When I said I was a musician/composer, I didn't say that was my "day" job. As it is, I work as a software engineer 40+ hours a week, which I "like" but don't love. In the evening, I compose and am very involved in music in my community, and just did a Christmas concert yesterday evening. I do music (playing and composition) on my own time and make no money from it, mainly due to the fact that while performances have been very successful and even other performers have asked why this or that isn't published, breaking into the publishing business and actually GETTING published is very difficult.
I don't profess to know everything about copyright laws; however, I do understand that there needs to be some sort of laws that will prevent people from claiming my, or anyone else's, work as their own. Putting everything in public domain, being totally cool with piracy because "it's fair" or "musicians make too much money" or whatever doesn't make sense to me. Think of it as me taking open source code that is under GPL, claiming it as MY code, and trying to sell it...
So, again. Hands dirty? Yes, as far as software engineer (technically, I'm in software testing) and some system administration goes.... mostly typing, not so much the dirt part. 40+ hours a week? Yup. Do I sit and complain about people downloading music? No. Do I like the RIAA? No. Do I think downloading music should not be done? Yes. Do I practice with my band and think it's work? No, actually I'm in the classical music world primarily, not the contemporary music world. I'm in the realm where, if I wanted to be a real "performer" in my genre, I'd have to practice for 10 hours a day. Luckily, I'm into composition, not performance:)
It's not just information that "wants to be free." If you're happy with information, then go read a wikipedia page.
But you won't understand the whole "it's not just a bunch of information put onto an optical disc" unless you actually ARE a musician, actor, or whatever. Not a hollywood actor, they don't get ANYTHING =P But when you actually have a product of your hard effort, your imagination, your originality, your motivation, your money, you may think differently about people making it available for free and nobody thinking it's wrong to do that.
A movie is more similar to a car, house, or computer than generic "information." It took money, work, planning, real physical and tangible objects, etc. It just so happens that the product of all of that is digital as opposed to a car, house, or computer.
You may as well claim that web hosting should be free. You may actually think that... until you decide to start a web hosting business.
(for the record, I'm a musician/composer, and while I don't like the RIAA and their tactics, I also understand the need for anti-piracy laws, copyrights, whatever... it may be broken, true, but the solution isn't anarchy, and my music is not just information that wants to be free... unless I want it to be free!)
itunes, games, the news, videos, the olympics, ipod, pictures, printers, etc.
At least in my experience with Linux (which I have gotten several people), those are some fairly typical examples of "will it let me..." questions before they switch to something. I haven't used Solaris on much but servers, so I can't exactly say how it is as typical user, but it's hard enough to get Linux to work "well enough" with all of the above options:)
Yeah, the choice is important, but what good is the choice going to do? It's "open" but it's not one of those operating systems that people are going to WANT to switch from Windows.
If you're trying to dislodge Windows from pre-installed computers, openSolaris is probably not the best bet... unless you are catering to the.005% that knows Solaris.
Enforceable privacy. That would mean that a third-party (be it the government, another company, or a single alien individual from Uranus) would have to check 'private' data to make sure that the 'private' data is gone...
This is getting rather complex now.
IMO, the real question is - does Google claim it's NOT keeping private data? Privacy policies abound on all kinds of websites. Don't like it, don't use it. You can't enforce (unless it's illegal)... or shouldn't... a private enterprise to adhere to some sort of privacy standards if they clearly give you their privacy policy. Yes, that means unscrupulous companies can sell your information to marketers. Maybe there should be enforced laws about identity theft and credit cards and what not, but Google's not performing identity theft by giving you personalized search results, either, nor is it taking your credit card number, getting your credit report, and handing it to you, without you asking...
(And if you e-mail your CC number in plain text, you've got issues anyways, and probably aren't reading slashdot.)
Actually, you're right in that it's not "millions." I meant to make that point and completely forgot in trying to remember the hyphen issue.
I know you might have been going for the comedy thing... but if "talking like a human being" means speaking incorrectly, then I'll pass, thanks. Not that I don't use colloquialisms or always use formal English, but I like trying to avoid grammar, spelling, and pronunciation errors...
