It's one of those nervous jokes that gets nervous laughs from other MS people, because in the end they still lost. It was a sour grapes joke.
Haha, you won, but we burned up the prize before you could see it.
I think this is a marvelous strategy by Google, btw. Simply hire MS employees, not to work for Google, but simply not to work at MS anymore. It takes all the wind out of the sails of any lawsuits, and certainly Google can afford it. MS, to keep employees will have to raise their pay significantly. If I'm making $20/hr programming, but your competitor will pay me $18/hr with guaranteed employment for X number of years, and all I have to do is sit on my butt? No contest.
It's talent draining, and Google is like Night of the Living Dead... brains, Brains, MORE BRAINS!
Yes, and no. I would say the main difference is in the formality. There's less corporate/shareholder speak than press releases contain. And, it'll contain things that are most certainly not press releases.
It's a story about the company participating in a relay race.
But, on all the other points, I whole heartedly agree with you. With Google, however, I am a fan, and enjoy reading all news coming out of them. Doesn't matter what spin they put on a new feature, the new feature will be covered there first. It's the same as reading gaming websites to get trailers, demo's, and news from companies like iD. Sure, they'll make themselves look like the best thing since sliced bread. But, that makes the core of the news itself no less appealing to its audience.
But, on the other hand, I don't think someone like Colgate has a ton of toothpaste fans reading whatever blog they have... well, maybe dentists.
"The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
I had to re-read that line twice. I thought they were talking about Microsoft being preferential, narrow, etc, etc... not OpenOffice.
Can someone actually Orwellian-like bend their mind so that 2+2=5 for me, and explain the logic behind that statement where choosing an open standard over a closed-patented-licensed-EULA'd-sign with blood-give up your first born is a bad choice?
Or is this just what I think it is, one of Microsoft's "A Few Good Men" speeches:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very OS that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a keyboard and start writing code. Either way, I don't give a damn what open standards you think you are entitled to."
Well, I do see these middle ground solutions as having a place. Middle ground meaning between destroying the environment and absolutely no environmental impact.
IMHO, nuclear power could be a solution if there were a global grid. For instance, there is no reason for Iran to have a nuclear power plant if there is a US controlled (and heavily guarded) nuclear power plant placed far inside the Iraqi border. (I'm thinking very far into the future with a peaceful, US friendly Iraq.)
This power could be sold to Iran just by running lines to them. I'm sure many could argue that Iran would refuse to be dependant on the US for energy. Heh, that would be the epitomy of irony considering the current oil situation. But, it is a viable solution to at the least keep nuclear power plants in remote, secure, peaceful locations, and run the power out to distribution sites who can pass them on to less friendly countries.
I think a hydrogen combination would be great here. For places that are too remote to run lines (say, because of too much energy loss to resistance), we could run hydrogen gas lines, or truck in hydrogen.
Going to this solution, existing oil pipelines could be utilized, thus replacing a dirty fuel line with a clean one.
I think you're completely correct that hydrogen will be the energy storage/transfer medium for the next millenia (until we figure out how to find dilithum crystals). If someone can combine existing nuclear facilities with hydrogen output capabilities, we can increase its usage without increasing the danger.
Perhaps if Russia puts 20 nuclear plants in Siberia, where a meltdown would only thaw out the ground a bit, the Russians economy/government could grow as a global hydrogen supplier, and finally afford to protect their nuclear stockpiles from terrorists. I'm certainly not against any first/second world country developping a legitimate industry. I don't like how waste is handled. But, if you can at least eliminate 1 of the problems, it certainly could revolutionize how the world is powered.
Hydrogen, by the way, could be produced regardless of the actual energy source. If people could at least get to the nuclear/hydrogen solution, then as we develop cleaner technologies like solar, there is already an infrastructure ready to immediately use all advancements.
I would personally love to have a solar panel on my house that did nothing but fill containers of hydrogen for backup power for my house and/or fuel for a modified vehicle. Technology like that might actually allow people to live "off the grid", and thus, less prone to natural disasters that don't directly affect them. *cough*gas,electricity,Katrina*cough*
Well, besides the fact that we can't build one just yet unless we could perfect carbon columns with infinitely greater precision than our "smart" organizations like NASA... I actually think you are on to something, except that you can reverse that.
I think such elevators will dramatically improve solar energy collection. Imagine building all solar panels on the sides of space elevators, high above any cloud cover or lower atmospheric interference.
We could theoretically even boost that by placing mirrors on the moon, that reflect to collection points at the tops of the elevators. (You wouldn't want to do that with earth based collectors... the mirrors go off by 1 degree, and you incinerate Chicago.)
I agree with some of your points. However, Nuclear Energy is the absolute very least feasible on a global scale. That's all we need to do, is allow every third world country in the world to play around with nuclear material.
