Evolution is just change. that's why there's no word "devolution" -- although we might imagine it would imply negative evolution (regression), it's still just evolution.
Recall that evolution is not working towards a goal -- it is merely a consequence of environmental pressure.
I can relate a similar story about licensing issues with Matlab costing me time throughout my PhD. I am currently investigating Free Software alternatives (SciPy, and now Sage) for my post-doctoral employment. I'm doing this not because of idealism, but because I think they're actually superior to the commercial offerings.
Yes, it will require me to learn a new language (I've little Python experience), but the power and flexibility will be well worth it.
Unfortunately, making a comment belligerant does not make it more correct. If you believe that anything as multi-faceted as "intelligence" (people can't even agree what the word _means_) is governed by single recessive genes, you need to do some thinking.
It makes sense that there's a genetic component to intelligence. Is that the whole story? Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know the studies to which you refer, but there's a lot of crock studies out there (James Watson recently claimed that Europeans are genetically smarter than Africans - a dubious and unfounded claim). There's a lot we don't know about the brain - anyone trying to make black and white claims is pulling the wool over your eyes.
Your post could be summarised by saying "what about recessive genes" - not exactly contributing a lot to the discussion, are you?
Because people's brains are much more plastic (adaptable) than dogs'. People are born in a more underdeveloped state (eg. puppies walk within a short time of being born - babies take months) and our brains' development are much more environmentally influenced.
Anyway, yes, some people are inherently smarter than others. It doesn't mean that their entire germ line is also smarter - there are many cases of smart parents having a stupid child - even one given every advantage.
While I kind of agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the sentiment.
To me, buying music is not like buying coffee. If I buy a coffee somewhere and don't like the service I can just go and get a coffee elsewhere. Some coffees are better than others, but there's a lot of good coffee.
Good music*, on the other hand, is unique. You _can't_ go elsewhere for it, hence DRM screws you over. It's like the great art/philosophy - it's the lastest attempt by human kind to "work it all out". This may sound wanky, but it's true. I still don't buy DRMd music, just because I can't even use it (I use Linux), but there's no way I'm going to let myself be deprived of the most recent cultural expression of our civilisation.
*I don't mean Top40. That's not music. It's just shit to get people to spend their hard-earned money.
Unfortunately, since you can't possibly know the value of your privacy, nor how someone will make use of your personal information, you will never get what it is worth.
That is why selling/giving away/taking privacy is _inherently_ evil.
The whole thing is just a ridiculously overplayed pissing-contest. Most full-sized modern sound systems produce reasonable sound. Hell, I've got a 10 year old NAD amp, and some 70s speakers that's very nice (value about US$120).
It's been said before, but who's the bigger music fan: The person with a $10000 stereo, and $500 of music, or the person with a $500 stereo, and $10000 of music?
Rejecting a major theory with a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it "Isn't that like when people thought the Earth was flat, despite the Bible saying it was round?"
a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it
Is it the same? No.
and FYI, there are several places in the Bible that suggest the Earth is flat.
Then I have mis-understood your comment. Given that Novell already releases much software under GPL, why did you suggest a "more permissive license [such as BSD or public domain]"?
I realise the article is not about GPL software - nor is it about BSD software. (Nor was I criticising the BSD license -- but I think some of the arguments in favour of BSD are fallacious)
Sure. Kasparov is just a man. Maybe he's a fairly arrogant man, and overestimated his ability. It makes the whining seem a bit childish.
However, it also shows that Kasparov wasn't really beaten by a computer. He was beaten by a group of engineers and chess masters using a computer to augment their abilities. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Every time there's an article about GPL software, some wise-ass tries to say how great things would be if developers would only release the software under a "really, truely, 100% free" BSD license.
For the 1000th time, dude: there's a reason most "open source" developers release under GPL - they realise that a few rules and restrictions make everyone more free.
"MP3 and iPod is actively damaging the quality of the music we get because recording engineers are forced to compress the dynamic range"
It's a shame that studios have started this practise, but it is not the fault of MP3 or ipods - it began in the 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war). If anything, it's the fault of the CD (compressing the dynamic range doesn't work well on LPs)
But, even if it was attributable to the ipod, I think it would be a worthwhile sacrifice - I have a music collection that my parents would have dreamed about, and my grandparents would find inconceivable. Our exposure to music from around the world is unprecedented, and I'm quite prepared to sacrifice a little bit of audio quality to get it.