If you want to be *quite* technical (and I think it's quite hilarious we're being modded "informative" and "insightful"), the string "140 millions" would be broken into only four words in correct English: One hundred forty millions.
I presume the "five words" comes from the usual way to say it, one hundred and forty millions, which is technically incorrect as the "and" should refer to the decimal point, as in thirty-two and five one-hundredths.
I am unsure about the hyphen between one and hundred, though...
Ahh, but all the scientists are on the side that thinks it's happening and are arguing a bit over how much is due to us.
It appears that that depends on how the problem is defined.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. (wikipedia)
That sounds ok. On the other hand, going to google's list of definitions for the term, you get some rather interesting definitions, ranging from rise in temperature that "may be caused by greenhouse gases" to rise in temperature that IS caused by greenhouse gases (and they list them)... to one that says global warming IS "is the term given to the major consequence of the greenhouse effect."
Good for you. There is no observable difference, which is why it's not considered a difference by biologists, and only part of the "philosophy" of deniers who think that's a way to drive a wedge between theory and observed fact. The "trap" involves showing how it is logically impossible to believe in one but not the other.
As you no doubt know, that wasn't my point... as far as I know, there has not been any observed macro-evolution, thus the debate is less observation and more philosophy. And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Of course when this doesn't happen, it's because the religious cabal rejected your "truth" for their own "religion", and not that your idea fails scientific rigor.
Actually, I might be slightly different from what you are expecting. Obviously you've guessed my position on evolution and probably on what Christianity calls 'special creation.' I actually do not object to what I believe in not being considered a scientific theory. It's not. I would argue that something, on the other hand, can be supported BY science and scientific observation and yet not be a scientific theory.
What I more object to is that 'science' has ruled out anything supernatural, and in doing so, has decided that everything can be explained without the supernatural. In other words, science has defined itself as dealing with the natural alone - ok, I can go with that so far - but has then decided that the natural alone can explain everything. Including origins, oftentimes (atheistic evolutionists appear to want to argue scientifically about the origin of matter, for example).
It must be that you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church.
Interestingly, creationists are often compared the other way around... Science is Galileo and the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Most people make no distinction between evangelical Christians and Catholics, simply because the claim the same title, "Christian."
Semantics aside, I simply make these two claims. Let's see if Slashdot can handle the html.
Science has come to be defined as dealing solely with the natural.
Scientists have decided that science should be able to explain anything, and that anything non-natural is in the realm of belief, and cannot be even supported by science
When it comes to origin, then, science either claims it is the only one that CAN have the answer, or that the answer must entirely be based on belief and cannot be supported by science in any way.
There are some other outworkings of this, IMO, which directly affect evolution - e.g., evolution is accepted as being true because scientific evidence supports it, and scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe".
I very much beg to differ there. If you think scientific "proof" doesn't include, at the very least, some amount of belief, I think you are very wrong. For example - if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it? Was it proven? 100% sure? It was wrong, so it apparently wasn't actually 100% sure.
As for evolution, the vast, vast majority of scientists accept it as the predominant theory of how life evolves because of the data. In the 150 years since Darwin no one has come up with any real proof that it is wrong.
We can argue all we want about proof and get absolutely nowhere. Look at global warming. Both sides think it's proven.
If you mean that over the years people have misclassified species, yes, that has happened.
misclassified != error? Hm. More specifically, though, I was referring to claims of this or that evolutionary discovery when it turns out it wasn't. Usually "missing link" discoveries, but others as well (different kinds of fish, this or that fossil thought to be something and turns out it is something else when a later, full one is found, the age of a fossil completely wrong based on one dating system and proven to be wrong when the same thing was found in something else with a known date, etc)
am I supposed to be shocked or dismayed that a textbook contained an error?
Well, if you want me to take what is in the next textbook seriously, yeah. Or at least, if you want me to believe in evolution as firmly as most scientists believe it (and I attribute that to having no alternative that matches their religious views or social pressures).
As for micro evolution, I decline to take the bait. But I will say that the delineation between micro- and macro- evolution appears to come down to a philosophical, rather than observable, difference.
And, lastly, the evidence of evolution thing... refer back to the interpretation-of-evidence comments that I made. Data does not support this or that theory by simply existing. Data is interpreted into evidence. The question of whether or not evidence is being interpreted correctly appears to be a very poignant consideration in light of the numerous errors that have been latched on to in support of evolution.
