According to the article, "There is also no ice cream in space. No freezer." But besides freeze-dried ice cream, according to this blog, they actually did have frozen ice cream on the ISS.
Indeed, when I visited, we had a nice older gentleman explain in detail to us regarding the Engima machine on display. I also remember reading displays about a famed NSA member who knew something like 40 languages, and could go home and over the weekend learn enough of the basics of another language to decrypt messages in it.
You laugh, but I actually did take a girl on a date there. She was a physics major, FWIW... and it wasn't totally disastrous. Though I do think I enjoyed the visit more than she did. I liked the big bomba machine in particular.
Maybe the next chairman of the FCC can learn from these two, and say something just as eloquent, like "The public interest is what the public wants... but I don't know what the public wants."
First, contradiction is not falsification. If I say "grass is green" and "grass is purple," nothing has been falsified, and the contradiction does not imply that both statements are false. Falsification requires some contradictory observation, not just a contradictory statement. Contradiction might say something about the logical consistency of a set of beliefs, but in itself says nothing about their actual veracity.
The Old Testament does so in the 1st chapter where there are two contradictory genesis stories.
By "1st chapter" I assume you mean first and second chapters. The stories are obviously contradictory (the attempts of literalists to reconcile them notwithstanding). However, my understanding is that they probably came from different original sources and were incorporated into the single text of Genesis later on, and that the compilers weren't so concerned with smoothing out the differences as simply recording the various stories. Trying to read the stories as history when they weren't written as history is obviously going to cause problems.
Finally, you link to "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I have not seen it, but from what I understand there is a great deal of criticism surrounding the arguments made in the film. According to Wikipedia, it argues in favor of the "Jesus myth hypothesis," in spite of the fact that "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." So I'm not sure that "Zeitgeist" unequivocally qualifies as an "excellent and brief treatment of this subject." Personally, I'd recommend John Collin's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible for a strong historical-critical overview of the Old Testament.
"Methodology" in the GP's sense is perfectly acceptable. From the OED:
Originally: the branch of knowledge that deals with method generally or with the methods of a particular discipline or field of study... (more generally) a method or body of methods used in a particular field of study or activity.
The word has followed a pattern that many words of the form "x"ology follow. "Psychology," for example, originally meant (and still does mean) the study of the "psyche" (spirit or mind). But in later usage, the word describing the study of the object often comes to stand for the object itself, e.g., in uses like "reverse psychology." Basically, "x"ology does not always mean "the study of x."
It's neither theoretical nor "meta-scientific" (which is really just another way of saying "non scientific, but we like to pretend"). It's actually quite easily defined: scientific knowledge has a much higher probability of being accurate due to the use of the scientific method, which is completely different than any method which preceded it. If you want further clarification on that, wikipedia has a decent entry, and there are plenty of excellent books on the subject.
I'm well aware of what the scientific method is:-) Also, by meta-scientific, I meant that the question of the character of scientific knowledge is not a scientific question. It can't be, because any answer you would provide would be relying on what it is purporting to justify. It is a question about knowledge, and questions about knowledge lie in the domain of epistemology, which is hardly a scientific enterprise.
In other words, science is objective, while philosophy is subjective.
I'm not going to dispute that philosophy is subjective, but to simply state that "science is objective" is a gross over-generalization. Facts do not speak for themselves. In order to be imbued with meaning, they must be interpreted. This is a really difficult discussion to have on/., and there's a lot more I'd like to reply to in your post, but I don't have the time or energy right now. I suggest you take a look at Donna Haraway's work, specifically Primate Visions, on the purported "objectivity" of science. And for what it's worth, Haraway holds a Ph.D. in biology from Yale, so she's not just some crazy philosopher.
Do you know WHY Microsoft settled? It was looking dangerously close that they would lose Windows as a trademark entirely because of how generic it is, so they settled to make sure it didn't go to court.
Yes, I've heard the same thing, and Wikipedia agrees. However, the facts of this case are different. "Scrabble" is hardly a generic term (the word exists on its own in English, but it's nowhere near as common as "windows").
First, it is not at all "mainly Karl Popper's idea" at all. That's inaccurate in the first place, and it was David Hume's primary contention 200 years earlier, and the Pyrrhonians' 2000 years earlier still:
In the discipline of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper is recognized as the main promoter of the idea of falsification. From Wikipedia:
Sir Karl is known for repudiating the classical observationalist / inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsification instead
I didn't say he was the first to come up with the idea. Clearly, it's an ancient idea. But it was popularized in this discipline in the 20th century by Karl Popper, and if you ask anyone in the philosophy of science, they'll agree.