But yes, it would be even better if studios didn't adjust dynamic range as they do.
This reminds me of the fuss that currently exists over HD-TV. People gasp at the quality of the picture, but don't notice the lack-of-quality of the content. It's the same with music - people focus too much on the equipment, and ignore the music.
I've got a beautiful violin recording from the 20s or 30s. It's very low-fi, scratchy as hell, but the playing is magnificent. Ask any jazz fan whether they'd prefer to listen to a well-used John Coltrane LP, or Kenny G in 192 kHz / 24-bit, DVD-A.
People, listen to the music -- not the equipment! Otherwise you're a hifi-collector, not a music fan.
I remember when XP came out, many MS apologists said "yes, XP sucks, but Win2K is really not bad." Now that Vista is out I'm hearing things like "yes, Vista sucks, but XP is really not too bad."
Now, windows 2K was the last version I used much (praise the Lord), but from what I've seen of XP and Vista, Windows, while maybe becoming prettier (and having a better UI) now treats the user with absolute contempt.
Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?
The whole point is that the infrastructure *could* handle what they were selling, because people weren't using all their bandwidth. Since this is no longer the case, prices will go up and it'll seem like the average customer will pay more for the same bandwidth/speed. However, the truth is that the average customer will actually be using *more* bandwidth (because of rich web-media, more customers will max out their plan)
They're trying to get companies like the BBC to pay them, so that they don't have to increase upfront charges to their customers. I don't know, they must expect customers to be hostile to price increases...
It's not about blaming anyone. It's just that now, with increased prevalence of rich media web-apps, they can't continue to offer the same deal anymore.
Without wanting to defend them, I think the issue is similar to that of banks.
If everyone went to the bank and asked to empty their account, the bank couldn't do it. Similarly, ISPs have entered into contracts on the basis that most people won't actually use all the bandwidth they've paid for. That assumption is (theoretically*) factored into the price the customer pays.
If customers all start using rich-media web tools (like BBC video), then the ISPs will struggle to deliver. This will mean they'll have to invest in more infrastructure, and raise prices (for apparently, the same service). They're wanting to companies like the BBC, rather than customers, who are accustomed to paying the lower rate.
Customers will ultimately have to pay, whether it's by increased ISP fees, subscriptions to rich media sites, or by watching adverts.
"let's ignore things like greenhouse effects and so on"
Now we're getting into an area I don't understand. ie. You could view the greenhouse effect as a _reduction_ in the universe's entropy, because there's a greater differential between Earth-temperature, and that of the surrounding space, than what there otherwise would be.
Also, is there a weighting that means that the simple temperature differential is "less valuable" than the information encoded in DNA, which is in turn "less valuable" than the information encoded in our brains (because each is at a successively higher level)..
Well, I haven't done an experiment;-), but.. since life on earth hasn't really influenced anything outside of the earth, then life on earth hasn't increased the entropy outside the earth. While I wouldn't say that life decreases entropy (because it has to increase it somewhere, just to exist), it seems possible that the presence of life means that entropy is lower than it would otherwise be, because of the steady stream of negentropy that's arriving from the sun.
I'd certainly be very interested to hear any opinions about this idea!
From a purely information-theoretic perspective, the presence of people (and life) means that the net entropy of the universe is lower than it would be in our absence.
"benefit" and "detriment" don't really make sense, wrt the universe, but perhaps life can/will/has helped to postpone the universe's heat-death - if only for a short time.
"It's designed to cause offence to assholes, yes."
Sigh. What I'm trying to say, is that you're not as clever as you think you are.
Every person has certain things that will offend them. Some people are offended by "$race1 deserve the same human rights as $race2" whereas others are offended by "We should round up $ethnicity and put em in the gas chambers"
If you want to 'convert' someone to your point of view, what's the better method: persuasion, or confrontation?
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is just change. that's why there's no word "devolution" -- although we might imagine it would imply negative evolution (regression), it's still just evolution.
Recall that evolution is not working towards a goal -- it is merely a consequence of environmental pressure.