As much as I'd like to get into a discussion about evidence for evolution or other theories and against evolution and other theories, I unfortunately don't have time nor is slashdot the best place anyways, hehe... so I'm constraining myself more to the philosophy of science side of things.
That's why there is a theory of gravity. But there's a law of gravity also. The law of gravity has been observed since the beginning of time, correct? What exactly causes gravity is still a mystery.
In a shameless reply to myself, I'd like to also add that the OP of this thread has an interesting point - seemingly contradictory evidence is claimed as supporting the same theory. Much like global warming. When your theory is defined such that it includes both sides of interpretation of any given piece of data, it is hard to argue against. (e.g., I heard on the news that it was getting colder and certain ice caps or something were growing, not shrinking, and that that is "exactly what is expected with global warming, because with something like global warming, the unexpected is going to occur." In other words, even though it SEEMS to contradict global warming, it really supports it, because this person's ideas about global warming are defined such that he has included any possible interpretation... or, perhaps it'd be better to say he has accepted global warming first and is trying to interpret the data to fit it afterwards. IMO, much of the theory of evolution is similar.
To the extent that some "examples" of evolution are still used even though they are silly, or hoaxes. In addition to previous example of the human example (that's a lot of the word 'example' in one paragraph), the moth thing in England was brought up, even though I'm pretty certain everyone agrees that no evolution occurred there, it was just a shift in population ratios.
Slashdot Mirror
When I said I was a musician/composer, I didn't say that was my "day" job. As it is, I work as a software engineer 40+ hours a week, which I "like" but don't love. In the evening, I compose and am very involved in music in my community, and just did a Christmas concert yesterday evening. I do music (playing and composition) on my own time and make no money from it, mainly due to the fact that while performances have been very successful and even other performers have asked why this or that isn't published, breaking into the publishing business and actually GETTING published is very difficult.
I don't profess to know everything about copyright laws; however, I do understand that there needs to be some sort of laws that will prevent people from claiming my, or anyone else's, work as their own. Putting everything in public domain, being totally cool with piracy because "it's fair" or "musicians make too much money" or whatever doesn't make sense to me. Think of it as me taking open source code that is under GPL, claiming it as MY code, and trying to sell it...
So, again. Hands dirty? Yes, as far as software engineer (technically, I'm in software testing) and some system administration goes.... mostly typing, not so much the dirt part. 40+ hours a week? Yup. Do I sit and complain about people downloading music? No. Do I like the RIAA? No. Do I think downloading music should not be done? Yes. Do I practice with my band and think it's work? No, actually I'm in the classical music world primarily, not the contemporary music world. I'm in the realm where, if I wanted to be a real "performer" in my genre, I'd have to practice for 10 hours a day. Luckily, I'm into composition, not performance :)
Yeah, stupid new fangled inventions like mice... all we really need is a numberpad. I can type the ASCII codes just as fast as a normal keyboard!
It's not just information that "wants to be free." If you're happy with information, then go read a wikipedia page.
But you won't understand the whole "it's not just a bunch of information put onto an optical disc" unless you actually ARE a musician, actor, or whatever. Not a hollywood actor, they don't get ANYTHING =P But when you actually have a product of your hard effort, your imagination, your originality, your motivation, your money, you may think differently about people making it available for free and nobody thinking it's wrong to do that.
A movie is more similar to a car, house, or computer than generic "information." It took money, work, planning, real physical and tangible objects, etc. It just so happens that the product of all of that is digital as opposed to a car, house, or computer.
You may as well claim that web hosting should be free. You may actually think that... until you decide to start a web hosting business.
(for the record, I'm a musician/composer, and while I don't like the RIAA and their tactics, I also understand the need for anti-piracy laws, copyrights, whatever... it may be broken, true, but the solution isn't anarchy, and my music is not just information that wants to be free... unless I want it to be free!)
itunes, games, the news, videos, the olympics, ipod, pictures, printers, etc.