If anyone thinks inductive reasoning is inadmissible, they are trivially refuted by the tangible results it brings. I'm not even talking about the marvels of human technical civilization; I'm talking about the actual predictive power it provides.... There is no guarantee that either prediction will ever be right, no matter the situation. That is the nature of induction, and the weak point of all science. But, there is some particular level of certainty for any prediction. The true power of science is not in interpolation, but extrapolation to new situations.
That's just the issue, though. In induction, there is no certainty. We do extrapolate to other situations, but are we justified in doing so? There's no proof that induction works. From Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery (33):
It should be noticed that a positive decision can only temporarily support the theory, for subsequent negative decisions may always overthrow it. So long as a theory withstands detailed and severe tests and is not superseded by another theory in the course of scientific progress, we may say that it has 'proved its mettle' or that it is 'corroborated'.
I think the problem is that many of us have ideas that science is always about proposing falsifiable hypotheses, and then doing experiments that attempt to refute those hypotheses. But in practice, a lot of what we consider "science" (i.e., stuff that gets published in journals, etc.) isn't falsifiable. See my other comment about sociobiology.
Right. Microsoft sued about the name "Lindows" as a trademark violation, not copyright. They didn't win, but they did settle, and it's not called Lindows anymore. "Scrabulous" is clearly making a reference to the Scrabble trademark, and is profiting from that reference. There are probably other issues, as people have mentioned, about gameplay (the layout of the board), but I think the thing with the name has got to be about trademark.
Who cares what philosophers have to say on the subject of science? Philosophy by it's very nature depends on the ability of it's practitioners to make statements which are non-falsifiable. You may as well ask a theologian for HIS definition of "science".
Because of the very fact that science is integral to modern life, and has so risen in prominence over the last few centuries, it is a major object of study for history, philosophy, and sociology. The question of if scientific knowledge is different than other forms of knowledge, and if so, how and why, is an important one, and is a theoretical and meta-scientific question. In fact, some philosophy of science was done with the intent of showing the value of science to outsiders, in order to convince them that they could rely upon scientific knowledge. That's why people care.
Also, a lot of the writing done in the philosophy and sociology of science is done by scientists.
The main reason that science has essentially replaced philosophy as a means of discovering new truths is exactly BECAUSE science is falsifiable, whereas philosophy depends entirely on consensus and popularity.
First, science hasn't "replaced" philosophy. Secondly, science does depend on consensus. If there is no consensus (or not enough consensus) surrounding a claim, it is not considered a scientific truth. That consensus can be generated in a number of ways, e.g., by experimental demonstration or mathematical proof, etc., but consensus is critical.
To give an example of science that isn't falsifiable, consider a lot of the work that is done in sociobiology. Someone picks a certain trait or preference that is exhibited in a population, then speculates an evolutionary reason for why that trait might exist. Is that speculation falsifiable? Not really - we can't go back and see if something else is responsible for the trait. Is this science? If you think that everything called "science" has to be falsifiable, then no. But it does get published in scientific journals.
There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test.
Not to rain on your parade, but while ID in general does fail the test of falsifiability, your assertion that you can objectively determine if a theory is scientific by determining if it is falsifiable isn't in line with the ideas of many modern philosophers of science. It's mainly Karl Popper's idea, who rejected inductive reasoning (which is a hallmark of scientific thinking).
I'm no philosopher, so I might be doing a poor job of explaining this, but it might be worth to take a look at the Wikipedia article on falsification.
Seriously who needs a VGA, and a PS/2 port on their laptop nowadays?
Lots of people need VGA out to hook up to projectors. Also, that's not a PS/2 port. Judging by the pin configuration, I'm guessing it's an S-Video out or something, for attaching to TVs, etc.
The "right to be proprietary" becomes subject to government regulation as soon as Microsoft decides to sell their product on the market. When you participate in the market, you agree to abide by its rules. Those rules are set by the government.
Example: in the US, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products. While you may think that a pharmaceutical company has a "property right" to do whatever they want with their product, when they want to sell that product on the market, they must abide by a number of rules that are set by the government. They do not have the right to simply sell any product they want, in any manner they want.
You may not agree with the fundamental concept behind the fact that the government sets the rules of participation in the market, but it is still a fact.
There have been several responses to your post basically all saying the same thing: that you are wrong because rights are not granted by the government.
