Sad to see you modded as a troll. Then again I'm obviously biased both because I subscribe to the view of point number 3 as well as wishing that Slashdot would attract lots of people who feel the same way (because those people tend to be scientists or enlightened in some way imho).
I guess they're rare because they've got better things to do than hang around on the internet:)
I'd like to see a rational discourse specifically on Behe's examples but if there is any it's drowned in all the political grandstanding going on (can't say I'm much impressed with what I've seen by "scientists" purposesly "debunking" them so far).
Anyone have a link with detailed scientific step-by-step explanation (hopefully without offtopic rhetoric) on how the theory of evolution supposedly explains the driveshaft and rotating motor "construction" of a bacterias flagellum? I'd love to read it so I can learn more about their point of view, please share it.
Wow talk about absolutism (that's what dogma is btw), how about stepping out of the black and white world and enjoying the colours? Realizing that every indivual is just that: individual and unique? Some agree more and some agree less but everyone has something they disagree on with anyone else if they just bother digging a bit into enough topics.
Disclaimer: I'm religious (not part of any organized religion), not particularily violent, I'm personally convinced of the existence of a monotheistic, ultimately good, wise, powerful etc. creator God. I don't care what others think of my opinions or thoughts or what they themselves think on the subject unless they have something interesting to say and manage to say it in a grownup fashion.
Wow Seamus could you give a better example of the pettiness if you tried? Read your own post: you're actually complaining that it isn't fair there aren't more idiots in the world as if that would make anything better for anyone. And if you think people getting beaten for their beliefs only happen to non-religious persons as it is you really need to remove your blinds: stupidity knows no bounds, anyone can be and are attacked for any opinion. In this case it happens to be a professor who has strong opinions on a topic that's in the present hype-bin of the media so everybody hears about it.
I'm not flaming you, I'm trying to make you wake up. I mean look at all your posts in this thread, if you inversed the topic and all this was about someone in favour of ID getting beaten up would you not think that anyone writing the same things you do but supporting ID would be petty and worse?
I like my present sig but damned I've got another good one: "Slashdot - where the sky is falling every day". You can have it if you want it.
Wow what a name. First of all I feel sorry for the professor, nobody wants that, but really apart from that I balk at the name Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics. Most atheists and agnostics I've talked with are no more open minded than the dogmatic religious ones; not at all. It's very surprising considering what being an agnostic actually means, then again I guess a lot of people just make up their own definition (they kind of have to to want to share a society with atheists, agnostics and atheists are no more correlating than agnostics and those who are religious).
Anyway if anyone doesn't believe me about the openness just read through the replies here at Slashdot, the amount of openmindedness is close to zero, by the way so is the amount of respect and tolerance for opposing views.
It says as little about you (perhaps except implying that you don't think about sex absolutely constantly like some seem to do) as it says about me that my favourite character in Diablo II was the katar-wielding assassin woman.
I think you might be confusing a shift/reversal of the magnetic poles with the violent shift and relocation of the polar icecaps usually known as the HAB theory (http://www.habtheory.com/index.php).
Unless one triggers the other of course:)
I wouldn't worry much about anything but animals when it comes to the magnetic shift/reversal. Then again they might have been through it before (at least some of the species should have iirc, like crocodiles).
Yes good call, although I don't know why your example won't run in interactive mode. It throws a syntax error on print in the last line (I gave up pasting it here since/. doesn't seem to accept in either blockquote or ecode).
My example works interactively (didn't bother with IDLE just called python at the command prompt) if one leaves out the import and sys.exit lines (for obvious reasons).
{I'm not a Java-basher {you did well {{but I still think} the case for Java as a {beginners {learning}} language is kind of.... {ugly {confusing {non-intuitive}}}:)}}
while True:
check = "This is my password"
password = raw_input("What is the password: ")
if password == check:
print "Right"
break
else:
print "Wrong!" sys.exit
It looks a bit longer since I didn't hardcode the "password". Save it as a.py file (I called it RawInputStringExample.py) which can be run from the command prompt or shell as long as you've got Python installed, Windows command prompt example below:
L:\Program Files\Python23>RawInputStringExample.py What is the password: dunno Wrong! What is the password: hehehe Wrong! What is the password: password Wrong! What is the password: This is my password Right
L:\Program Files\Python23>
Python actually has specially made stuff to handle passwords correctly/securely etc. but that wasn't the point of the above code.