I can relate a similar story about licensing issues with Matlab costing me time throughout my PhD. I am currently investigating Free Software alternatives (SciPy, and now Sage) for my post-doctoral employment. I'm doing this not because of idealism, but because I think they're actually superior to the commercial offerings.
Yes, it will require me to learn a new language (I've little Python experience), but the power and flexibility will be well worth it.
Unfortunately, making a comment belligerant does not make it more correct. If you believe that anything as multi-faceted as "intelligence" (people can't even agree what the word _means_) is governed by single recessive genes, you need to do some thinking.
It makes sense that there's a genetic component to intelligence. Is that the whole story? Seems unlikely to me.
I don't know the studies to which you refer, but there's a lot of crock studies out there (James Watson recently claimed that Europeans are genetically smarter than Africans - a dubious and unfounded claim). There's a lot we don't know about the brain - anyone trying to make black and white claims is pulling the wool over your eyes.
Your post could be summarised by saying "what about recessive genes" - not exactly contributing a lot to the discussion, are you?
Because people's brains are much more plastic (adaptable) than dogs'. People are born in a more underdeveloped state (eg. puppies walk within a short time of being born - babies take months) and our brains' development are much more environmentally influenced.
Anyway, yes, some people are inherently smarter than others. It doesn't mean that their entire germ line is also smarter - there are many cases of smart parents having a stupid child - even one given every advantage.
While I kind of agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the sentiment.
To me, buying music is not like buying coffee. If I buy a coffee somewhere and don't like the service I can just go and get a coffee elsewhere. Some coffees are better than others, but there's a lot of good coffee.
Good music*, on the other hand, is unique. You _can't_ go elsewhere for it, hence DRM screws you over. It's like the great art/philosophy - it's the lastest attempt by human kind to "work it all out".
This may sound wanky, but it's true. I still don't buy DRMd music, just because I can't even use it (I use Linux), but there's no way I'm going to let myself be deprived of the most recent cultural expression of our civilisation.
*I don't mean Top40. That's not music. It's just shit to get people to spend their hard-earned money.
Your post made me shake my head, smile, and think "that's soo cool"
:-)
I join EMeta in doffing my hat to you.
>>Order Description: G1G1 program donation
Interesting that it's listed as a donation. Perhaps it's tax deductible?
Unfortunately, since you can't possibly know the value of your privacy, nor how someone will make use of your personal information, you will never get what it is worth.
That is why selling/giving away/taking privacy is _inherently_ evil.
Good post.
The whole thing is just a ridiculously overplayed pissing-contest. Most full-sized modern sound systems produce reasonable sound. Hell, I've got a 10 year old NAD amp, and some 70s speakers that's very nice (value about US$120).
It's been said before, but who's the bigger music fan: The person with a $10000 stereo, and $500 of music, or the person with a $500 stereo, and $10000 of music?
a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it
Is it the same? No.
and FYI, there are several places in the Bible that suggest the Earth is flat.
Then I have mis-understood your comment.
Given that Novell already releases much software under GPL, why did you suggest a "more permissive license [such as BSD or public domain]"?
I realise the article is not about GPL software - nor is it about BSD software. (Nor was I criticising the BSD license -- but I think some of the arguments in favour of BSD are fallacious)
Sure. Kasparov is just a man. Maybe he's a fairly arrogant man, and overestimated his ability. It makes the whining seem a bit childish.
However, it also shows that Kasparov wasn't really beaten by a computer. He was beaten by a group of engineers and chess masters using a computer to augment their abilities. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Every time there's an article about GPL software, some wise-ass tries to say how great things would be if developers would only release the software under a "really, truely, 100% free" BSD license.
For the 1000th time, dude: there's a reason most "open source" developers release under GPL - they realise that a few rules and restrictions make everyone more free.
Is that so hard to understand?
"MP3 and iPod is actively damaging the quality of the music we get because recording engineers are forced to compress the dynamic range"
It's a shame that studios have started this practise, but it is not the fault of MP3 or ipods - it began in the 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war). If anything, it's the fault of the CD (compressing the dynamic range doesn't work well on LPs)
But, even if it was attributable to the ipod, I think it would be a worthwhile sacrifice - I have a music collection that my parents would have dreamed about, and my grandparents would find inconceivable. Our exposure to music from around the world is unprecedented, and I'm quite prepared to sacrifice a little bit of audio quality to get it.
