Why is it that every comment asking, "Why is Google doing this?" come to the conclusion that Google's intent must be related to money in some way?
I don't trust corporations (look at my posting history). But, I've been very impressed with the impression I get from Google. Yes, perhaps they are doing this for the PR, or to turn Microsoft's cash cow into hamburger and yummy, yummy steaks; but might it also be that Google is doing this because it has some extra cash, and since it benefits so greatly from free software, is just trying to give something back?
Maybe?
Anyway, in the end, it doesn't matter, as well *all* benefit.
Sounds like you think people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into science and/or engineering.
Not at all. I enthusiastically embraced physics as my major.
I believe the US' primary and secondary education system is ill-equiped to identify and train those students who *are* interested in science. As a result, the introductory science classes are often filled with surly, bored students who wouldn't know a theorem from an axiom. This kinda puts a damper on the enthusiasm of all but the most dedicated would-be scientists.
So I thing we're heading "backwards" into some "new medieval ages". Good thing? IMO after that comes new reneasance and democracy. But of course after some big fights and loses.
You may be right, my friend. I hope we can avoid much of the "backwards;" but if we can't, we will hopefully come through the other side of darkness much enlightened.
But just in case you are, it is not the job of the government to promote software formats. The majority of people in society have spoken, and they overwhelmingly choose MS Word.
Sorry about that. My last reply was rather rushed, and I forgot a very important fact:
The decision isn't selecting a document format for the entire government, nor for the people of Massachusetts. They are selecting the format to be used by *the executive branch* of the state government. That's it, that's all. It's like a CIO of a company deciding which database on which their corporation will build their data infrastructure. It's their decision to make, by their own guidelines.
As far as the rest of your argument goes, it's a matter of political philosophy. I believe a state's soveriegnity trumps corporate interest any day. The group responsible tasked with coming to this decision did so in a very open, very public, very participatory manner. In fact, their procedure was significantly more democratic than this end-run by an elected official, who is acting unilateraly, and not at the request of their citizens; but rather, he is suspiciously taking action after a visit from Microsoft representatives.
You tell me which group is acting consistently with the principles of democracy, and which is acting like a special interest group.
As far as your FUD, corporate control or government control. I can only believe you were trying to be dramatic or cute. I don't see how you could be serious. But just in case you are, it is not the job of the government to promote software formats.
I was trying to be cutely dramatic, thanks.
But I was also quite serious. Microsoft has already demonstrated a willingness to cut of their nose to spite their face; this was most recently demonstrated by their threat to withhold MS-Windows from South Korea. If you don't see this as corporate control, then no amount of evidence will convince you.
Well actually, the argument I made is correct. The CIO stated his concern was that the format would not be available. That is absurd.
In what way? I cannot now open MS-Works documents. At all. And old MS-Word (say, 1.0 - 3.0) are not easy to open, either; the office's copy of MS-Windows 97 cannot open any of them.
And this is the most vital, the most important, point of all. A proprietary format is in no way acceptible for long-term storage; in 20 years, who's to say any program can open that format? Whereas with an open standard, at least the format is documented, so someone can write a conversion utility.
My FUD is not FUD. It has been demonstrated time and again that, given the opportunity, a coproration will use its clout against anyone it can, *including the government.*
And finally, this is also about maintaining a free market. You know, this whole free market thing you seem to like so much? Using a proprietary format keeps many otherwise-viable competitors from bidding on software contracts.
The answer to the problem is easy. Instead of fighting an open standard, Microsoft can instead embrace the standard. But they won't until they have to.
They are the ones who choose to eliminate themselves. It's not about MS-Word or not MS-Word; it's about open standards for the preservation of documents. To say otherwise is disengenuous.
I worked in a computer lab at a university years ago, back in the Win3.1 days. We had Macs that worked pretty damned well for the time.
What's your point in the context of this article? One of the things the article doesn't mention is that this issue was brought up during the standardisation discussions. As it turns out, there are plenty of options for visually impaired persons, options that support the Open Document standard. (WordPerfect, for one.)
This is a strawman. The issue is being pushed by a state senator just days after a Microsoft representative met with this state senator. It is a strawman built and deployed by Microsoft.
At stake is the rights of all citizens to control their government. On the other side is some incorrect assertions that citizens with impaired vision are going to be adversely affected. So, to sum up: openness and transperancy, or lies and corporate agenda.
It's obvious that he doesn't like MS, and wants to give open format a boost. Right or wrong that is his motivation. And he is lying about it.
Uhm... no. As was stated in the meetings leading up to the decision, Microsoft may participate by supporting an open standard. There were (at the time) two ways of doing this: submitting their document format to a standards body, and enencumbering it from any patents. Simple and straightforward.
The second way (now the only way, since MA has decided to go with Open Document) is to support the open document format. Considering MS supports *other* formats (WP, Lotus 123, etc), it's not much of a stretch for them.
At issue isn't a like or dislike for Microsoft; it is Microsoft doing what they always do-- they are trying to force their control on the citizens of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
So let me ask you this: do you prefer corporate control of our government, or citizen control of our government? The crossroads is before you. Choose wisely.
Why is Intelligent Design always portrayed as anti-science?
*sigh*
ID is portrayed as anti-science because it is unscience dressed up and presented as science.