Are there any reasons not to start with Python or Ruby? I don't see them, they're easy to learn as you go along and with tons of free documentation and free books (digital format).
I'd say it's just as easy as Basic and way more powerful, the learning curve isn't that steep either. And I'm religiously convinced that Python and Ruby programs have a higher quality than anything from Viual Basic:)
Your toddler (or you yourself, I am) might also be interested in games... PyGame is a good start for that:)
...until the letter and its content is officially disclosed and there is nothing in the purposed content that would make it undiscloseable.
If people take this letter as true with the meager proof (essentially none) provided then they need to stop using email.
It is also extremely hard to see that this letter should have such an impact on the EU if it was indeed real. Lastly the source is The Register, is that meant to count favourably to the story? I think not.
I couldn't remember exactly which one it was and had too look it up so I might as well post it. Details on that probe (Lunokhod 1) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
I think we're in agreement about having opposite views and that it's not really a problem but I've got to ask: is that NWO site you link to (yours I presume?) also highly burlesque?
Don't bother reading it as it will not give you anything but a grumpy old man act (if this Otto is 25 then that's just twice as bad).
Quick summary: - introductionary rambling quote by Thomas Jefferson that doesn't add anything - introductionary (yup it reads like introduction number two) rambling quote by Ottos mom (I'm not sure if would be worse or better if it in fact was ghostwritten by Otto) praising her son in the most pompous way and mentioning that Otto was referred to by the New York Times - Otto making a point about not caring about being mentioned by the New York Times (we're almost halfway through the "article" by now) - trashtalking airlines and flying - trashtalking Burt Rutan with some mumbeling about a meditation capsule - some more airline trashtalking - trashtalking about open source - trashtalking about Finland and Linus Torvalds (hey Otto come to Norway: a country jokingly (and sadly with a grain of truth) referred to as one of the last communist states by Swedes)
That's it, really. Not a shred of intelligence, just whining from someone who either must be insanely spoilt (I blame his mom) or totally fails at some kind of attempt at elitist wittiness.
Why the fuck would george (submitter) or samzenpus (editor) think anyone would find this article interesting? Perhaps it would be for psychology students trying to profile Otto but somehow I imagine not many would waste time doing that ("whining asshole" isn't much of a scientific diagnosis anyway).
Nah the only likely reason this appeared is for the purpose of some kind of link-exchange deal.
Now I know why I'm not reading the Register but I can't comprehend why I'm reading Slashdot, perhaps it's time to find somewhere else to hang out on the net. Feel free to suggest replacements to Slashdot (Digg ain't it and it should have a varied technology-interested userbase numbering above three digits).
And Otto if you're reading this please go buy a hooker (I'm sad to say this seems like the only likely option for you) and break up with your mom - you'll thank me afterwards. Not trying to insult Otto, just trying to convey to him and any reader what kind of impression he gives of himself.
Disclaimer: I'm Norwegian but not a communist (I'd vote Bush/republican if I was American), I enjoy flying as long as I can look out of a window, I'm aware that almost all F/OSS is unpollished and that there's lots of stuff to improve radically but I still love F/OSS both because of the ideals and the results so far. Last but not the least I've never heard of this Otto before and hope I never will again.
Disclaimer: I haven't read any part of the Quicksilver triology but I've read most of his other stuff (if not all of it). Favourites are Cryptonomicon and The Diamond Age.
Personally I'm too occupied thinking about the details and consequences of his ideas/concepts to notice the quality of writing. I know this must sound strange when replying to your complaints about filler material:)
So I guess I more or less unconsciously filter out any filler material (but it doesn't always work so the line has to be drawn somewhere and I'm never again buying anything new written by Peter Hamilton unless it makes shockwaves through nerddom (not likely)).
Reading your reply I relax but I just had to speak up about the "kill". Anyway thanks for replying, it's sorted out now:)
I agree a lot with "everyone and history has made a positive impact on the present (even if as a negative example)" and I can sympathize with getting a bad vibe from reading her stuff (I don't think I'm getting quite as bad a reaction as you but I'm sure I have similar feelings towards other thoughts/philosophies).
"Uneasy" is a very good way of describing the relationship between QT and GR:) at least so far.
Whether or not one calls for Einsteins cosmological constant, dark matter/energy, inter-universal wormholes, a multiverse with a plentitude of cosmological constants, non-constant constants (constants shifting over time), the growth concept (viewing the universe akin to a growing biological entity), string theory, CQM (the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics), or whatnot they are all still more or less pure speculation (at least in respect to explaining the expansion rate).