At least in my experience with Linux (which I have gotten several people), those are some fairly typical examples of "will it let me ..." questions before they switch to something. I haven't used Solaris on much but servers, so I can't exactly say how it is as typical user, but it's hard enough to get Linux to work "well enough" with all of the above options :)
Yeah, the choice is important, but what good is the choice going to do? It's "open" but it's not one of those operating systems that people are going to WANT to switch from Windows.
If you're trying to dislodge Windows from pre-installed computers, openSolaris is probably not the best bet... unless you are catering to the .005% that knows Solaris.
If global warming is presumably caused by SUVs, what are holes in the magnetic field caused by? Too many cell phones?
The cost for his initial Playstation grid was $4,000.
It does say that the cost was that for his grid, so that's badly written if they were donated; however, it doesn't actually say that HE paid it :)
It? Which "it"?
(nice article... no citations and [citation needed]... :))
If the holes are black, then the entire font can be a "hole" on a white background...
Reminds me of philosophy...
I don't know, but "accidentally" drilling into a magma chamber seems like some calculations went wrong somewhere.
Enforceable privacy. That would mean that a third-party (be it the government, another company, or a single alien individual from Uranus) would have to check 'private' data to make sure that the 'private' data is gone...
This is getting rather complex now.
IMO, the real question is - does Google claim it's NOT keeping private data? Privacy policies abound on all kinds of websites. Don't like it, don't use it. You can't enforce (unless it's illegal) ... or shouldn't ... a private enterprise to adhere to some sort of privacy standards if they clearly give you their privacy policy. Yes, that means unscrupulous companies can sell your information to marketers. Maybe there should be enforced laws about identity theft and credit cards and what not, but Google's not performing identity theft by giving you personalized search results, either, nor is it taking your credit card number, getting your credit report, and handing it to you, without you asking...
(And if you e-mail your CC number in plain text, you've got issues anyways, and probably aren't reading slashdot.)
Actually, you're right in that it's not "millions." I meant to make that point and completely forgot in trying to remember the hyphen issue.
I know you might have been going for the comedy thing... but if "talking like a human being" means speaking incorrectly, then I'll pass, thanks. Not that I don't use colloquialisms or always use formal English, but I like trying to avoid grammar, spelling, and pronunciation errors...
In this case, it would be Just a Branch of Disks.
If you want to be *quite* technical (and I think it's quite hilarious we're being modded "informative" and "insightful"), the string "140 millions" would be broken into only four words in correct English: One hundred forty millions.
I presume the "five words" comes from the usual way to say it, one hundred and forty millions, which is technically incorrect as the "and" should refer to the decimal point, as in thirty-two and five one-hundredths.
I am unsure about the hyphen between one and hundred, though...
No assumptions necessary, just visit the site. :)
I could be wrong, but I think that's two words. :)
Not sure if these are scientists: Avery/... some other guy I forgot the name of
News article about MIT scientists with evidence against human-induced global warming
Dr. Ball, I think his name is.
Of course, I have heard scientists say that all real scientists believe it and don't dispute it.
Peer reviewed stuff on here...
It gives Barracuda a market.
Ahh, but all the scientists are on the side that thinks it's happening and are arguing a bit over how much is due to us.
It appears that that depends on how the problem is defined.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. (wikipedia)
That sounds ok. On the other hand, going to google's list of definitions for the term, you get some rather interesting definitions, ranging from rise in temperature that "may be caused by greenhouse gases" to rise in temperature that IS caused by greenhouse gases (and they list them)... to one that says global warming IS "is the term given to the major consequence of the greenhouse effect."
Two claims? I also can't count. Oops.
Good for you. There is no observable difference, which is why it's not considered a difference by biologists, and only part of the "philosophy" of deniers who think that's a way to drive a wedge between theory and observed fact. The "trap" involves showing how it is logically impossible to believe in one but not the other.
As you no doubt know, that wasn't my point... as far as I know, there has not been any observed macro-evolution, thus the debate is less observation and more philosophy. And then, of course, we start arguing about what defines "micro" and "macro," what defines a "species," etc...
Of course when this doesn't happen, it's because the religious cabal rejected your "truth" for their own "religion", and not that your idea fails scientific rigor.