All of the negative responses to your post have utterly failed to distinguish between natural rights, or inalienable rights, or whatever you want to call them (perhaps some would even prefer "God-granted" rights; also, there are technical distinctions between the various names, but the sense is that you have them by default, they are not given to you), and rights that are granted by the government.
Example of natural rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (From the Declaration of Independence).
An example of a non-natural, government-granted right is something that should be familiar to most./ers: copyright. While there are arguments to the contrary, the general understanding is that copyright doesn't have anything to do with human dignity, etc., and exists only by fiat of the government (which is why it can easily differ in various jurisdictions).
In this particular case, the "right to be proprietary" is not a natural right. The EU has set conditions for participating in its marketplace, and it has the right to do this. End of story. You might not like it, but there's no inherent "right to be proprietary" to appeal to.
I see your point about the Google cache, but I visited the donation page a week or more ago, and it did mention what would happen to the money if he decided not to run.
WTF? What idiot moderated this "overrated"? Did you even read the link?
This category encompasses a wide variety of criminal activity including, but not limited to... "turnstile jumping" or other methods of evading the payment of a fare or fee when using a public transit vehicle or entering a private facility normally requiring payment (e.g., amusements). I realize you might not like what I have to say, but that's not what the overrated mod is for. I don't even think piracy qualifies as theft of service, necessarily, but I do think sneaking into a movie theater does.
Not only that, but IIRC, Benjamin Franklin was a book pirate, and book piracy was one of the major reasons for introducing the International Copyright Act of 1891.
Piracy is like sneaking into a movie theatre. Bam. I've done it. I've created a reasonble fucking analogy that I think holds up to moderate levels of scrutiny. Yet no one ever claimed that sneaking into a movie theatre is stealing. What is it you're stealing? You're getting something for free, but that's not stealing.
Look up theft of service. It seems to me that that could apply to your movie theater analogy.
However 600-800 lumens is equivalent to running a 40 watt bulb for 4 hours or between 150 and 200 lumens per hour.
According to Wikipedia, the luminous efficacy of a standard incandescent bulb is 12.6 lumens / Watt. That works out to about 500 lumens. That is not 500 lumens in one hour, or in five hours, or in one second. It is 500 lumens (perceived light power) output at any given time. It's kind of like loudness - you don't measure loudness over time, just like you don't say an air-horn can produce X units of loudness per hour. That makes no sense.
Furthermore, the designer's web site states the following:
The design goal of Gravia is to provide light in a room (600-800 lumens - roughly equal to one 40 watt incandescent lightbulb), over a period of 4 hours, using people to generate power. So that's settled.
The calculations are showing that his lamp would only be able to provide 600-800 lumens for about a minute (or a few minutes, if you are very generous and assume miraculously efficient LEDs). And considering the article talks about using the lamp "eight hours a day," I think the skepticism here is warranted.
Besides, it doesn't make sense to bring in the four hours if it has no relation to how long the lamp can be used. The lumen is a unit of perceived light power, and has nothing to do with the amount of time the lamp (or a bulb) is used.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but I've got you beat, sucker!
Also, this delegate (Leroy Myers) last year introduced a bill that would criminalize the hanging of those fake testicles from the backs of trucks. To put it lightly, this delegate appears to have issues... and should probably stick to fake testicles rather than wireless internet policy.
According to the article, "There is also no ice cream in space. No freezer." But besides freeze-dried ice cream, according to this blog, they actually did have frozen ice cream on the ISS.
Indeed, when I visited, we had a nice older gentleman explain in detail to us regarding the Engima machine on display. I also remember reading displays about a famed NSA member who knew something like 40 languages, and could go home and over the weekend learn enough of the basics of another language to decrypt messages in it.
You laugh, but I actually did take a girl on a date there. She was a physics major, FWIW... and it wasn't totally disastrous. Though I do think I enjoyed the visit more than she did. I liked the big bomba machine in particular.
Well, since Kevin Martin has said "The public interest is not what any company wants," maybe FCC heads are getting progressively closer to the truth :-)
Maybe the next chairman of the FCC can learn from these two, and say something just as eloquent, like "The public interest is what the public wants... but I don't know what the public wants."
First, contradiction is not falsification. If I say "grass is green" and "grass is purple," nothing has been falsified, and the contradiction does not imply that both statements are false. Falsification requires some contradictory observation, not just a contradictory statement. Contradiction might say something about the logical consistency of a set of beliefs, but in itself says nothing about their actual veracity.