The epistemology of science is quite well defined. It is not just, "observe stuff, then make up an explaination." That doesn't cut it.
Basically, it boils down to this: one of the keys of scientific reasoning is the ability to disprove. An explaination can only be an hypothesis if you can come up with a way to disprove it. So, you might say, "Humans cannot live for extended periods under water unaided." How can you disprove that? Well, the easiest way is to hold someone under water for half-an-hour or so. If they survive, your hypothesis is disproven.
We now have an hypothesis, and a test for that hypothesis. We perform that test once, and our hypothesis holds. Then, once we are out of prison, we attempt our test again. Again, our hypothesis holds. Others also perform our experiment, and in every case, the hypothesis holds. Those of us performing the experiments write our papers from the psych ward, and our hypothesis, now validated, is raised to the status of theory.
At this point, there are two ways to invalidate our theory: either someone can survive unaided underwater for an extended period of time, or someone can come up with another valid test and disprove our theory. (I'm too lazy to think up a second test.)
As it happens, there have been cases in which people have survived unaided under very cold water for extended periods (meaning, tens of minutes). Darn. Back to the drawing board.
Okay, so our new hypothesis states that humans cannot survive for more than an hour under water unaided.
And the process starts over.
This is how science works. Well, not entirely; there's a lot more to it than that. But, if I were to write a children's book that talked about science, that's how I'd introduce it, complete with pictures of drowned test subjects. Causing childhood trauma is fun.
Now, here's the problem with ID:
ID basically says that evolution couldn't've happened, so God must have done it. Can you spot at least two unscientific parts? I can.
To test this hypothesis and elevate it to the rank of theory, you must find a test that can disprove it. Any test. Now, the part that stands out as the most unscientific is the God bit. So, if we could come up with a test that might disprove the existence of God, we could *prove* that God exists, and that part of the hypothesis would be validated.
Any test. Any little old test you can think of.
No?
The second part is the assumption that something is wrong with evolution. A lot of posts state that there are *obvious* problems, but the problems they present (if they bother to try to shore up their arguments at all) have either been 1) discredited, or 2) are unresolved issues.
What's that? Scientists don't know everything? Hah! That proves they know nothing!
Really, it doesn't. But that's one of the unscientific aspects of the ID argument. It appeals to the fact that we are, in fact, ignorant about some aspects of evolution. In fact, we are ignorant about many aspects of evolution. But that does not invalidate the theory of evolution; it just means we have a long way to go.
It's good that people are searching for simpler, easier-to-understand alternative theories to evolution. The problem is, appealing to God is neither simpler, nor easier to understand. It creates a void were non existed before. It is the lynchpin to the entire ID argument, and it is fundamentally nonprovable. God knows, people have been trying to prove His (or Her, or Its) existence for centuries, at least.
So. That makes ID non-science. What makes it anti-science?
ID exists because the phrase "creationism" was so vehemently rejected in educational circles. It's dressed up with pseudo-science (as described above, and in much greater detail elsewhere), but at its heart,
How do you expect the masses to be educated when you call them morons?
Well, they can be educated whether I call them sweet, sweet turnips or not; I can't see how calling them morons is much different with respect to their education.
As Holden Caulfield so eloquently put it, "All morons hate it when you call them morons." So if you want to piss a moron off so they won't vote for you, call them a moron.
Is that what you mean?
What are we going to do about it? Complaining about them does nothing, but focusing on our own faults might change things.
What are we going to do? Sit around and bitch. This is/., after all. Focusing on our faults will lead us into some strange and eventually off-topic debate concerning the exact nature of "fault," and which of our traits express that nature.
On of the problems with being smarter than a large portion of the rest of the population is this: being yourself is being elitist. People don't like to be reminded they are not smart (just as stated in Catcher in the Rye). Our very discussions, mannerisms, and ability to use the English language (for those of us here in the States, and in countries likewise disposed to the English language, or variations thereof) with something more than crude approximation-- all these facets of ourselves, our very nature, provoke this anti-elitist response.
Now, we could get into a long discussion about how most people are actualy fairly smart, and we just manifest our intelligence in our ability to speak with greater-than-average skill and vocabulary; but that avoids the main point: intelligence is treated with disdain and distrust. All'a us'n's with our high-fallutin' words, and our multisyllabic (whatever that means) vocabulary, we're to be watched with more than a mite bit of skepticism.
Anyway. My only point is this: the perception of above-average intelligence often results in an almost immediate judgement of elitism, with all that supposedly entails: ignorance of "the real world," ulterior motives and hidden agendas, a lack of morality, a desire to convert children to (I'm not making this up) Satanism, or other bizarre prejudisms like that.
(BTW: the Satanism thingee comes from an discussion I had with some very polite, very nice, very earnest young men who assured me that homosexuals, democrats, and the liberal education system were in league with Satan in an attempt to steal away the souls of children. I have heard this same sentiment, though usually not so baldly stated, from other fundamentalist Christians. It's one of the reasons a lot of home-schooled kids are from fundamentalist Christian families, I think.)
So, part of the answer is, not just better science education, but education about the philosophy of science.
That would definitely constitute better science education, in my book.
There are serious drawbacks to this approach: many fewer students would pass a science class with a significant philosophical bent. Hell, most of them wouldn't even be able to spell "epistemology," let alone know what it is or how it relates to science.