Actually, I might be slightly different from what you are expecting. Obviously you've guessed my position on evolution and probably on what Christianity calls 'special creation.' I actually do not object to what I believe in not being considered a scientific theory. It's not. I would argue that something, on the other hand, can be supported BY science and scientific observation and yet not be a scientific theory.
What I more object to is that 'science' has ruled out anything supernatural, and in doing so, has decided that everything can be explained without the supernatural. In other words, science has defined itself as dealing with the natural alone - ok, I can go with that so far - but has then decided that the natural alone can explain everything. Including origins, oftentimes (atheistic evolutionists appear to want to argue scientifically about the origin of matter, for example).
It must be that you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church.
Interestingly, creationists are often compared the other way around... Science is Galileo and the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Most people make no distinction between evangelical Christians and Catholics, simply because the claim the same title, "Christian."
Semantics aside, I simply make these two claims. Let's see if Slashdot can handle the html.
There are some other outworkings of this, IMO, which directly affect evolution - e.g., evolution is accepted as being true because scientific evidence supports it, and scientific evidence that could point to a, shall we say, "supernatural" explanation (creation) is disregarded on the premise that the theory it supports (creation) is not a scientific theory.
The first problem in that statement is you bring up "belief". Scientists do not "believe".
I very much beg to differ there. If you think scientific "proof" doesn't include, at the very least, some amount of belief, I think you are very wrong. For example - if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it? Was it proven? 100% sure? It was wrong, so it apparently wasn't actually 100% sure.
As for evolution, the vast, vast majority of scientists accept it as the predominant theory of how life evolves because of the data. In the 150 years since Darwin no one has come up with any real proof that it is wrong.
We can argue all we want about proof and get absolutely nowhere. Look at global warming. Both sides think it's proven.
If you mean that over the years people have misclassified species, yes, that has happened.
misclassified != error? Hm. More specifically, though, I was referring to claims of this or that evolutionary discovery when it turns out it wasn't. Usually "missing link" discoveries, but others as well (different kinds of fish, this or that fossil thought to be something and turns out it is something else when a later, full one is found, the age of a fossil completely wrong based on one dating system and proven to be wrong when the same thing was found in something else with a known date, etc)
am I supposed to be shocked or dismayed that a textbook contained an error?
Well, if you want me to take what is in the next textbook seriously, yeah. Or at least, if you want me to believe in evolution as firmly as most scientists believe it (and I attribute that to having no alternative that matches their religious views or social pressures).
As for micro evolution, I decline to take the bait. But I will say that the delineation between micro- and macro- evolution appears to come down to a philosophical, rather than observable, difference.
And, lastly, the evidence of evolution thing... refer back to the interpretation-of-evidence comments that I made. Data does not support this or that theory by simply existing. Data is interpreted into evidence. The question of whether or not evidence is being interpreted correctly appears to be a very poignant consideration in light of the numerous errors that have been latched on to in support of evolution.
As much as I'd like to get into a discussion about evidence for evolution or other theories and against evolution and other theories, I unfortunately don't have time nor is slashdot the best place anyways, hehe... so I'm constraining myself more to the philosophy of science side of things.
That's why there is a theory of gravity. But there's a law of gravity also. The law of gravity has been observed since the beginning of time, correct? What exactly causes gravity is still a mystery.
In a shameless reply to myself, I'd like to also add that the OP of this thread has an interesting point - seemingly contradictory evidence is claimed as supporting the same theory. Much like global warming. When your theory is defined such that it includes both sides of interpretation of any given piece of data, it is hard to argue against. (e.g., I heard on the news that it was getting colder and certain ice caps or something were growing, not shrinking, and that that is "exactly what is expected with global warming, because with something like global warming, the unexpected is going to occur." In other words, even though it SEEMS to contradict global warming, it really supports it, because this person's ideas about global warming are defined such that he has included any possible interpretation... or, perhaps it'd be better to say he has accepted global warming first and is trying to interpret the data to fit it afterwards. IMO, much of the theory of evolution is similar.
To the extent that some "examples" of evolution are still used even though they are silly, or hoaxes. In addition to previous example of the human example (that's a lot of the word 'example' in one paragraph), the moth thing in England was brought up, even though I'm pretty certain everyone agrees that no evolution occurred there, it was just a shift in population ratios.