But yes, it would be even better if studios didn't adjust dynamic range as they do.
This reminds me of the fuss that currently exists over HD-TV. People gasp at the quality of the picture, but don't notice the lack-of-quality of the content. It's the same with music - people focus too much on the equipment, and ignore the music.
I've got a beautiful violin recording from the 20s or 30s. It's very low-fi, scratchy as hell, but the playing is magnificent. Ask any jazz fan whether they'd prefer to listen to a well-used John Coltrane LP, or Kenny G in 192 kHz / 24-bit, DVD-A.
People, listen to the music -- not the equipment! Otherwise you're a hifi-collector, not a music fan.
I remember when XP came out, many MS apologists said "yes, XP sucks, but Win2K is really not bad."
Now that Vista is out I'm hearing things like "yes, Vista sucks, but XP is really not too bad."
Now, windows 2K was the last version I used much (praise the Lord), but from what I've seen of XP and Vista, Windows, while maybe becoming prettier (and having a better UI) now treats the user with absolute contempt.
Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?
The whole point is that the infrastructure *could* handle what they were selling, because people weren't using all their bandwidth. Since this is no longer the case, prices will go up and it'll seem like the average customer will pay more for the same bandwidth/speed. However, the truth is that the average customer will actually be using *more* bandwidth (because of rich web-media, more customers will max out their plan)
They're trying to get companies like the BBC to pay them, so that they don't have to increase upfront charges to their customers. I don't know, they must expect customers to be hostile to price increases...
"they'll blame the content providers"
It's not about blaming anyone. It's just that now, with increased prevalence of rich media web-apps, they can't continue to offer the same deal anymore.
Without wanting to defend them, I think the issue is similar to that of banks.
If everyone went to the bank and asked to empty their account, the bank couldn't do it.
Similarly, ISPs have entered into contracts on the basis that most people won't actually use all the bandwidth they've paid for. That assumption is (theoretically*) factored into the price the customer pays.
If customers all start using rich-media web tools (like BBC video), then the ISPs will struggle to deliver. This will mean they'll have to invest in more infrastructure, and raise prices (for apparently, the same service). They're wanting to companies like the BBC, rather than customers, who are accustomed to paying the lower rate.
Customers will ultimately have to pay, whether it's by increased ISP fees, subscriptions to rich media sites, or by watching adverts.
"let's ignore things like greenhouse effects and so on"
Now we're getting into an area I don't understand. ie. You could view the greenhouse effect as a _reduction_ in the universe's entropy, because there's a greater differential between Earth-temperature, and that of the surrounding space, than what there otherwise would be.
Also, is there a weighting that means that the simple temperature differential is "less valuable" than the information encoded in DNA, which is in turn "less valuable" than the information encoded in our brains (because each is at a successively higher level)..
Well, I haven't done an experiment
since life on earth hasn't really influenced anything outside of the earth,
then life on earth hasn't increased the entropy outside the earth.
While I wouldn't say that life decreases entropy (because it has to increase it somewhere, just to exist), it seems possible that the presence of life means that entropy is lower than it would otherwise be, because of the steady stream of negentropy that's arriving from the sun.
I'd certainly be very interested to hear any opinions about this idea!
From a purely information-theoretic perspective, the presence of people (and life) means that the net entropy of the universe is lower than it would be in our absence.
"benefit" and "detriment" don't really make sense, wrt the universe, but perhaps life can/will/has helped to postpone the universe's heat-death - if only for a short time.
Right.... so, there are two developer platforms, that are about as good as each other.
Except one is cross-platform, and the other is not. Hmmm... which shall I choose?
Why is it that
Copying designs is stealing == BAD,
but copying music is piracy == GOOD?
"It's designed to cause offence to assholes, yes."
Sigh. What I'm trying to say, is that you're not as clever as you think you are.
Every person has certain things that will offend them. Some people are offended by
"$race1 deserve the same human rights as $race2"
whereas others are offended by
"We should round up $ethnicity and put em in the gas chambers"
If you want to 'convert' someone to your point of view, what's the better method: persuasion, or confrontation?