It's much easier to train a bunch of uninterested students in facts and figures, rather than try to interest them in learning the significance of those facts and figures. It'd be an uphill battle.
But, I agree. Teach logic, then teach the philosophy of science. That'd be a damned good start.
Connie Willis wrote about this years ago, in a novella called "Remake." In it, an angst-ridden young man working for some hollywood company digitally edits old movies based on the mores and whims of the whatever passes for political correctness. For instance, throughout most of the story, he's editing scenes in old movies, taking out all references to alchohol. He digitally changes drinks into... other things.
It predates the Steven Spielberg South Park episode by several years, but otherwise is almost identical. Guns replaced with walkie-talkies. That's just funny.
Basically, South Korea is looking for cash from Microsoft. This is not about monopolies, because the monopoly does not exist.
Let's see... in one post, you say that if Microsoft were to pull out of S. Korea, it would cripple their economic power, and in the next post you say there is no monopoly?
I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance here.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say in essence; but you can't have it both ways.
Microsoft Office really blows the competition right out of the water IMHO. Together with the awesome SQL Server they're easily the best products out of Redmond.
I believe that's called, "Damning with faint praise."
Some industry observers liken the hosting move to the 'turn on a dime' shift that Microsoft executed years back when it discovered the Internet.
By "discovered" they mean, "Ignored it until it smacked them over the head, forcing them to spin around in a circle (looking like they were turning on a dime), until they came to their senses and said, 'Hey, free dime!'"
The deal is this: if you had 2000+ albums on your hard drive, it'd take you forever to index them so you had a cool interface with which to access your music.
Now.
Take your desktop computer, with all its resources, and scrunch it down into a device that'll fit into your pocket.
The deal is, it's easier to "cache" the ID3 tags into a "database" (sorry if I'm using technical terms here) and have a small "embedded device" use the database for song information. And, since you need a computer to move those songs over to the embedded device, it's much easier to move the db workload off to the big computer than the small computer.
It really does make sense. It's just a pain the ass for the citizen using the device.
I had ROM Basic, GW Basic, Quick Basic, and Power Basic. I had Borland C/C++ for DOS.
Bah! All you children, with your fancy gizmos and whirleygigs. Why, when *I* was a budding hacker, we had to flip bits with a TIDDLEYWINK! And we LIKED it that way!
All you kids with your fancy interactive terminals, and your 300-baud modems, and your higher-level languages. "Ooo, my BASIC is SOOOOOOO powerful!" "Logo could do that in a jiff or less!" Ha! Nowadays, you kids just don't know the first damned thing about computers! Do you!
Why, if it wasn't for the PDP-8, you wouldn't even KNOW HOW TO PROGRAM! Face it!
Seriously, though, back in the day, I noticed that Mac geeks generally weren't very good at general problem solving. Now, it seems the other way around; the MS-Windows nerds seem to be behind the curve in general computer intelligence. But what do I know? I just had a fight with a clerk in a computer store about whether color laser printers were better than inkjet printers.
Like Charles Petzold (bless his OS/2-loving heart), I'm getting too old for this shit.
Hey! Thanks for patronizing me! I really appreciate it.
Perhaps the reason we're paranoid and ungrateful is simple: we've been lied to by what some consider the highest power in our government-- the President. We've been lied to by the last several administrations, really.
The most recent, most aggregious lies were told us to lead us into a war that gained us, the citizens of the United States, nothing. It had nothing to do with protecting us. It had nothing to do with anything that matters to 99% of the population. That other 1%? It gains them profit. And it's killed tens of thousands of people, thank you very much.
So, perhaps it's not easy for us to trust our government right now. When secrecy leads to human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo), war (Iraq), and a steady deterioration of our basic rights, it's hard to fucking take you guys seriously!
I mean, c'mon! If you want to defend the US, cool. That's great. I really do appreciate what hard-working, honest government employees do for us. But if you're going to defend it, by God, you'd better defend the Constitution, and not be pleased when a law is passed that is in direct opposition to the principles on which this country was supposedly founded.
When I joined the Army 20 years ago, I took an oath to defend our country from all enemies, foriegn and domestic. I took that oath seriously; I still do. And when I see enemies of the principles of the Constitution, I get a little upset.
So sue me. Tell me how ungrateful I am. That's fine. I just have 5 words for you:
Fuck you, you hypocritical lout.
I question the basic trustworthiness of our government. That doesn't make me a traitor, or ungrateful, or a bad person. It just means that I've heard enough lies from those who are supposed to be serving us. I've seen enough abuse of power to know that it not only happens, it happens often. And I'm fed up, and pissed off, angry, and kind of hungry.
How about this concept - freedom is the ability for you as an individual to have the means to have a better life by your OWN definition, not to decrease the ability of OTHERS to enjoy their own life.
How about this concept: my idea of a better life is one in which liberty is the driving political principle, and corporations are nothing more than charters granted by the citizens of the US (and may be dissolved when the corporation goes against the greater good), and everyone has food to eat, and the United States doesn't go to fucking war every time some fuckwad President wants to play armies, and those selfsame butt-reaming Presidents who lie to us fucking go to fucking jail for fucking warcrimes.