Only the future will tell but I feel like I've seen this before and that it is characteristic of the period in front of a paradigmatic shift (the prevailing concepts getting frayed edges and creaking in the wind). Personally I'd say this period has lasted for about at least half a century now and picking up speed along the way. I would not be surprised if the shift happens within the next five years (or perhaps even just a single year) but there are no guarantees of course:)
You're right; probably not. It just seems like it:) And I guess I could have referenced where I took that line from: "In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
The above is according to Wikipedia the principle as written by Occam himself while later refinement results in what you quote ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"). I'd like to point out that the principle as I stated it actually isn't only about simplicity itself as it has a central important caveat against pure simplicity in saying equally predictive theories. That is (or at least should be) pretty much the core of the principle no matter which version one chooses.
I'd like to quote another part of the Wikipedia article that I agree wholeheartedly with: "Occam's razor is only supposed to be used to choose between two scientific theories which are otherwise equally predictive". I'm actually repeating myself here (as well is Wikipedia) as this is the central part of the principle as mentioned in the last paragraph as well. Don't ask me why so few people (scientists too) seem to actually get that, perhaps it has something to do with reading comprehension as the concept (and its inherent limitations) really shouldn't be hard to grasp.
"God did it" has nothing direct to do with science or simplicity imho:) I'm religious myself but what I really get worked up about is incorrect use and debasement of scientific principles. I've studied Philosophy of Science and the multitude of misconceptions one sees people having can get really annoying both because they're usually so goddamned obvious and because they have big consequences (it only makes it worse when it's scientists or people thinking they're acting scientifically or rationally that are doing it). I can understand that many people react against anti-scientific religiousness but I wish more people would be aware of and react against anti-scientific "scientists" as that is just as important or perhaps even more important.
That aside I absolutely agree that sometimes those non-observable, theoretical entities are necessary and they are far more common than most seem to realize *stops before I go on an additional rant on what the concept of "scientific models" imply*. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the two fudges share a strong similarity. What does surprise me is that they bother referencing a past fudge that was renounced when Einstein realized it simply wasn't needed and was a big mistake. Dark matter/energy is just as much a fudge as Einsteins cosmological constant was and that isn't really anything for them to be proud of: it's still a fudge for now and if one wants to be polite then calling it a unknown entity is probably more accurate than calling it a theoretical entity. Just as with your example concerning gravity I'm pretty sure the fudge will be "unfudged" in the future but I'm a lot less sure that the concept of dark matter/energy will survive in it's current form or importance.
I stopped reading when it was obvious that the whole argument rested on ingorance of the fact that F/OSS licenses/agreements do not take away copyrights.
It's time to destroy the concept of "Intelectual Property" as there really is no such thing, it's an oxymoron in disguise. Stallman at his best: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
Thanks to whoever linked this originally here at Slashdot (I don't remember who you were).
Btw I have an alternative headline for the newsitem: "How dinosaurs think":)
As I see it the people trying to use and defend the concept of "IP" in reality only have two choices (unless they just give up): 1. Continue the path they're on and cause a massive backlash that weakens any kind of regard for copyright, patents or trademarks (what we've seen so far is just the beginning unless they stop it) 2. Moderate themselves a lot so as to establish some sort of credibility for the original deals; about 20 years for a copyright, only physical patents (no abstract ideas, no business methods, no code be it biological, software, or similar), trademarks as idenfication rather than advertising/competition
They lost the fight for their vision of a "IP" future years ago, perhaps even a decade or more, but it's only slowly getting visible. It doesn't matter what laws are passed and so on, what matters is how people act and what they do: to look at the future look at the kids, it's obvious where this is all heading if they continue they way they do: the dinosaurs will make themselves extinct.
What exactly is surprising about this? They were/are both added to represent something unknown, a pure speculation which is likely to fall (or be changed to the extreme) by Occams razor as science and knowledge progresses.
Einstein retracted his fudge while still alive and I have a suspicion those championing dark matter/energy will have to as well:)
Slightly off topic:
Hmm was this the first valid and correct reference to Occams razor on Slashdot ever? Probably the first time here it wasn't used in a faulty manner applying it with anti-religious or ideological/political arguments (one would think people would get a clue from the fact that Occams razor was created by a Franciscan friar).
religion != science Occams razor = intended for scientific theories (given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler) Occams razor != rational to apply to religion
It's ok not to like Ayn Rand (I'm not all that familiar with her ideas myself but the little I've read/know doesn't sit too well with me) but talking about killing her is either a really bad joke on your part or makes you look like some kind of a kook. Who are the other famous people on that list of yours? Does it feature persons like Hitler and Stalin? And if so what kind of reasoning would make you lump Ayn Rand in with that sort of people?