The Old Testament does so in the 1st chapter where there are two contradictory genesis stories.By "1st chapter" I assume you mean first and second chapters. The stories are obviously contradictory (the attempts of literalists to reconcile them notwithstanding). However, my understanding is that they probably came from different original sources and were incorporated into the single text of Genesis later on, and that the compilers weren't so concerned with smoothing out the differences as simply recording the various stories. Trying to read the stories as history when they weren't written as history is obviously going to cause problems.
Finally, you link to "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I have not seen it, but from what I understand there is a great deal of criticism surrounding the arguments made in the film. According to Wikipedia, it argues in favor of the "Jesus myth hypothesis," in spite of the fact that "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." So I'm not sure that "Zeitgeist" unequivocally qualifies as an "excellent and brief treatment of this subject." Personally, I'd recommend John Collin's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible for a strong historical-critical overview of the Old Testament.
"Methodology" in the GP's sense is perfectly acceptable. From the OED:
Originally: the branch of knowledge that deals with method generally or with the methods of a particular discipline or field of study... (more generally) a method or body of methods used in a particular field of study or activity.The word has followed a pattern that many words of the form "x"ology follow. "Psychology," for example, originally meant (and still does mean) the study of the "psyche" (spirit or mind). But in later usage, the word describing the study of the object often comes to stand for the object itself, e.g., in uses like "reverse psychology." Basically, "x"ology does not always mean "the study of x."
I'm well aware of what the scientific method is :-) Also, by meta-scientific, I meant that the question of the character of scientific knowledge is not a scientific question. It can't be, because any answer you would provide would be relying on what it is purporting to justify. It is a question about knowledge, and questions about knowledge lie in the domain of epistemology, which is hardly a scientific enterprise.
In other words, science is objective, while philosophy is subjective.I'm not going to dispute that philosophy is subjective, but to simply state that "science is objective" is a gross over-generalization. Facts do not speak for themselves. In order to be imbued with meaning, they must be interpreted. This is a really difficult discussion to have on /., and there's a lot more I'd like to reply to in your post, but I don't have the time or energy right now. I suggest you take a look at Donna Haraway's work, specifically Primate Visions, on the purported "objectivity" of science. And for what it's worth, Haraway holds a Ph.D. in biology from Yale, so she's not just some crazy philosopher.
Yes, I've heard the same thing, and Wikipedia agrees. However, the facts of this case are different. "Scrabble" is hardly a generic term (the word exists on its own in English, but it's nowhere near as common as "windows").
In the discipline of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper is recognized as the main promoter of the idea of falsification. From Wikipedia:
Sir Karl is known for repudiating the classical observationalist / inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsification insteadI didn't say he was the first to come up with the idea. Clearly, it's an ancient idea. But it was popularized in this discipline in the 20th century by Karl Popper, and if you ask anyone in the philosophy of science, they'll agree.
If anyone thinks inductive reasoning is inadmissible, they are trivially refuted by the tangible results it brings. I'm not even talking about the marvels of human technical civilization; I'm talking about the actual predictive power it provides.... There is no guarantee that either prediction will ever be right, no matter the situation. That is the nature of induction, and the weak point of all science. But, there is some particular level of certainty for any prediction. The true power of science is not in interpolation, but extrapolation to new situations.That's just the issue, though. In induction, there is no certainty. We do extrapolate to other situations, but are we justified in doing so? There's no proof that induction works. From Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery (33):
It should be noticed that a positive decision can only temporarily support the theory, for subsequent negative decisions may always overthrow it. So long as a theory withstands detailed and severe tests and is not superseded by another theory in the course of scientific progress, we may say that it has 'proved its mettle' or that it is 'corroborated'.I think the problem is that many of us have ideas that science is always about proposing falsifiable hypotheses, and then doing experiments that attempt to refute those hypotheses. But in practice, a lot of what we consider "science" (i.e., stuff that gets published in journals, etc.) isn't falsifiable. See my other comment about sociobiology.
Right. Microsoft sued about the name "Lindows" as a trademark violation, not copyright. They didn't win, but they did settle, and it's not called Lindows anymore. "Scrabulous" is clearly making a reference to the Scrabble trademark, and is profiting from that reference. There are probably other issues, as people have mentioned, about gameplay (the layout of the board), but I think the thing with the name has got to be about trademark.