Geez. Thanks for listening. I'm sorry you had to sit through my therapy session.
The reason there are official "beta" and "pre-pre-pre-Alpha" releases is because it informs the community of the intended audience. The "pre-pre-pre-Alpha" phase is for interested developers. The "beta" phase indicates it's not ready for your production data, but if you are an interested user, you can help the project by searching for bugs.
Also, these milestones give the community a chance to judge how long it will be before the "official" 1.0 release. In the case of Wine, this is a decade in the making, and is a very, very, VERY big deal. So, it might only be a year before we see an official 1.0 version of Wine.
Commercial companies have learned that internal Beta releases do not find all the bugs, and so they have emulated the free software community by releasing early, releasing often. I feel this has helped products like MS-Windows become stronger products. They don't get all the benefits of open source, but they do get some.
In any case, if you are not interested in anything but the 1.0 release, that's fine; meanwhile, those of us who like the Wine project, and like to test and debug important projects know it's a fine time to jump in and help. Our participation will hopefully make your 1.0 experience a pleasant one.
That's what Neuros did with their first two audio players. The logic was in one device, which snapped into another device, which contained the battery and the hard drive. You could get additional cradle-device-things if you needed more storage.
I don't think it worked out all that great. I loved my original Neuros, 'til some bastard in Cleveland stole it. If you are reading this, Bastard, I hope you choke to death on an onion.
The problem with this approach is this:
This device is a great recipe with today's hardware and at a really good price point.
Damn straight it is. I love my 442. The video is great, and at 5 hour battery life for video, it works well for long plane flights or car trips. 9-hour audio isn't fantastic, but it's good.
If it were split into layers, the price-point would suffer. I'm glad they took the approach they did. It's a good device, and it'll last me quite a few years, I think, unless some bastard in Cleveland steals it.
Microsoft was *not* convicted of being a monopoly. It's OK to be a monopoly. What they were convicted of was worse: using their monopoly power to control the marketplace.
How did they do that? By controlling the distribution chain. Just like they are being accussed of here in the article.
It's not much of a conspiracy if the person being accussed has been convicted of that exact same thing. Is it paranoia to distrust someone who threatens to kill you, if that person is a convicted killer?
Not that it matters. The folks at Microsoft are generally pretty smart. They only behave this way when they are really threatened; and that's a good sign for Linux and the *BSDs.
getting permission is NOT required by moral law. legal laws are completely obscene. and even there, there might be ways of not bending over to corporate interests.
Hah! Your outmoded views on law amuse us.
Moral law? Morality is for pussies! Wealth, that's for the big dogs. Wealth and power. And hot women, because hot women are attracted to Wealth and Power, not morality!
No, we the Corporations are your new Lords. You will bow down before us!
---------
Sorry. couldn't help myself. Sometimes I try to imagine what it must be like, to value yourself so much and others so little that you are willing to fuck over other people for your own gain. It must be great. It must be liberating, to not have to worry about whether you are doing good in the world, or evil. It must be even better when you can blame it all on the nature of the corporation. "They are neither good nor evil; they merely are." That makes it all so tidy, doesn't it?
Someday perhaps we in the US will come back to our collective senses and move back towards personal liberty; but until that day, we can sit back and enjoy the rise of fascism. It's such an entertaining show. And very realistic!
If you want a high capacity music player, then you want an iPod - everyone wants an iPod; they're cool.
Uhm... I don't want an iPod. I think they are overrated, overpriced, underfeatured, and bland. I *do* love the click-wheel thingy, though. That was what made the iPod great, the interface.
Otherwise, they are just like most of the other MP3 players out there, near as I can tell, only more expensive. And, they won't play ogg vorbis, my format of choice.
So, I don't want one, at least in the $399 sense of the word.
(disclaimer: I do not work for, nor benefit from, Neuros Audio. I just like their products and their business ethic.)
I purchased a beta model of the 442. The software is still in very early stages of development; except for the main menu, most functions are still file-system based. This means no shuffle for music playing; you go into a directory and press "play" from where you want to start. Keep in mind, this is a very early release of the software; the goal is to upgrade the firmware with features the community wants.
The video player will play back MPEG4/DivX 3.11/4.0/5.0/WMV v9 (from the the specs). It will record MPEG SP with G.726 audio 30fps@704x240resolution, MS ASF format (also from the specs). It'll play back to a TV in NTSC or PAL.
I had to transcode my MST3k videos to a supported DivX resolution, but otherwise everything works beautifully. The playback was superb, and the sound output is better than my TV (exactly what you'd expect).
The unit is a little large (and at 325g, very solid), especially compared to the iPOD, but *extremely* stylish, with an excellent screen.
The really excellent news is this: Joe Born and his crew are producing dev boards, which they will sell to the community for cost. They are actively supporting a Linux port to the device.
Anyway, I love this device. A lot. A whole lot. I pack it wherever I go-- 9 hours audio playback, 5 hours video. Not great, but it'll last a plane ride and a couple of movies. And I'm patiently waiting for the dev board spec to get finalized so I can help with porting Linux to this device. The only thing I'm really missing on this device is Nethack.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that every comment asking, "Why is Google doing this?" come to the conclusion that Google's intent must be related to money in some way?