If that list of yours features George W. Bush you need not reply.
Parent's link is nice and making fun of the average impression people hold on "no time" (at least that's why I get a laugh out of it) as it doesn't make sense to think of "no time" as hitting pause on your remote control. It seems much more likely (almost a logical certainty?) that "no time" is like hitting a button on your remote control and suddenly you see the whole dvd/whatever in an instant, and in the next instant (not that it would be easy to differentiate between it) you see the whole dvd/whatever as well, and in the next instant, and the next and so on forever (forever is all that exists outside time).
Welcome to how god sees the complete existence of the universe or would see it if such an entity (god) exists. Realize that such a point of view removes the inherent contradiction between free will and fate. Also savour the following implication of "no time" or "outside time": unlimited bandwidth/information communication. That has implications making it possible for such an entity to be absolutely moral as it has absolute knowledge of everything that has ever happened, all causations and effects: if one didn't have such complete knowledge one couldn't make any kind of justifiably correct decisions; which in itself has further implications for everybody that are aware that their knowledge is less than absolute - humility.
Could it be that a phenomena such as spooky action at a distance through entanglement is our first observed clue into practical use of this "part" of existence?
Take all this and combine it with the speculative view of massless particles, i.e. a pure waves whose medium is space/time itself, as the informationrich, faster than speed, "dataway" of souls and you'll get both a bunch of kooks and people who realise that monotheistic religions might have been basically right all along... (some of you might not differ between the two, I know I know lol).
Slashdot Mirror
Sad to see you modded as a troll. Then again I'm obviously biased both because I subscribe to the view of point number 3 as well as wishing that Slashdot would attract lots of people who feel the same way (because those people tend to be scientists or enlightened in some way imho).
:)
I guess they're rare because they've got better things to do than hang around on the internet
I'd like to see a rational discourse specifically on Behe's examples but if there is any it's drowned in all the political grandstanding going on (can't say I'm much impressed with what I've seen by "scientists" purposesly "debunking" them so far).
Anyone have a link with detailed scientific step-by-step explanation (hopefully without offtopic rhetoric) on how the theory of evolution supposedly explains the driveshaft and rotating motor "construction" of a bacterias flagellum? I'd love to read it so I can learn more about their point of view, please share it.
"Religion is violence"
Wow talk about absolutism (that's what dogma is btw), how about stepping out of the black and white world and enjoying the colours? Realizing that every indivual is just that: individual and unique? Some agree more and some agree less but everyone has something they disagree on with anyone else if they just bother digging a bit into enough topics.
Disclaimer: I'm religious (not part of any organized religion), not particularily violent, I'm personally convinced of the existence of a monotheistic, ultimately good, wise, powerful etc. creator God. I don't care what others think of my opinions or thoughts or what they themselves think on the subject unless they have something interesting to say and manage to say it in a grownup fashion.
Wow Seamus could you give a better example of the pettiness if you tried? Read your own post: you're actually complaining that it isn't fair there aren't more idiots in the world as if that would make anything better for anyone. And if you think people getting beaten for their beliefs only happen to non-religious persons as it is you really need to remove your blinds: stupidity knows no bounds, anyone can be and are attacked for any opinion. In this case it happens to be a professor who has strong opinions on a topic that's in the present hype-bin of the media so everybody hears about it.
I'm not flaming you, I'm trying to make you wake up. I mean look at all your posts in this thread, if you inversed the topic and all this was about someone in favour of ID getting beaten up would you not think that anyone writing the same things you do but supporting ID would be petty and worse?
I like my present sig but damned I've got another good one: "Slashdot - where the sky is falling every day". You can have it if you want it.
Michael Moore attacked him!? *shock*
All mods: this post contains sarcastic humorous juxtaposition (look it up if necessary).
Wow what a name. First of all I feel sorry for the professor, nobody wants that, but really apart from that I balk at the name Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics. Most atheists and agnostics I've talked with are no more open minded than the dogmatic religious ones; not at all. It's very surprising considering what being an agnostic actually means, then again I guess a lot of people just make up their own definition (they kind of have to to want to share a society with atheists, agnostics and atheists are no more correlating than agnostics and those who are religious).