The quote fails to mention something. It says how many people the waste could kill. It doesn't mention how many would die if a bomb or meltdown went off, how many generations it would affect, how long the land would remain sterile, etc. It also doesn't mention how many people can be killed if the government of the plants in question use the material to make nuclear warheads. Last I checked, arsenic couldn't kill as many people as a nuclear warhead.
I don't fear nuclear material. I fear nuclear material in the hands of suicide bombers. Maybe chlorine is just as dangerous. That doesn't give any justification to nuclear material, though.
I've heard that argument before on other topics: "Well, sure X can happen to you, but so can Y, so why worry about X?" Either way, you are still left with X.
Besides, nuclear energy is a dead end. It's enough that we destroyed the climate, now we want to irradiate mountains with waste?
I don't have an immediate solution. I wish I did. I think we all wish we did. But, I believe solar energy is the only way to go, whether you are harnessing it from the wind, water, directly, or from fossil fuels, which are a long decended solar power. We have to realize that we have only real reliable power source is the sun. We just have to learn how to harness it better.
We will run out of space to put waste, or run out of raw nuclear material. Sure, it may look like we have plenty. Many thought the same about oil, and now even the oil companies will publically admit that we'll run out fairly soon. If nuclear power provided cheap energy to everyone, then energy usage, like car usage, would skyrocket, and what seemed like so much would become so little.
We have to think at least several hundred years into the future. Short sightedness is the cause of most of our current energy problems. And, we have no choice but to rely on the sun. Should it burn out, I think powering our cities will be the least of our worries.
A smarter man than me had some great ideas about society, economics, energy, etc. http://www.bfi.org/operating_manual.htm I just hope he was also right that man can't sabotage himself faster than he naturally advances.
Burger King also has over 40,000 ways to serve an original Whopper (if you also count asking for either no bun or no burger options [veg]). But, they all come from the same 8 ingrediants: Sesame Seed Bun, Beef Patty, Dill Pickles, Ketchup, Onions, Tomatoes, Lettuce, Mayonnaise.
Unlike Burger King, there is little consumer confusion over what a Whopper is. Just because you don't want pickle doesn't mean it's not a Whopper.
Microsoft is going to learn a tough lesson, but it will be 10 years from now. Software already has long compatability lists: 95, 98, ME, 2000, 2000 pro, XP, XP Pro. Now they want to effectively come out with a single OS with as many varieties as all those since 95 (though I left out a few).
Here's how it will break down. Companies like Dell will start offering different versions depending on how "upscale" the computer is. But, very quickly, people will gravitate towards the beefiest (no pun intended) versions for their use, but it home or office. The corporate environment might go with differing versions just to shave off costs for the lower wage employees' systems.
But, in the end, there will be Home and Business/Full. Gamers will gravitate towards the Full end of the spectrum, and wittle the unnecessary out of their systems. The hard core gamers will not even use the built in game performance optimization. Serious gamers, imho, go through every setting on their system, in the game, on their video card, on their sound card, and on their drivers by hand at least once.
The only thing MS is missing in their selection is MS Zero. MS Zero is not like the "zero" cola out there. It will be a non-OS. Computer companies will continue to pay their mandatory per-CPU license fees, and ship without a real OS. Technically, it will ship with the equivilant of a floppy boot disk OS. It will be capable of formatting hard drives, and nothing else.
Give it a while. MS will dance around any anti-trust aligations about MS even trying to charge for computers without Vista by simply offering Vista selections that take away more and more and more, until you're left with an MS Zero.
IMHO, if this is supposed to be MS's answer to consumer choice, I can already guess the next version of Office. Office Starter with Hotmail-only support, Office Home Beginner with POP3 support, Office Home Advanced with IMAP support, etc. Prices increase by $500 per copy at each step up.
Yeah, I bashed a bit. Then again, compare this to recent announcements by Google and Apple, and MS just looks dumb in this story.
I was so excited to read that! I thought someone had perfected a Star Trek-esk machine to pop off chips for free. I read "Unix hardware" and thought to myself (thinking more linux than unix), "Jesus, I need to find that free-as-in-beer hardware ASAP!"
Even if it was true, the question remains... would you need a WINE chip to run a *Nix CPU with Windows RAM.
Yeah, dumb question, because everyone knows most people would just run a CYGWIN monitor with the optional CYGWIN compiled GNOME mouse/keyboard/webcam. But, rate of conversion to all *Nix hardware would be high, considering the mandatory Teledildonic EULA Anal Invader hardware that would come with Windows Vista 2.0.
Actually, I was referring to the single axis (left vs. right) view of politics. (Obviously there are better multi-axis models, but for the related topic, it's more anecdotal I was going for.)