Because of the very fact that science is integral to modern life, and has so risen in prominence over the last few centuries, it is a major object of study for history, philosophy, and sociology. The question of if scientific knowledge is different than other forms of knowledge, and if so, how and why, is an important one, and is a theoretical and meta-scientific question. In fact, some philosophy of science was done with the intent of showing the value of science to outsiders, in order to convince them that they could rely upon scientific knowledge. That's why people care.
Also, a lot of the writing done in the philosophy and sociology of science is done by scientists.
The main reason that science has essentially replaced philosophy as a means of discovering new truths is exactly BECAUSE science is falsifiable, whereas philosophy depends entirely on consensus and popularity.First, science hasn't "replaced" philosophy. Secondly, science does depend on consensus. If there is no consensus (or not enough consensus) surrounding a claim, it is not considered a scientific truth. That consensus can be generated in a number of ways, e.g., by experimental demonstration or mathematical proof, etc., but consensus is critical.
To give an example of science that isn't falsifiable, consider a lot of the work that is done in sociobiology. Someone picks a certain trait or preference that is exhibited in a population, then speculates an evolutionary reason for why that trait might exist. Is that speculation falsifiable? Not really - we can't go back and see if something else is responsible for the trait. Is this science? If you think that everything called "science" has to be falsifiable, then no. But it does get published in scientific journals.
Not to rain on your parade, but while ID in general does fail the test of falsifiability, your assertion that you can objectively determine if a theory is scientific by determining if it is falsifiable isn't in line with the ideas of many modern philosophers of science. It's mainly Karl Popper's idea, who rejected inductive reasoning (which is a hallmark of scientific thinking).
I'm no philosopher, so I might be doing a poor job of explaining this, but it might be worth to take a look at the Wikipedia article on falsification.
Lots of people need VGA out to hook up to projectors. Also, that's not a PS/2 port. Judging by the pin configuration, I'm guessing it's an S-Video out or something, for attaching to TVs, etc.
The "right to be proprietary" becomes subject to government regulation as soon as Microsoft decides to sell their product on the market. When you participate in the market, you agree to abide by its rules. Those rules are set by the government.
Example: in the US, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products. While you may think that a pharmaceutical company has a "property right" to do whatever they want with their product, when they want to sell that product on the market, they must abide by a number of rules that are set by the government. They do not have the right to simply sell any product they want, in any manner they want.
You may not agree with the fundamental concept behind the fact that the government sets the rules of participation in the market, but it is still a fact.
There have been several responses to your post basically all saying the same thing: that you are wrong because rights are not granted by the government.
All of the negative responses to your post have utterly failed to distinguish between natural rights, or inalienable rights, or whatever you want to call them (perhaps some would even prefer "God-granted" rights; also, there are technical distinctions between the various names, but the sense is that you have them by default, they are not given to you), and rights that are granted by the government.
Example of natural rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (From the Declaration of Independence).
An example of a non-natural, government-granted right is something that should be familiar to most ./ers: copyright. While there are arguments to the contrary, the general understanding is that copyright doesn't have anything to do with human dignity, etc., and exists only by fiat of the government (which is why it can easily differ in various jurisdictions).
In this particular case, the "right to be proprietary" is not a natural right. The EU has set conditions for participating in its marketplace, and it has the right to do this. End of story. You might not like it, but there's no inherent "right to be proprietary" to appeal to.
I see your point about the Google cache, but I visited the donation page a week or more ago, and it did mention what would happen to the money if he decided not to run.
Not only that, but IIRC, Benjamin Franklin was a book pirate, and book piracy was one of the major reasons for introducing the International Copyright Act of 1891.
Look up theft of service. It seems to me that that could apply to your movie theater analogy.
According to Wikipedia, the luminous efficacy of a standard incandescent bulb is 12.6 lumens / Watt. That works out to about 500 lumens. That is not 500 lumens in one hour, or in five hours, or in one second. It is 500 lumens (perceived light power) output at any given time. It's kind of like loudness - you don't measure loudness over time, just like you don't say an air-horn can produce X units of loudness per hour. That makes no sense.
Does it matter? It's a closed system, energy is conserved.
The calculations are showing that his lamp would only be able to provide 600-800 lumens for about a minute (or a few minutes, if you are very generous and assume miraculously efficient LEDs). And considering the article talks about using the lamp "eight hours a day," I think the skepticism here is warranted.
Besides, it doesn't make sense to bring in the four hours if it has no relation to how long the lamp can be used. The lumen is a unit of perceived light power, and has nothing to do with the amount of time the lamp (or a bulb) is used.