Anyway if anyone doesn't believe me about the openness just read through the replies here at Slashdot, the amount of openmindedness is close to zero, by the way so is the amount of respect and tolerance for opposing views.
It says as little about you (perhaps except implying that you don't think about sex absolutely constantly like some seem to do) as it says about me that my favourite character in Diablo II was the katar-wielding assassin woman.
Tell us more about these Icelandic women, I think we all want to hear it ;) Do they run Linux? Or better yet OpenBSD?
/me imagines a coulpe thousand Slashdotters drooling lol
Hmmm your name looks familiar, perchance you're an Armagetron player? Excuse me if I confuse you with someone else.
I think you might be confusing a shift/reversal of the magnetic poles with the violent shift and relocation of the polar icecaps usually known as the HAB theory (http://www.habtheory.com/index.php).
:)
Unless one triggers the other of course
I wouldn't worry much about anything but animals when it comes to the magnetic shift/reversal. Then again they might have been through it before (at least some of the species should have iirc, like crocodiles).
Lol what an excellent link!
:)
Really funny (and I bet he would laugh too) and at times eerily zen-like
Yes good call, although I don't know why your example won't run in interactive mode. It throws a syntax error on print in the last line (I gave up pasting it here since /. doesn't seem to accept in either blockquote or ecode).
My example works interactively (didn't bother with IDLE just called python at the command prompt) if one leaves out the import and sys.exit lines (for obvious reasons).
Nice try :)
:)}}
{I'm not a Java-basher {you did well {{but I still think} the case for Java as a {beginners {learning}} language is kind of.... {ugly {confusing {non-intuitive}}}
Here's the Python equivalent:
It looks a bit longer since I didn't hardcode the "password". Save it as a
Python actually has specially made stuff to handle passwords correctly/securely etc. but that wasn't the point of the above code.
Are there any reasons not to start with Python or Ruby? I don't see them, they're easy to learn as you go along and with tons of free documentation and free books (digital format).
I'd say it's just as easy as Basic and way more powerful, the learning curve isn't that steep either. And I'm religiously convinced that Python and Ruby programs have a higher quality than anything from Viual Basic
Your toddler (or you yourself, I am) might also be interested in games... PyGame is a good start for that
http://python.org/
http://www.pygame.org/news.html
I haven't said much about Ruby but there is tons of stuff for that as well
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
...until the letter and its content is officially disclosed and there is nothing in the purposed content that would make it undiscloseable.
If people take this letter as true with the meager proof (essentially none) provided then they need to stop using email.
It is also extremely hard to see that this letter should have such an impact on the EU if it was indeed real. Lastly the source is The Register, is that meant to count favourably to the story? I think not.
I couldn't remember exactly which one it was and had too look it up so I might as well post it. Details on that probe (Lunokhod 1) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
Don't worry I've read your reply :)
;)
I think we're in agreement about having opposite views and that it's not really a problem but I've got to ask: is that NWO site you link to (yours I presume?) also highly burlesque?
Just curious (and since I'm not a cat...)
Don't bother reading it as it will not give you anything but a grumpy old man act (if this Otto is 25 then that's just twice as bad).
Quick summary:
- introductionary rambling quote by Thomas Jefferson that doesn't add anything
- introductionary (yup it reads like introduction number two) rambling quote by Ottos mom (I'm not sure if would be worse or better if it in fact was ghostwritten by Otto) praising her son in the most pompous way and mentioning that Otto was referred to by the New York Times
- Otto making a point about not caring about being mentioned by the New York Times (we're almost halfway through the "article" by now)
- trashtalking airlines and flying
- trashtalking Burt Rutan with some mumbeling about a meditation capsule
- some more airline trashtalking
- trashtalking about open source
- trashtalking about Finland and Linus Torvalds (hey Otto come to Norway: a country jokingly (and sadly with a grain of truth) referred to as one of the last communist states by Swedes)
That's it, really. Not a shred of intelligence, just whining from someone who either must be insanely spoilt (I blame his mom) or totally fails at some kind of attempt at elitist wittiness.
Why the fuck would george (submitter) or samzenpus (editor) think anyone would find this article interesting? Perhaps it would be for psychology students trying to profile Otto but somehow I imagine not many would waste time doing that ("whining asshole" isn't much of a scientific diagnosis anyway).