Of course, if you look at political theory versus practice, there aren't much differences. Communism and Naziism is dominated by a dictator-like rule by violence system. Single axis models stick out in my mind, though, simply because the only true definition of personal politics is an axis for every single issue. All other models fail to properly define, imho. For instance, a pro-choice Republican.
In my mind, theoretical communism is the epitomy of democracy. Rule of the people, for the people, by the people, with the welfare of the people in mind. Naziism, in theory and practice, is dictatorship, with national interests over personal interests. In practive, communism has yet to live up to its ideals, and naziism (as a socialist movement) never lived up to its ideals. I could be wrong, but it is with that frame of mind that I added that last comment.
But,/. is a place of diverse individuals, and as such, much information on the topic (and links to papers). I'm sure I'll correctly identify a more precise statement of my intended thoughts next time... perhaps "Communal versus Tyranny" or "Hippy versus Yuppy" (though, I'm sure I'd get into muddy water with the "Yippy's").
Now, if your PS is asking if I think Gates is Hitler, absolutely not. Everyone knows Gates can't grown any facial hair.
I agree 100%. And, you also have to understand MS mentality here. They see each individual user as a flower of creativity. Ok, that's BS, they don't see that at all.
What they fail to understand is that *shocker* governments should use a unified format for very specific reasons. Anyone from any branch can read any document from any other branch of the government. And, such format should be 100% open, so that should a future format come along that they want to change to, they can write up their own free utility to automatically update all documents.
Wow, that mean that governments can actually move away from the days when every department used its own forms/formats, and paper copies had to be made of everything because every system was proprietary, so the only way to transfer information was to print it out, hand it over, and re-type it in.
That would sound amazing if it had said it in 1995. Its about time that governments stepped up to the plate. Such changes are long overdue.
And, they obviously can't choose a patented/DMCA locked format by MS, which is what MS wants. With the MS Office suite looking to use DMCA to lock out their documents from open source solutions, governments will have high barrior costs to ask MS permission to unlock their documents for them.
MS on the other hand sees such as a way to lock in customers, and exact ultra-high fees to unlock the documents. Anything less, and MS will tell you you're a Commie bastard who's not open to "freedom of choice".
I think it's a given that we all know what MS's definition of "choice" is. Choice is only that which chooses (or by default) to use MS products. Everything else is obviously not choice, because it slaps MS's hand away from your wallet.
By the way, the political opposite of communism, is naziism. I think I'd MUCH rather be called a Commie.
"If paypal believed my friend did something wrong, why not tell him, and ask for a response? Why keep everything secret, and keep the account frozen??"
Maybe the government runs a "No Paypal" list, and your friend's name was similar to a guy who's the friend of a guy who's the second cousin once removed from a man in Eqypt who's wife babysat for Bin Laden's sister-in-law's baby.
On a serious note, is it just me, or is this "Ask all you want, but we won't tell" mentality spreading like a cancer. Everyone figures, well, if you can't do anything to us, why should we even attempt to be curtious.
That's why I like dealing with banks I can actually walk into. People have a much harder time ignoring you face to face. That, and you can be very, very vocal when other customers are there.
I don't use PayPal, though I keep an account around for the occasional transfer that I can't do any other way. It's easier than Western Union to send small amounts like $5 to a friend. Other than that, PayPal is worthless for any large sums or for business purposes, imho. If you are a business, go through a real payment processing service (who does real fraud protection, and gives you control to flag bad sales as well, along with other tools like recurring billing).
But, that doesn't disprove the existance of gravity, it just changes the definition of what exactly gravity is. Newton had a theory of what it was. Einstein changed it. That's science.
The same can be said of light, what it is, how fast it moves, etc. But the existance of light is not in question. Einstein changed all that, but he did not dispute the existance of light, because the existance of something is either positive (postulate) or negative. Evidence is only forthcoming depending on the limitations and advancement of the observer. Science does not create anything, but only discovers. That which is not discovered cannot immediately be thrown out as false, but only dismissed when some other postulate is discovered that emphatically disproves it.
Put simply, science is a giant game of minesweeper. The uncovered squares are the unknown, the numbers are the theories, and the flags are the postulates. Each square represents something we know definitely to be true or something we know definitely to be false. ID lies well within the area of uncovered squares.
The current uncovered squares, numbers, and flags cannot disprove it, but the patterns are interpreted differently as to the possibility that it is out there. Some say the pattern of our knowledge lends that it must exist, others that it cannot exist. Others still, like myself, believe it can exist with a probability higher than average that it does, but acknowledging that this "reading the tea leaves" proves nothing.
If anyone is reading any of my posts for answers or evidence of such existance, they won't find it. But, can I make the case for it not to be thrown out completely, I would think that would be obvious. Science is not wishy-washy like religion. Either something is, or isn't, or there is a definate rule that explains when it is or isn't, or a probability of is or isn't. Science can neither quantify the is or the isn't of ID, nor even its probability because of how it lies so far outside observation limitations.