I don't trust corporations (look at my posting history). But, I've been very impressed with the impression I get from Google. Yes, perhaps they are doing this for the PR, or to turn Microsoft's cash cow into hamburger and yummy, yummy steaks; but might it also be that Google is doing this because it has some extra cash, and since it benefits so greatly from free software, is just trying to give something back?
Maybe?
Anyway, in the end, it doesn't matter, as well *all* benefit.
Sounds like you think people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into science and/or engineering.
Not at all. I enthusiastically embraced physics as my major.
I believe the US' primary and secondary education system is ill-equiped to identify and train those students who *are* interested in science. As a result, the introductory science classes are often filled with surly, bored students who wouldn't know a theorem from an axiom. This kinda puts a damper on the enthusiasm of all but the most dedicated would-be scientists.
So I thing we're heading "backwards" into some "new medieval ages". Good thing? IMO after that comes new reneasance and democracy. But of course after some big fights and loses.
You may be right, my friend. I hope we can avoid much of the "backwards;" but if we can't, we will hopefully come through the other side of darkness much enlightened.
But just in case you are, it is not the job of the government to promote software formats. The majority of people in society have spoken, and they overwhelmingly choose MS Word.
Sorry about that. My last reply was rather rushed, and I forgot a very important fact:
The decision isn't selecting a document format for the entire government, nor for the people of Massachusetts. They are selecting the format to be used by *the executive branch* of the state government. That's it, that's all. It's like a CIO of a company deciding which database on which their corporation will build their data infrastructure. It's their decision to make, by their own guidelines.
As far as the rest of your argument goes, it's a matter of political philosophy. I believe a state's soveriegnity trumps corporate interest any day. The group responsible tasked with coming to this decision did so in a very open, very public, very participatory manner. In fact, their procedure was significantly more democratic than this end-run by an elected official, who is acting unilateraly, and not at the request of their citizens; but rather, he is suspiciously taking action after a visit from Microsoft representatives.
You tell me which group is acting consistently with the principles of democracy, and which is acting like a special interest group.
As far as your FUD, corporate control or government control. I can only believe you were trying to be dramatic or cute. I don't see how you could be serious. But just in case you are, it is not the job of the government to promote software formats.
I was trying to be cutely dramatic, thanks.
But I was also quite serious. Microsoft has already demonstrated a willingness to cut of their nose to spite their face; this was most recently demonstrated by their threat to withhold MS-Windows from South Korea. If you don't see this as corporate control, then no amount of evidence will convince you.
Well actually, the argument I made is correct. The CIO stated his concern was that the format would not be available. That is absurd.
In what way? I cannot now open MS-Works documents. At all. And old MS-Word (say, 1.0 - 3.0) are not easy to open, either; the office's copy of MS-Windows 97 cannot open any of them.
And this is the most vital, the most important, point of all. A proprietary format is in no way acceptible for long-term storage; in 20 years, who's to say any program can open that format? Whereas with an open standard, at least the format is documented, so someone can write a conversion utility.
My FUD is not FUD. It has been demonstrated time and again that, given the opportunity, a coproration will use its clout against anyone it can, *including the government.*
And finally, this is also about maintaining a free market. You know, this whole free market thing you seem to like so much? Using a proprietary format keeps many otherwise-viable competitors from bidding on software contracts.
The answer to the problem is easy. Instead of fighting an open standard, Microsoft can instead embrace the standard. But they won't until they have to.
They are the ones who choose to eliminate themselves. It's not about MS-Word or not MS-Word; it's about open standards for the preservation of documents. To say otherwise is disengenuous.
I worked in a computer lab at a university years ago, back in the Win3.1 days. We had Macs that worked pretty damned well for the time.
What's your point in the context of this article? One of the things the article doesn't mention is that this issue was brought up during the standardisation discussions. As it turns out, there are plenty of options for visually impaired persons, options that support the Open Document standard. (WordPerfect, for one.)
This is a strawman. The issue is being pushed by a state senator just days after a Microsoft representative met with this state senator. It is a strawman built and deployed by Microsoft.
At stake is the rights of all citizens to control their government. On the other side is some incorrect assertions that citizens with impaired vision are going to be adversely affected. So, to sum up: openness and transperancy, or lies and corporate agenda.
It's obvious that he doesn't like MS, and wants to give open format a boost. Right or wrong that is his motivation. And he is lying about it.
Uhm... no. As was stated in the meetings leading up to the decision, Microsoft may participate by supporting an open standard. There were (at the time) two ways of doing this: submitting their document format to a standards body, and enencumbering it from any patents. Simple and straightforward.
The second way (now the only way, since MA has decided to go with Open Document) is to support the open document format. Considering MS supports *other* formats (WP, Lotus 123, etc), it's not much of a stretch for them.
At issue isn't a like or dislike for Microsoft; it is Microsoft doing what they always do-- they are trying to force their control on the citizens of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
So let me ask you this: do you prefer corporate control of our government, or citizen control of our government? The crossroads is before you. Choose wisely.
Why is Intelligent Design always portrayed as anti-science?
*sigh*
ID is portrayed as anti-science because it is unscience dressed up and presented as science.
The epistemology of science is quite well defined. It is not just, "observe stuff, then make up an explaination." That doesn't cut it.