Nah the only likely reason this appeared is for the purpose of some kind of link-exchange deal.
Now I know why I'm not reading the Register but I can't comprehend why I'm reading Slashdot, perhaps it's time to find somewhere else to hang out on the net. Feel free to suggest replacements to Slashdot (Digg ain't it and it should have a varied technology-interested userbase numbering above three digits).
And Otto if you're reading this please go buy a hooker (I'm sad to say this seems like the only likely option for you) and break up with your mom - you'll thank me afterwards. Not trying to insult Otto, just trying to convey to him and any reader what kind of impression he gives of himself.
Disclaimer: I'm Norwegian but not a communist (I'd vote Bush/republican if I was American), I enjoy flying as long as I can look out of a window, I'm aware that almost all F/OSS is unpollished and that there's lots of stuff to improve radically but I still love F/OSS both because of the ideals and the results so far. Last but not the least I've never heard of this Otto before and hope I never will again.
Disclaimer: I haven't read any part of the Quicksilver triology but I've read most of his other stuff (if not all of it). Favourites are Cryptonomicon and The Diamond Age.
:)
Personally I'm too occupied thinking about the details and consequences of his ideas/concepts to notice the quality of writing. I know this must sound strange when replying to your complaints about filler material
So I guess I more or less unconsciously filter out any filler material (but it doesn't always work so the line has to be drawn somewhere and I'm never again buying anything new written by Peter Hamilton unless it makes shockwaves through nerddom (not likely)).
Reading your reply I relax but I just had to speak up about the "kill". Anyway thanks for replying, it's sorted out now :)
I agree a lot with "everyone and history has made a positive impact on the present (even if as a negative example)" and I can sympathize with getting a bad vibe from reading her stuff (I don't think I'm getting quite as bad a reaction as you but I'm sure I have similar feelings towards other thoughts/philosophies).
IANAP either so don't worry about that.
:) at least so far.
:)
"Uneasy" is a very good way of describing the relationship between QT and GR
Whether or not one calls for Einsteins cosmological constant, dark matter/energy, inter-universal wormholes, a multiverse with a plentitude of cosmological constants, non-constant constants (constants shifting over time), the growth concept (viewing the universe akin to a growing biological entity), string theory, CQM (the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics), or whatnot they are all still more or less pure speculation (at least in respect to explaining the expansion rate).
Only the future will tell but I feel like I've seen this before and that it is characteristic of the period in front of a paradigmatic shift (the prevailing concepts getting frayed edges and creaking in the wind). Personally I'd say this period has lasted for about at least half a century now and picking up speed along the way. I would not be surprised if the shift happens within the next five years (or perhaps even just a single year) but there are no guarantees of course
You're right; probably not. It just seems like it :) And I guess I could have referenced where I took that line from:
:) I'm religious myself but what I really get worked up about is incorrect use and debasement of scientific principles. I've studied Philosophy of Science and the multitude of misconceptions one sees people having can get really annoying both because they're usually so goddamned obvious and because they have big consequences (it only makes it worse when it's scientists or people thinking they're acting scientifically or rationally that are doing it). I can understand that many people react against anti-scientific religiousness but I wish more people would be aware of and react against anti-scientific "scientists" as that is just as important or perhaps even more important.
"In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
or
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
The above is according to Wikipedia the principle as written by Occam himself while later refinement results in what you quote ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"). I'd like to point out that the principle as I stated it actually isn't only about simplicity itself as it has a central important caveat against pure simplicity in saying equally predictive theories. That is (or at least should be) pretty much the core of the principle no matter which version one chooses.
I'd like to quote another part of the Wikipedia article that I agree wholeheartedly with: "Occam's razor is only supposed to be used to choose between two scientific theories which are otherwise equally predictive". I'm actually repeating myself here (as well is Wikipedia) as this is the central part of the principle as mentioned in the last paragraph as well. Don't ask me why so few people (scientists too) seem to actually get that, perhaps it has something to do with reading comprehension as the concept (and its inherent limitations) really shouldn't be hard to grasp.