At least Santa Claus can scientifically be disproven simply by watching the Christmas tree and seeing if a fat man in a red suit magically appears to drop off presents. This, of course, is how most children learn to disprove a theory in their first real experiment by waiting up. ID does not prove so easy to dismiss.
I never said gravity wasn't falsifiable. I said its mere existance was not theory, and that it is a postulate, meaning that it is taken for granted to exist. I've stated that it cannot be disproved, as it has been proven (not necessarily in all cases, but instead for locals on the surface of the earth and you standing on it, certainly). I was describing postulates, not falsifiability. My example of the Sun was an argument that falsifiability had nothing to do with truth. So, if you wish to promote whatever view you have, disprove the Sun. You'll most likely come up with the same scenario (or one like it) that I did. And still prove that falsifiability is a limitation of the observer, and not a measure of truth... except in the sense of the saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder".
You at one time argue against ID (correct me if I'm wrong but this is the impression I get), then at the same time go on to tell me how I'm defining ID wrong? Intelligent design is based on the creation of the world and/or universe depending on who you talk to and how far they press the issue. More specifically, it deals with the creation of living organisms. If you had actually read any of my writings on the topic about the possibly inevitability of ID, the two may be one and the same. Our possible future may be the ID of another species, or it could possibly impact our own past.
I'm sure you could argue that you can't change the past, but that argument also concludes that you can't really change the future either. Whether time is interchangeable/traversable in different directions is currently being contested among the scientific camps.
You would fail debate based on your own arguments. You imposed the false view upon me that I was arguing against the falsifiability of gravity, then proceeded to argue that view, and not the actual view I hold. That's the Straw Man fallacy. Not to mention you also had fallacies of Argumentum ad hominem, by attacking me, not the idea. And, btw, this is very far off topic. Even if you disprove a indirectly related item, this disproves my entire argument?
You'd make a good presidential debate candidate probably. They love using such fallacies. I, btw, fully accept that I'm also full of my own fallacies. Then again, I'm not writing my ideas into a scientific journal. It's/., and I don't draft and re-write just to post here. It's just train of thought. But you're no debate professor considering all of your own fallacies, so I'll take your "grade" with a shovel full of salt, tyvm.
Some advise, don't personally attack someone of stealing the cookies at the same time your hand is in the cookie jar. It makes you look uneducated by looking hypocritical, unable to deal with the topic at hand, and lacking in any useful input. The AC name doesn't help much either. I'm just wondering when you will break down and start criticizing my spelling.
It's not that I don't like good debate. I love a good debate... with someone willing to have a real debate and a good knowledge of in the opposing view they hold. Such debate results in the education of all sides. This debate is resulting in arguing the rules of debate, aka "going nowhere fast".
'Science has deemed the question of "God" as "useless"'
I've heard those things. And while I certainly understand that point of view, I would go back to my own theory. I like the logic to science, but science isnt' a crystal ball either. It's explaining things we already know of, but don't understand.
I rather take the point of view of a diety in the perspective of this: Can a god exist? If so, "must" a god exist?
I think the answer to both is yes, but that's not based on very scientific measures. I think a god can exist, simply because our definition of a god is not an unachievable goal. God's of history don't really rule the universe, as they rule human perception of the universe. I think anyone can realize that with sufficient technology, you could shroud and control a planet. We're far from anything like that, but it is feasible.
The second answer I think comes from a power struggle that can and most likely does exist (not a scientific theory, just my perception). In that, if there is more than one intelligence in the universe, one will evolve faster than the other (evolve in the sense of knowledge and technology). This intelligence, as a single "hive mind" or as a top leader of the intelligence could certainly be a god over the other intelligence.
If there is only one intelligence in the universe, namely us, then we will eventually evolve to the same point. However, at that point, we could create lower intelligences like ourselves to rule over. For all we know, we're a live game of the Sims for a more advanced human race. Maybe that race is trying to correct the problems of their past in us, or they are reconstructing their own history to view if a small change here and there could have changed their own evolution.
Maybe there is no race like that, but that the first ones to achieve that level of superiority over our universe will be us.
Then again, maybe the apocolyptic nightmares of the movies will be realized with AI that will be as powerful as a god.
In any case, being "a god" is not only achievable, but is also a possible logical outcome of evolution. That said, could such an intelligence time travel, and "start over" with the universe?
Only such an intelligence would know the answer. But, our past could be our future if we are the ones to evolve to that level, thinking in those terms.
This doesn't explain if there was a god that actually created this universe, but then again, who is to say if a universe can exist inside another universe, a mini-verse.
These are questions far outside the limits of current science, and are only touched upon by those on the outter edge of theory. They certainly dabble in the philosophical with their theories.