Basically, it boils down to this: one of the keys of scientific reasoning is the ability to disprove. An explaination can only be an hypothesis if you can come up with a way to disprove it. So, you might say, "Humans cannot live for extended periods under water unaided." How can you disprove that? Well, the easiest way is to hold someone under water for half-an-hour or so. If they survive, your hypothesis is disproven.
We now have an hypothesis, and a test for that hypothesis. We perform that test once, and our hypothesis holds. Then, once we are out of prison, we attempt our test again. Again, our hypothesis holds. Others also perform our experiment, and in every case, the hypothesis holds. Those of us performing the experiments write our papers from the psych ward, and our hypothesis, now validated, is raised to the status of theory.
At this point, there are two ways to invalidate our theory: either someone can survive unaided underwater for an extended period of time, or someone can come up with another valid test and disprove our theory. (I'm too lazy to think up a second test.)
As it happens, there have been cases in which people have survived unaided under very cold water for extended periods (meaning, tens of minutes). Darn. Back to the drawing board.
Okay, so our new hypothesis states that humans cannot survive for more than an hour under water unaided.
And the process starts over.
This is how science works. Well, not entirely; there's a lot more to it than that. But, if I were to write a children's book that talked about science, that's how I'd introduce it, complete with pictures of drowned test subjects. Causing childhood trauma is fun.
Now, here's the problem with ID:
ID basically says that evolution couldn't've happened, so God must have done it. Can you spot at least two unscientific parts? I can.
To test this hypothesis and elevate it to the rank of theory, you must find a test that can disprove it. Any test. Now, the part that stands out as the most unscientific is the God bit. So, if we could come up with a test that might disprove the existence of God, we could *prove* that God exists, and that part of the hypothesis would be validated.
Any test. Any little old test you can think of.
No?
The second part is the assumption that something is wrong with evolution. A lot of posts state that there are *obvious* problems, but the problems they present (if they bother to try to shore up their arguments at all) have either been 1) discredited, or 2) are unresolved issues.
What's that? Scientists don't know everything? Hah! That proves they know nothing!
Really, it doesn't. But that's one of the unscientific aspects of the ID argument. It appeals to the fact that we are, in fact, ignorant about some aspects of evolution. In fact, we are ignorant about many aspects of evolution. But that does not invalidate the theory of evolution; it just means we have a long way to go.
It's good that people are searching for simpler, easier-to-understand alternative theories to evolution. The problem is, appealing to God is neither simpler, nor easier to understand. It creates a void were non existed before. It is the lynchpin to the entire ID argument, and it is fundamentally nonprovable. God knows, people have been trying to prove His (or Her, or Its) existence for centuries, at least.
So. That makes ID non-science. What makes it anti-science?
ID exists because the phrase "creationism" was so vehemently rejected in educational circles. It's dressed up with pseudo-science (as described above, and in much greater detail elsewhere), but at its heart,
How do you expect the masses to be educated when you call them morons?
/., after all. Focusing on our faults will lead us into some strange and eventually off-topic debate concerning the exact nature of "fault," and which of our traits express that nature.
Well, they can be educated whether I call them sweet, sweet turnips or not; I can't see how calling them morons is much different with respect to their education.
As Holden Caulfield so eloquently put it, "All morons hate it when you call them morons." So if you want to piss a moron off so they won't vote for you, call them a moron.
Is that what you mean?
What are we going to do about it? Complaining about them does nothing, but focusing on our own faults might change things.
What are we going to do? Sit around and bitch. This is
On of the problems with being smarter than a large portion of the rest of the population is this: being yourself is being elitist. People don't like to be reminded they are not smart (just as stated in Catcher in the Rye). Our very discussions, mannerisms, and ability to use the English language (for those of us here in the States, and in countries likewise disposed to the English language, or variations thereof) with something more than crude approximation-- all these facets of ourselves, our very nature, provoke this anti-elitist response.
Now, we could get into a long discussion about how most people are actualy fairly smart, and we just manifest our intelligence in our ability to speak with greater-than-average skill and vocabulary; but that avoids the main point: intelligence is treated with disdain and distrust. All'a us'n's with our high-fallutin' words, and our multisyllabic (whatever that means) vocabulary, we're to be watched with more than a mite bit of skepticism.
Anyway. My only point is this: the perception of above-average intelligence often results in an almost immediate judgement of elitism, with all that supposedly entails: ignorance of "the real world," ulterior motives and hidden agendas, a lack of morality, a desire to convert children to (I'm not making this up) Satanism, or other bizarre prejudisms like that.
(BTW: the Satanism thingee comes from an discussion I had with some very polite, very nice, very earnest young men who assured me that homosexuals, democrats, and the liberal education system were in league with Satan in an attempt to steal away the souls of children. I have heard this same sentiment, though usually not so baldly stated, from other fundamentalist Christians. It's one of the reasons a lot of home-schooled kids are from fundamentalist Christian families, I think.)
So, part of the answer is, not just better science education, but education about the philosophy of science.
That would definitely constitute better science education, in my book.
There are serious drawbacks to this approach: many fewer students would pass a science class with a significant philosophical bent. Hell, most of them wouldn't even be able to spell "epistemology," let alone know what it is or how it relates to science.
It's much easier to train a bunch of uninterested students in facts and figures, rather than try to interest them in learning the significance of those facts and figures. It'd be an uphill battle.
