All one has to do is run X number of lemmings off a cliff and see if they develop wings. If they do, then ID is false, as it did not take intelligence to design the wings.
Just because the technology is 'cool' doesn't make it right.
And just because the law is 'behind' modern technology doesn't make the law wrong.
This law is there to protect people and allow them to make a living off of publishing written material.
This could potentially steal a lot of money from the copyright owners. If Google _asks_ for and gets permission from the copyright owner (not assumes it's OK unless told otherwise), then fine, scan the thing and put it online.
But until Google has the permission of the copyright owner, they need to stop doing this.
Perhaps it's already been decided in court, but I wonder what the legality of the Google cache is. Technically, Google is copying and storing copyrighted webpages I would think.
While Google is at it, why don't they 'scan in' copyrighted software, like Windows XP, Solaris, etc. and make them freely available.
Or, how about copyrighted DVDs, like the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc., etc.
Ah, but we also have direct evidence that the only new complex things that come into existance are designed, by intelligence, mostly by humans (perhaps some animals also).
Is it nonsense that computers are designed?
Try running the GA without an environment... it's as much part of the system as the GA, since the environment defines the floating point resolution and RNG sequence, which all directly have an impact on the final results, and as with all information, a GA requires a physical transport, which has to come from somewhere (the environment).
The fact is that the person running the GA experiment defines what a 'bad' result is and by doing this has forced an outcome that they want.
The GA is doing nothing more than carrying out a parallel search algo of algos for the solution/outcome that he/she wants.
Ultimately, the system has been designed because the experimenter defined the rules on how the algoritms mutate, combine, etc.
Using your observability argument to define science...
We do not observe new species popping up, by chance, _from the dirt_, therefore, evolution and chance as explainations for the origin of life are also not science.
Exactly, macro-evolution isn't falsifiable either because I can always say that there is some small possibility that some gene mutation creates some appendage that helps the organism succeed...... let's just hope this mutation happened to more than one individual at once.
The environment that enables these genetic algorithms to run was designed (the host computer).
The question is if information is created when the genetic algorithms run or if non-optimal information is weeded out.
GAs are just another way to filter information that already exists. They are not creative.
If evolution were ever proven wrong (falsified) you would wish you didn't just write this comment.
If you say that evolution will never be proven wrong, then it's in the same boat as creationism, which supposedly can't be proven wrong.
Maybe intelligent design is better to teach, because you need intelligent design for R&D.
Evolution doesn't create a thing in R&D... only intelligence does.
This is one fact that evolution does not explain: Why does everthing we create require us to develop/design it, and why didn't cars pop up from the ground by themselves. They've had plenty of time to apparently.
But I can prove computers are designed and did not evolve, therefore, in this case Intelligent Design is not a religion.
You missed my point. The thought of Intelligent Design, by itself, has nothing to do with religion.
Is ID a religion simply because of the acknowledgement of a creator?
If I claim that something (say a computer) is intelligently designed, did I just introduce a religion?
Just because something could be associated with beliefs of a religion doesn't make it a religion.
Now, if the universe is infinite and time is infinite and the possiblility exists for evolution, the possibility also exists that this is the 4,096 time I've typed this reply to/.
Frankly, I'm tired of all this security stuff.
No more freedom. Can't have one without giving up part of the other.
In the context of computing, people/companies should stop wasting resources devoted to security and actually make some cool stuff.
Computer stores now have racks full of AV and spyware removal software. What a waste of space.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when ZeoSync claimed compression breakthrough? http://slashdot.org/science/02/01/08/137246.shtml
Haven't heard from them for a while.
Will be interested if this energy invention sees the light of day.
True, but all that's need is a simple mutation, or two, or three that would cause wings to grow and that would be enough to falsify ID.
If fact, anything that was observed to add wings without a designer is enough to falsify ID.
'So if they don't develop wings does that mean evolution is false?'
No, you can't prove evolution is false from this, only that if the Lemmings develop springs on their feet or wings that ID is false.
I'm just arguing that ID is as falsifiable as anything else.
Evolution is only falsifiable if design could be proven, but there is no means, that I'm aware of, to prove design.
All one has to do is run X number of lemmings off a cliff and see if they develop wings. If they do, then ID is false, as it did not take intelligence to design the wings.
Just because the technology is 'cool' doesn't make it right.
And just because the law is 'behind' modern technology doesn't make the law wrong.
This law is there to protect people and allow them to make a living off of publishing written material.
This could potentially steal a lot of money from the copyright owners. If Google _asks_ for and gets permission from the copyright owner (not assumes it's OK unless told otherwise), then fine, scan the thing and put it online.
But until Google has the permission of the copyright owner, they need to stop doing this.
Perhaps it's already been decided in court, but I wonder what the legality of the Google cache is. Technically, Google is copying and storing copyrighted webpages I would think.
While Google is at it, why don't they 'scan in' copyrighted software, like Windows XP, Solaris, etc. and make them freely available.
Or, how about copyrighted DVDs, like the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc., etc.
I think that if they need to worry about missing tiles or a little insulation hanging off the ship, then the design is broken.
I mean, come on, those ships in Star Wars take off and land at will.
Ah, but we also have direct evidence that the only new complex things that come into existance are designed, by intelligence, mostly by humans (perhaps some animals also). Is it nonsense that computers are designed?
Try running the GA without an environment... it's as much part of the system as the GA, since the environment defines the floating point resolution and RNG sequence, which all directly have an impact on the final results, and as with all information, a GA requires a physical transport, which has to come from somewhere (the environment). The fact is that the person running the GA experiment defines what a 'bad' result is and by doing this has forced an outcome that they want. The GA is doing nothing more than carrying out a parallel search algo of algos for the solution/outcome that he/she wants. Ultimately, the system has been designed because the experimenter defined the rules on how the algoritms mutate, combine, etc.
Using your observability argument to define science... We do not observe new species popping up, by chance, _from the dirt_, therefore, evolution and chance as explainations for the origin of life are also not science.
Exactly, macro-evolution isn't falsifiable either because I can always say that there is some small possibility that some gene mutation creates some appendage that helps the organism succeed... ... let's just hope this mutation happened to more than one individual at once.
The environment that enables these genetic algorithms to run was designed (the host computer). The question is if information is created when the genetic algorithms run or if non-optimal information is weeded out. GAs are just another way to filter information that already exists. They are not creative.
If evolution were ever proven wrong (falsified) you would wish you didn't just write this comment. If you say that evolution will never be proven wrong, then it's in the same boat as creationism, which supposedly can't be proven wrong.
Maybe intelligent design is better to teach, because you need intelligent design for R&D. Evolution doesn't create a thing in R&D... only intelligence does. This is one fact that evolution does not explain: Why does everthing we create require us to develop/design it, and why didn't cars pop up from the ground by themselves. They've had plenty of time to apparently.
But I can prove computers are designed and did not evolve, therefore, in this case Intelligent Design is not a religion. You missed my point. The thought of Intelligent Design, by itself, has nothing to do with religion.
Is ID a religion simply because of the acknowledgement of a creator?
/.
If I claim that something (say a computer) is intelligently designed, did I just introduce a religion?
Just because something could be associated with beliefs of a religion doesn't make it a religion.
Now, if the universe is infinite and time is infinite and the possiblility exists for evolution, the possibility also exists that this is the 4,096 time I've typed this reply to
Frankly, I'm tired of all this security stuff. No more freedom. Can't have one without giving up part of the other. In the context of computing, people/companies should stop wasting resources devoted to security and actually make some cool stuff. Computer stores now have racks full of AV and spyware removal software. What a waste of space.