Either way, my own beliefs about what could be certainly prove nothing. But, in my mind, if I could come up with that possibility, there are certainly other routes to the "creation/existance of a god". As such, I think that ruling out ID from discussions (scientific or otherwise) closes too many feasible outcomes to too many questions.
ID is about being open minded to the future, not close minded about our past. The past concerns me far less than the future, assuming they are not one and the same.
But, I will just say that I'm not really contesting ID is not science, in that no experimentation has really been done (to anyone's satisfaction, at least).
Do I think ID should be taught in a science class. Absolutely not! Such initiatives are religion in disguise. If I choose to teach my child religious beliefs, I don't want some teacher imposing their differing beliefs. (To ID supporters, they believe evolution is the differing belief, but I'll not go there.)
What I would say is that science is the pursuit of truth through repeatable/provable methods, as a layman's definition. However, my point of view is that something like ID can fully well be true, even if science doesn't even know how to answer such a question. Science is limited to the abilities of the scientists. It is my assumption that it would take total knowledge of the universe to discover beyond all recourse, that ID happened, is happening, will happen, or is even possible.
Then again, I believe there is a theory to the effect that if you could know the position and direction of all matter simultaneously, then you could know its entire past as well as its future. Unfortunately, we are limited to never knowing both position and direction.
I'm not an ID in schools advocate. Quite the opposite. However, in my mind, there is so much "religious nuts vs. godless whores" (to use the image each puts on the other) labelling. I don't believe any thoughtful resolution will come of this issue as long as that is the case. The same holds true for abortion, gay marriage, etc. etc.
I have always believed in one thing. I have my views. They are mine. They aren't to be imposed on others, but neither are theirs to be imposed on me. In a perfect world, that would work. It doesn't always, but I can at least not impose my personal views on the school boards of my local districts. However, I would find it acceptable to speak up when opposing views are trying to be imposed.
Evolution, by the way, is a major stepping stone for any student, as is all genetics. There are people that go off to college not even knowing the "eye color" chart of determining the eye color of kids depending on the genetic makeup of their parents. I thought that was something basic that everyone knew. Unfortunately, such information is left out at many religious schools that shun anything hinting of genetic change over generations.
It's like someone leaving out the Pythagorean theorem just because there was a cult of Pythagoras.
Schools don't teach it, but my parents did. It's called the Golden Rule, otherwise known as manners. I am not a binary machine of 0 or 1 answers. You sound like one. If I mention love, will you start smoking like in a B Sci-Fi movie and yell "Does not compute, does not compute!"
But, ok, if you want to go down the road of falsibility, we'll start again.
Disprove the existence of gravity. Gravity isn't a theory. What gravity is, what causes it, and what all of the effects it has are theories. Whether the earth attracts you to it, or you attract the earth to you, whether dark matter plays a role, and what role gravity plays in a macrovision of the univers, are all interesting questions. But its existence is not theory. Just as the sun's existance is not a theory, what is in its core could constitute many theories.
School? I suggest you come down from the ISS and walk around on terra firma. Gravity is very real, my friend. Or did you skip that class? You obviously took a class in the pitfalls of advertising claims, but that can hardly be applied to science.
"That is in fact exactly what it means. If it isn't falsifible, it can not be a theory. If it can not be a theory, there is no way to test it. If it can not be tested, no proof can be provided. If no proof can be provided, it can never be true."
"Circular logic. If it isn't proven, it isn't proof."
Take math before venturing off into science, you will be greatly rewarded.
You forget that there are assumed proofs, called postulates. But, that's in Geometry, a class I surely didn't miss. The proof you are talking about is one originating from a theorem. I am referring to the scientific equivalent of postulates. Those things we can directly observe are normally assumed to exist, though what they may consist of are up to interpretation.
You may be thinking more of the falsification of unproven "miracles". Those things which occur once, and are not reproducable, and are limitted to first person observations with no permanent record of measurement. In there you would find your faith, and such stories as those in the Bible.
But again, ID "might be" one such postulate, one that we simply haven't observed yet. It may even be falsifiable, though I'm assuming that it is not for the sake of argument. However, falsifiability is a limitation of the observer, not the thing in question.
US schools need to start teaching that just because you can't see the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, it is there, even if you will never falsify or prove the idea yourself. Remember that all of your teaching is based on "faith" that your teachers know at least some truth. Otherwise, you are left to rediscover everything for yourself.
I suspect you skipped philosophy and "truth". Until you realize your actual limitations as an observer are, and the assumptions you hold with you, you can never really know what you can prove or falsify.
You would then realise that something cannot be disproved to exist if it does exist, nor can anything outside the limitations of the observer be disproved to exist whether it does or not. And thus, falsifiability of the question does not answer it. It simply reveals the limitations of the observer.
