ads, that manage to distort everything in 30 seconds or less, and any speeches are written, not by the politician, but by his/her speechwriter, with all meaning carefully removed, and worded so that in all cases possible it sounds like the nice guy is actually on -both- sides!
I'd gladly trade that in for some real speech. I don't want to hear what their speechwriter thinks, I don't want to hear what the party thinks, I want to hear what my own damn Congressmen and Senators think. I want to hear it in their words and without all the careful obfuscation quite deliberately constructed to avoid taking a stand on anything.
And if that meant cutting them some slack in later recanting what they said, I'd be happy to do it. Anyone that expects -anyone- else never to make a mistake or say something that upon further reflection wasn't quite right is an idiot.
However, that is also the EXACT reason that comments are necessary. While it certainly might bring out some morons, it would also allow two-way communication between the people reading the blog and the official, and if something was out of line or not thought through, it'll give them feedback before it ever gets to the media.
I must agree. the whole thing's seemed a bit off from the beginning to me as well. Bit offtopic, but my email's posted, feel free to shoot me one if you'd like to discuss it further.
Excellent analysis, but one point is incorrect, and another seems a bit so:
it more or less destroy's the position of publishers to offer their own for-pay search services or licence their libraries to other search services. On balance, because of that issue, I'd say that this point weighs weakly against Google.
This is factually incorrect. Under Fair Use, the courts are not allowed to look at everything someone -might someday- do with the work, only how it affects the market right now. Also, generally, such a service (even if the publisher was providing it) would generally be considered a factual database that cannot be copyrighted-a publisher cannot keep, for example, amazon.com from listing their works.
All the courts look at is if a third party's distribution of copies -directly- interferes with the demand for the copyright holder's distributed copies. A negative critique of a book, for example, might certainly have a detrimental impact on sales, but that's still fair use if it quotes from the book to point out the flaws. In this case, they're providing free, targeted advertising on behalf of the book, and actually will be -increasing- lawful demand for it, rather then unlawfully supplanting it. This weighs HEAVILY toward Google.
The only -potential- argument they have is the "whole copy" one, and even that seems to fall a bit flat as they're taking major steps to ensure that that "whole copy" is seen only by computers, never by a human. Kind of like the old tree riddle-if a copy's made but no one can ever read it, is it a copy at all? And even if so, if it -must- be copied to a machine for the purpose of excerpting, but the machine doesn't and can't serve a whole copy, how can this be a problem? If (in theory) Google bought stacks upon stacks upon stacks of every book known to man, hired a million people, and had them manually go through those books and email recommendations and excerpts back to people, would this be any type of problem? Somehow, I can't imagine they'd even -consider- that such a service wouldn't be fair use. So why is automating it any different, provided that the safeguards against abuse work?
As to the nature of the copyrighted work, I don't know if a book of facts is any "less" copyrighted-facts themselves aren't copyrightable, but a given presentation of them is. However, the "nature" of the work, in this case, is printed books, and for millennia it's been acceptable practice to maintain libraries and use excerpts from books for the purposes of recommending for and against them. I'd think that would weigh very much in Google's favor. This thing's just a huge card catalog, and sorry, but however they want to spin it, that's fair use.
Yeah, they couldn't ban it on "impact to productivity" grounds before! Good thing they've finally got an excuse.
The "lower-level" employee was also accused of throwing chairs across the room while threatening to "fucking bury these antitrust guys", according to a Microsoft statement. His identity has not been released, but Microsoft has promised that "appropriate action" will be taken.
"We've decided that Mr. Bal-erm-this low-level goon is only allowed to have beanbag chairs in his office from now on. And if he throws any more furniture he's paying for his own wall." said Jack Priceup, a low-level marketing goon for Microsoft. Asked if low-level people within the organization were allowed to make large-scale decisions with competitors, he said "No way, they don't even let us take a piss without askin..." After checking his pager, which started furiously going off at that time, he then stated that time for comments was up.
I don't think anyone but an idiot could possibly be confused into thinking that The Onion is "presidentially supported or endorsed". Given that, how could the White House POSSIBLY...?
Oh, never mind, think I get it now. Carry on.
Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant. With such probable cause/warrant, they can do any number of things, from subpoenaing the suspect's ISP to placing surveillance devices right in the suspect's house. They've already got ways to eavesdrop if they follow the procedures they're required to follow.
Now, if the FBI had this wiretap authority, they could in effect tap any call, anytime. They would still in theory be required to get a warrant in order to use the stuff in court, but they'd have the switch to flip on. And there's been a push in recent years by you-know-who to allow secret evidence in court proceedings that the suspect gets no opportunity to even view, let alone challenge.
So, either law enforcement wants to be lazy, or they want an easier way to do an end-run around the rules. Neither way is a comforting thought to me.
Parent is not a troll, I get stuff in HTML and .doc and .rtf all the time that uses no formatting at all that couldn't be done in plaintext. (Line breaks, and...that's about it.) It's silly, it wastes bandwidth, it wastes space, and it wastes time. Even most of the posts I see here, despite the fact HTML is usable, make use of nothing but good old text and line breaks. Most of the correspondence I receive is the same. I do encourage people to send me stuff in plaintext unless they really need the formatting capability, and then to send it in OpenDocument.