But, I agree. Teach logic, then teach the philosophy of science. That'd be a damned good start.
The parent appears to suffer from a lack of knowledge of what Christianity really dictates...
That's okay. So do most Christians.
Connie Willis wrote about this years ago, in a novella called "Remake." In it, an angst-ridden young man working for some hollywood company digitally edits old movies based on the mores and whims of the whatever passes for political correctness. For instance, throughout most of the story, he's editing scenes in old movies, taking out all references to alchohol. He digitally changes drinks into... other things.
It predates the Steven Spielberg South Park episode by several years, but otherwise is almost identical. Guns replaced with walkie-talkies. That's just funny.
Basically, South Korea is looking for cash from Microsoft. This is not about monopolies, because the monopoly does not exist.
Let's see... in one post, you say that if Microsoft were to pull out of S. Korea, it would cripple their economic power, and in the next post you say there is no monopoly?
I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance here.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say in essence; but you can't have it both ways.
Microsoft Office really blows the competition right out of the water IMHO. Together with the awesome SQL Server they're easily the best products out of Redmond.
I believe that's called, "Damning with faint praise."
Some industry observers liken the hosting move to the 'turn on a dime' shift that Microsoft executed years back when it discovered the Internet.
By "discovered" they mean, "Ignored it until it smacked them over the head, forcing them to spin around in a circle (looking like they were turning on a dime), until they came to their senses and said, 'Hey, free dime!'"
The deal is this: if you had 2000+ albums on your hard drive, it'd take you forever to index them so you had a cool interface with which to access your music.
Now.
Take your desktop computer, with all its resources, and scrunch it down into a device that'll fit into your pocket.
The deal is, it's easier to "cache" the ID3 tags into a "database" (sorry if I'm using technical terms here) and have a small "embedded device" use the database for song information. And, since you need a computer to move those songs over to the embedded device, it's much easier to move the db workload off to the big computer than the small computer.
It really does make sense. It's just a pain the ass for the citizen using the device.
I had ROM Basic, GW Basic, Quick Basic, and Power Basic. I had Borland C/C++ for DOS.
Bah! All you children, with your fancy gizmos and whirleygigs. Why, when *I* was a budding hacker, we had to flip bits with a TIDDLEYWINK! And we LIKED it that way!
All you kids with your fancy interactive terminals, and your 300-baud modems, and your higher-level languages. "Ooo, my BASIC is SOOOOOOO powerful!" "Logo could do that in a jiff or less!" Ha! Nowadays, you kids just don't know the first damned thing about computers! Do you!
Why, if it wasn't for the PDP-8, you wouldn't even KNOW HOW TO PROGRAM! Face it!
Seriously, though, back in the day, I noticed that Mac geeks generally weren't very good at general problem solving. Now, it seems the other way around; the MS-Windows nerds seem to be behind the curve in general computer intelligence. But what do I know? I just had a fight with a clerk in a computer store about whether color laser printers were better than inkjet printers.
Like Charles Petzold (bless his OS/2-loving heart), I'm getting too old for this shit.
Hey! Thanks for patronizing me! I really appreciate it.
Perhaps the reason we're paranoid and ungrateful is simple: we've been lied to by what some consider the highest power in our government-- the President. We've been lied to by the last several administrations, really.
The most recent, most aggregious lies were told us to lead us into a war that gained us, the citizens of the United States, nothing. It had nothing to do with protecting us. It had nothing to do with anything that matters to 99% of the population. That other 1%? It gains them profit. And it's killed tens of thousands of people, thank you very much.
So, perhaps it's not easy for us to trust our government right now. When secrecy leads to human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo), war (Iraq), and a steady deterioration of our basic rights, it's hard to fucking take you guys seriously!
I mean, c'mon! If you want to defend the US, cool. That's great. I really do appreciate what hard-working, honest government employees do for us. But if you're going to defend it, by God, you'd better defend the Constitution, and not be pleased when a law is passed that is in direct opposition to the principles on which this country was supposedly founded.
When I joined the Army 20 years ago, I took an oath to defend our country from all enemies, foriegn and domestic. I took that oath seriously; I still do. And when I see enemies of the principles of the Constitution, I get a little upset.
So sue me. Tell me how ungrateful I am. That's fine. I just have 5 words for you:
Fuck you, you hypocritical lout.
I question the basic trustworthiness of our government. That doesn't make me a traitor, or ungrateful, or a bad person. It just means that I've heard enough lies from those who are supposed to be serving us. I've seen enough abuse of power to know that it not only happens, it happens often. And I'm fed up, and pissed off, angry, and kind of hungry.
How about this concept - freedom is the ability for you as an individual to have the means to have a better life by your OWN definition, not to decrease the ability of OTHERS to enjoy their own life.
How about this concept: my idea of a better life is one in which liberty is the driving political principle, and corporations are nothing more than charters granted by the citizens of the US (and may be dissolved when the corporation goes against the greater good), and everyone has food to eat, and the United States doesn't go to fucking war every time some fuckwad President wants to play armies, and those selfsame butt-reaming Presidents who lie to us fucking go to fucking jail for fucking warcrimes.
Geez. Thanks for listening. I'm sorry you had to sit through my therapy session.