Back to the example of the sun. Men living their entire lives in caves could not prove or disprove the existance of the sun. It is the limitations of the observer to prove or disprove their hypothesis. As able observers, we can clearly see that the existance of the sun as a postulate. We can measure the distance from the sun as an equation theory.
Take any person who's seen the sun, and lock them down in that cave with those who have never seen it. Those in the cave simply claim lack of proof and falsibility of the sun, and call the person a nutjob.
Still, the sun continues to shine outside their cave. Scientifically, man is still in the cave and is starting to peak his head out. Eliminating any possibilities of what lies outside is jus
"it's whether ID is falsifiable or not that's important. Which, AFAICT, it isn't, so it's still not science."
That, however, does not mean it isn't true. For instance, gravity isn't really "falsifiable" in that it is taken for granted because it affects us all. Anyone trying to disprove that there is not an attraction force between an object near earth and the earth itself would be laughed out of any scientific discussion.
If something is not falsifiable, it's called a proof. Falsifiable describes a theory. If ID isn't falsifiable, it could still be a proof that nobody has proven yet.
Science is about eliminating all possibilities until one remains that isn't falsifiable, which becomes the proof. If science can eliminate every explination except ID... IANAS, but logic seems to dictate that it would then be a proof.
This, of course, will be the last answer science will ever provide us. The origin and outcome of this universe will require complete knowledge of all things in the universe. Until that day arrives, and we find ourselves of matching intelligence of that which could have initiated ID, we are just shooting in the dark. Ironically, if that day does arrive, we could find that we've answered our own question by becoming a universe shaping intelligence ourselves.
Thus, ID may not be an explination of our past, but a prediction of our future.
"Good luck getting buy-in from 100% of drivers. Not during my lifetime."
I'm more of the opinion that cars carrying people will become extinct in my lifetime (say, in the next 50 years), except for goods transportation. Mass transit and/or taxi services will move those who absolutely have to move (say, for going to an airport).
There will come a time when the technology breaches a threshold whereby we will leave our homes virtually. Either we will visit friends and family daily through VR, we will telecommute to work more, including many manual laborers. Unless we construct a true AI, many jobs in factories and retail may be replaced by robots. However, it is my opinion that with ultra-high-bandwidth wireless, it will be humans behind the controls of the robots, not a computer. Surgeons are already demonstrating this capability.
The day will come when there will be truly no reason to physically leave home. We will be leaving virtually (VR) and metaphysically (telerobotics). Those long haul trucks may become fatality free. A combination of smart cars and telerobotic drivers sitting in a main office will remove the human from having to endure 10 hour drives and cheap greasy spoons (restaurants).
This will truly open up the world to globalization. Not only could someone in China do your job, they could do it in the same factory you are now. But, the opposite holds true as well. No longer will you be restricted to jobs in your area, but any job, anywhere. I think that such will be a positive, not negative, force on the world economy. It will accelerate equal wages among all workers, as changing jobs will be as easy as typing a different URL.
The car will remain only as a luxury item, not a necessary one. I would expect a rise in the ownership of motorcycles in that possible future. Its cheaper and more of an "enjoyable transportation" than your average car if your object if purely for fun.
" Obviously the traffic is due to Numa Numa, the starwars kid and All Your Base. Doesn't he know anything?!"
Actually, I was wondering how sites like Slashdot and iFilm.com have affected this. Beyond P2P, you also have online flash-mob type activities, which would include these.
For instance, 100,000 people watching streams of John Steward call Tucker Carlson a you-know-what on Crossfire undoubtedly had an impact (not even considering multiple views). I'm sure these numbers are nowhere, by themselves, even remotely close to someone downloading the entire Rocky movie collection. However, aggregately, the affect could be larger than a lot of the less popular P2P networks.
Slashdotting alone can give average sites heart attacks, but also fuel fast recognition and profit. When those files are linked torrents and hosted movie clips, I think saying that memes hold great sway over online activity is pointed. Memes would them act like the moon, pulling the giant tide of downloaders around with it.
On the other hand, I would guess that the number one bandwidth uses online are for downloading porn and playing games. Sex and Violence is meme king of all memes, imo.
Well, I'm going to opt to mod myself down a bit on that one. Always a good idea to RTFA before posting, heh. Apparently these pins are for ATMs, and thus, pretty much makes (most of) my above post irrelevant.
I was thinking of the security pin located on the back of most credit cards.
In this case, then, I'm in full agreement with the parent of my original post, though this is something that should be fixed... possibly through online pin activation:
Mail someone a temporary pin they have to enter online to get a one time view of the real pin. After the first view, no other views allowed. Thus, you really wouldn't even need that much initial security in the mailing, as no two people could view the pin, and if a second view was attempted, the issuer could be alerted to potential fraud.