"God did it" has nothing direct to do with science or simplicity imho
That aside I absolutely agree that sometimes those non-observable, theoretical entities are necessary and they are far more common than most seem to realize *stops before I go on an additional rant on what the concept of "scientific models" imply*. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the two fudges share a strong similarity. What does surprise me is that they bother referencing a past fudge that was renounced when Einstein realized it simply wasn't needed and was a big mistake. Dark matter/energy is just as much a fudge as Einsteins cosmological constant was and that isn't really anything for them to be proud of: it's still a fudge for now and if one wants to be polite then calling it a unknown entity is probably more accurate than calling it a theoretical entity. Just as with your example concerning gravity I'm pretty sure the fudge will be "unfudged" in the future but I'm a lot less sure that the concept of dark matter/energy will survive in it's current form or importance.
I stopped reading when it was obvious that the whole argument rested on ingorance of the fact that F/OSS licenses/agreements do not take away copyrights.
:)
It's time to destroy the concept of "Intelectual Property" as there really is no such thing, it's an oxymoron in disguise. Stallman at his best:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
Thanks to whoever linked this originally here at Slashdot (I don't remember who you were).
Btw I have an alternative headline for the newsitem: "How dinosaurs think"
As I see it the people trying to use and defend the concept of "IP" in reality only have two choices (unless they just give up):
1. Continue the path they're on and cause a massive backlash that weakens any kind of regard for copyright, patents or trademarks (what we've seen so far is just the beginning unless they stop it)
2. Moderate themselves a lot so as to establish some sort of credibility for the original deals; about 20 years for a copyright, only physical patents (no abstract ideas, no business methods, no code be it biological, software, or similar), trademarks as idenfication rather than advertising/competition
They lost the fight for their vision of a "IP" future years ago, perhaps even a decade or more, but it's only slowly getting visible. It doesn't matter what laws are passed and so on, what matters is how people act and what they do: to look at the future look at the kids, it's obvious where this is all heading if they continue they way they do: the dinosaurs will make themselves extinct.
On topic:
:)
Fudge factor (Einstein) == fudge factor (dark energy/matter)
What exactly is surprising about this? They were/are both added to represent something unknown, a pure speculation which is likely to fall (or be changed to the extreme) by Occams razor as science and knowledge progresses.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/fudge.html
Einstein retracted his fudge while still alive and I have a suspicion those championing dark matter/energy will have to as well
Slightly off topic:
Hmm was this the first valid and correct reference to Occams razor on Slashdot ever? Probably the first time here it wasn't used in a faulty manner applying it with anti-religious or ideological/political arguments (one would think people would get a clue from the fact that Occams razor was created by a Franciscan friar).
religion != science
Occams razor = intended for scientific theories (given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler)
Occams razor != rational to apply to religion
*doesn't even need a flameretardant suit*
It's ok not to like Ayn Rand (I'm not all that familiar with her ideas myself but the little I've read/know doesn't sit too well with me) but talking about killing her is either a really bad joke on your part or makes you look like some kind of a kook. Who are the other famous people on that list of yours? Does it feature persons like Hitler and Stalin? And if so what kind of reasoning would make you lump Ayn Rand in with that sort of people?
If that list of yours features George W. Bush you need not reply.
Parent's link is nice and making fun of the average impression people hold on "no time" (at least that's why I get a laugh out of it) as it doesn't make sense to think of "no time" as hitting pause on your remote control. It seems much more likely (almost a logical certainty?) that "no time" is like hitting a button on your remote control and suddenly you see the whole dvd/whatever in an instant, and in the next instant (not that it would be easy to differentiate between it) you see the whole dvd/whatever as well, and in the next instant, and the next and so on forever (forever is all that exists outside time).
s /universe.html
:)
Welcome to how god sees the complete existence of the universe or would see it if such an entity (god) exists. Realize that such a point of view removes the inherent contradiction between free will and fate. Also savour the following implication of "no time" or "outside time": unlimited bandwidth/information communication. That has implications making it possible for such an entity to be absolutely moral as it has absolute knowledge of everything that has ever happened, all causations and effects: if one didn't have such complete knowledge one couldn't make any kind of justifiably correct decisions; which in itself has further implications for everybody that are aware that their knowledge is less than absolute - humility.
Could it be that a phenomena such as spooky action at a distance through entanglement is our first observed clue into practical use of this "part" of existence?
Take all this and combine it with the speculative view of massless particles, i.e. a pure waves whose medium is space/time itself, as the informationrich, faster than speed, "dataway" of souls and you'll get both a bunch of kooks and people who realise that monotheistic religions might have been basically right all along... (some of you might not differ between the two, I know I know lol).
Offtopic but I'll throw it in anyway:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quote
For any and all atheists reading this don't worry, be happy