The reason there are official "beta" and "pre-pre-pre-Alpha" releases is because it informs the community of the intended audience. The "pre-pre-pre-Alpha" phase is for interested developers. The "beta" phase indicates it's not ready for your production data, but if you are an interested user, you can help the project by searching for bugs.
Also, these milestones give the community a chance to judge how long it will be before the "official" 1.0 release. In the case of Wine, this is a decade in the making, and is a very, very, VERY big deal. So, it might only be a year before we see an official 1.0 version of Wine.
Commercial companies have learned that internal Beta releases do not find all the bugs, and so they have emulated the free software community by releasing early, releasing often. I feel this has helped products like MS-Windows become stronger products. They don't get all the benefits of open source, but they do get some.
In any case, if you are not interested in anything but the 1.0 release, that's fine; meanwhile, those of us who like the Wine project, and like to test and debug important projects know it's a fine time to jump in and help. Our participation will hopefully make your 1.0 experience a pleasant one.
If what you want is scriptability, you can do that with Office just fine.
Not on a non-MS-Windows server, you can't.
The 442 is still a work in progress. Don't count it out for vorbis (or other free formats) just yet.
Splitting the device into layers
That's what Neuros did with their first two audio players. The logic was in one device, which snapped into another device, which contained the battery and the hard drive. You could get additional cradle-device-things if you needed more storage.
I don't think it worked out all that great. I loved my original Neuros, 'til some bastard in Cleveland stole it. If you are reading this, Bastard, I hope you choke to death on an onion.
The problem with this approach is this:
This device is a great recipe with today's hardware and at a really good price point.
Damn straight it is. I love my 442. The video is great, and at 5 hour battery life for video, it works well for long plane flights or car trips. 9-hour audio isn't fantastic, but it's good.
If it were split into layers, the price-point would suffer. I'm glad they took the approach they did. It's a good device, and it'll last me quite a few years, I think, unless some bastard in Cleveland steals it.
Microsoft was *not* convicted of being a monopoly. It's OK to be a monopoly. What they were convicted of was worse: using their monopoly power to control the marketplace.
How did they do that? By controlling the distribution chain. Just like they are being accussed of here in the article.
It's not much of a conspiracy if the person being accussed has been convicted of that exact same thing. Is it paranoia to distrust someone who threatens to kill you, if that person is a convicted killer?
Not that it matters. The folks at Microsoft are generally pretty smart. They only behave this way when they are really threatened; and that's a good sign for Linux and the *BSDs.
getting permission is NOT required by moral law. legal laws are completely obscene. and even there, there might be ways of not bending over to corporate interests.
Hah! Your outmoded views on law amuse us.
Moral law? Morality is for pussies! Wealth, that's for the big dogs. Wealth and power. And hot women, because hot women are attracted to Wealth and Power, not morality!
No, we the Corporations are your new Lords. You will bow down before us!
---------
Sorry. couldn't help myself. Sometimes I try to imagine what it must be like, to value yourself so much and others so little that you are willing to fuck over other people for your own gain. It must be great. It must be liberating, to not have to worry about whether you are doing good in the world, or evil. It must be even better when you can blame it all on the nature of the corporation. "They are neither good nor evil; they merely are." That makes it all so tidy, doesn't it?
Someday perhaps we in the US will come back to our collective senses and move back towards personal liberty; but until that day, we can sit back and enjoy the rise of fascism. It's such an entertaining show. And very realistic!
If you want a high capacity music player, then you want an iPod - everyone wants an iPod; they're cool.
Uhm... I don't want an iPod. I think they are overrated, overpriced, underfeatured, and bland. I *do* love the click-wheel thingy, though. That was what made the iPod great, the interface.
Otherwise, they are just like most of the other MP3 players out there, near as I can tell, only more expensive. And, they won't play ogg vorbis, my format of choice.
So, I don't want one, at least in the $399 sense of the word.
- Tony
(disclaimer: I do not work for, nor benefit from, Neuros Audio. I just like their products and their business ethic.)
I purchased a beta model of the 442. The software is still in very early stages of development; except for the main menu, most functions are still file-system based. This means no shuffle for music playing; you go into a directory and press "play" from where you want to start. Keep in mind, this is a very early release of the software; the goal is to upgrade the firmware with features the community wants.
The video player will play back MPEG4/DivX 3.11/4.0/5.0/WMV v9 (from the the specs). It will record MPEG SP with G.726 audio 30fps@704x240resolution, MS ASF format (also from the specs). It'll play back to a TV in NTSC or PAL.
I had to transcode my MST3k videos to a supported DivX resolution, but otherwise everything works beautifully. The playback was superb, and the sound output is better than my TV (exactly what you'd expect).
The unit is a little large (and at 325g, very solid), especially compared to the iPOD, but *extremely* stylish, with an excellent screen.
The really excellent news is this: Joe Born and his crew are producing dev boards, which they will sell to the community for cost. They are actively supporting a Linux port to the device.
Anyway, I love this device. A lot. A whole lot. I pack it wherever I go-- 9 hours audio playback, 5 hours video. Not great, but it'll last a plane ride and a couple of movies. And I'm patiently waiting for the dev board spec to get finalized so I can help with porting Linux to this device. The only thing I'm really missing on this device is Nethack.