Don't you see? See, we all know that the programmers at Google know exactly what digital data belongs to who, regardless of who actually is displaying it. I mean, Google made a javascript map... thingy... and you could clicky it and it moved, so obviously they must know everything right?
Ahhhhhhhhh! *removes the "think-like-your-adversary" helmet*
"slow process that forces them to be in the geographic neighborhood of their victims."
This is very true. But lets not forget one of the oldest scams in the book. Ship bogus credit card products to an abandoned location with instructions to leave at the door. Only, with this, you could ship products to your neighbor's house (when you know they won't be there) with that neighbor's credit card and proper pin.
Because the number, pin, and address were all to the same person, it makes it much harder on the card holder to prove fraud. After all, the theif could even be standing on the porch to forge the signature to the UPS guy. The theif would have to have a set of brass balls to pull this off, but old targets are in many cases still the easiest targets. Most home mailboxes aren't locked.
It's a hypothetical statement to make a point, though it is also a statement about a payment option I may opt for in the future if the MPAA continues on their current path. Or, did you not read "almost". Nor did you make the connection, probably obvious to everyone else, about how movie/library records can be used in criminal investigations, and a CC receipt would give your name, whereas cash wouldn't.
Ever since they made it a federal crime to video tape in theaters, how long before the MPAA starts pushing for a database of movie goers to connect to the IP numbers (and subpoena'd names) they see in P2P programs. They won't sue anymore. If you are caught sharing the same movie you went to go see, well, then, you had to have been the video taper, and thus, you'll go to federal prison. But, why stop there, if you support P2P and don't download movies, I'm sure they can get the Piracy Czar on your ass anyways.
I don't have a credit card, I have a debit card, which can act as a credit card. Last movie I saw at the theater was Batman Begins. The last DVD I saw was A Walk to Remember (not by choice). The next movie I plan on seeing on DVD is Constantine. My sign is Gemini, and I like long walks on the beach. You asking me out, or you trolling me?
Public face on Slashdot? This is my public face everywhere on the Internet. I am the Ikioi. This is the same me that is on my personal site I8-D. This is also me, and this, and this, and this. Your slashdot face is the top result on a search for your name, and you have no real info in your profile.
Let me guess, because you have a low UID and I have a high UID you thought that'd I'd make a good newb target to troll on. Sorry to disappoint you, but my online presence, and recent mod history, is better than your's pal. Try trolling the 900,000's.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one of those nervous jokes that gets nervous laughs from other MS people, because in the end they still lost. It was a sour grapes joke.
Haha, you won, but we burned up the prize before you could see it.
I think this is a marvelous strategy by Google, btw. Simply hire MS employees, not to work for Google, but simply not to work at MS anymore. It takes all the wind out of the sails of any lawsuits, and certainly Google can afford it. MS, to keep employees will have to raise their pay significantly. If I'm making $20/hr programming, but your competitor will pay me $18/hr with guaranteed employment for X number of years, and all I have to do is sit on my butt? No contest.
It's talent draining, and Google is like Night of the Living Dead... brains, Brains, MORE BRAINS!
Yes, and no. I would say the main difference is in the formality. There's less corporate/shareholder speak than press releases contain. And, it'll contain things that are most certainly not press releases.
- google.html
Example: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/powered-by
It's a story about the company participating in a relay race.
But, on all the other points, I whole heartedly agree with you. With Google, however, I am a fan, and enjoy reading all news coming out of them. Doesn't matter what spin they put on a new feature, the new feature will be covered there first. It's the same as reading gaming websites to get trailers, demo's, and news from companies like iD. Sure, they'll make themselves look like the best thing since sliced bread. But, that makes the core of the news itself no less appealing to its audience.
But, on the other hand, I don't think someone like Colgate has a ton of toothpaste fans reading whatever blog they have... well, maybe dentists.
"The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
I had to re-read that line twice. I thought they were talking about Microsoft being preferential, narrow, etc, etc... not OpenOffice.
Can someone actually Orwellian-like bend their mind so that 2+2=5 for me, and explain the logic behind that statement where choosing an open standard over a closed-patented-licensed-EULA'd-sign with blood-give up your first born is a bad choice?
Or is this just what I think it is, one of Microsoft's "A Few Good Men" speeches:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very OS that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a keyboard and start writing code. Either way, I don't give a damn what open standards you think you are entitled to."
Well, I do see these middle ground solutions as having a place. Middle ground meaning between destroying the environment and absolutely no environmental impact.
IMHO, nuclear power could be a solution if there were a global grid. For instance, there is no reason for Iran to have a nuclear power plant if there is a US controlled (and heavily guarded) nuclear power plant placed far inside the Iraqi border. (I'm thinking very far into the future with a peaceful, US friendly Iraq.)
This power could be sold to Iran just by running lines to them. I'm sure many could argue that Iran would refuse to be dependant on the US for energy. Heh, that would be the epitomy of irony considering the current oil situation. But, it is a viable solution to at the least keep nuclear power plants in remote, secure, peaceful locations, and run the power out to distribution sites who can pass them on to less friendly countries.
I think a hydrogen combination would be great here. For places that are too remote to run lines (say, because of too much energy loss to resistance), we could run hydrogen gas lines, or truck in hydrogen.
Going to this solution, existing oil pipelines could be utilized, thus replacing a dirty fuel line with a clean one.
I think you're completely correct that hydrogen will be the energy storage/transfer medium for the next millenia (until we figure out how to find dilithum crystals). If someone can combine existing nuclear facilities with hydrogen output capabilities, we can increase its usage without increasing the danger.
Perhaps if Russia puts 20 nuclear plants in Siberia, where a meltdown would only thaw out the ground a bit, the Russians economy/government could grow as a global hydrogen supplier, and finally afford to protect their nuclear stockpiles from terrorists. I'm certainly not against any first/second world country developping a legitimate industry. I don't like how waste is handled. But, if you can at least eliminate 1 of the problems, it certainly could revolutionize how the world is powered.
Hydrogen, by the way, could be produced regardless of the actual energy source. If people could at least get to the nuclear/hydrogen solution, then as we develop cleaner technologies like solar, there is already an infrastructure ready to immediately use all advancements.
I would personally love to have a solar panel on my house that did nothing but fill containers of hydrogen for backup power for my house and/or fuel for a modified vehicle. Technology like that might actually allow people to live "off the grid", and thus, less prone to natural disasters that don't directly affect them. *cough*gas,electricity,Katrina*cough*
Well, besides the fact that we can't build one just yet unless we could perfect carbon columns with infinitely greater precision than our "smart" organizations like NASA... I actually think you are on to something, except that you can reverse that.
I think such elevators will dramatically improve solar energy collection. Imagine building all solar panels on the sides of space elevators, high above any cloud cover or lower atmospheric interference.
We could theoretically even boost that by placing mirrors on the moon, that reflect to collection points at the tops of the elevators. (You wouldn't want to do that with earth based collectors... the mirrors go off by 1 degree, and you incinerate Chicago.)
I agree with some of your points. However, Nuclear Energy is the absolute very least feasible on a global scale. That's all we need to do, is allow every third world country in the world to play around with nuclear material.
The quote fails to mention something. It says how many people the waste could kill. It doesn't mention how many would die if a bomb or meltdown went off, how many generations it would affect, how long the land would remain sterile, etc. It also doesn't mention how many people can be killed if the government of the plants in question use the material to make nuclear warheads. Last I checked, arsenic couldn't kill as many people as a nuclear warhead.
I don't fear nuclear material. I fear nuclear material in the hands of suicide bombers. Maybe chlorine is just as dangerous. That doesn't give any justification to nuclear material, though.
I've heard that argument before on other topics: "Well, sure X can happen to you, but so can Y, so why worry about X?" Either way, you are still left with X.
Besides, nuclear energy is a dead end. It's enough that we destroyed the climate, now we want to irradiate mountains with waste?
I don't have an immediate solution. I wish I did. I think we all wish we did. But, I believe solar energy is the only way to go, whether you are harnessing it from the wind, water, directly, or from fossil fuels, which are a long decended solar power. We have to realize that we have only real reliable power source is the sun. We just have to learn how to harness it better.
We will run out of space to put waste, or run out of raw nuclear material. Sure, it may look like we have plenty. Many thought the same about oil, and now even the oil companies will publically admit that we'll run out fairly soon. If nuclear power provided cheap energy to everyone, then energy usage, like car usage, would skyrocket, and what seemed like so much would become so little.
We have to think at least several hundred years into the future. Short sightedness is the cause of most of our current energy problems. And, we have no choice but to rely on the sun. Should it burn out, I think powering our cities will be the least of our worries.
A smarter man than me had some great ideas about society, economics, energy, etc. http://www.bfi.org/operating_manual.htm I just hope he was also right that man can't sabotage himself faster than he naturally advances.
Burger King also has over 40,000 ways to serve an original Whopper (if you also count asking for either no bun or no burger options [veg]). But, they all come from the same 8 ingrediants: Sesame Seed Bun, Beef Patty, Dill Pickles, Ketchup, Onions, Tomatoes, Lettuce, Mayonnaise.
Unlike Burger King, there is little consumer confusion over what a Whopper is. Just because you don't want pickle doesn't mean it's not a Whopper.
Microsoft is going to learn a tough lesson, but it will be 10 years from now. Software already has long compatability lists: 95, 98, ME, 2000, 2000 pro, XP, XP Pro. Now they want to effectively come out with a single OS with as many varieties as all those since 95 (though I left out a few).
Here's how it will break down. Companies like Dell will start offering different versions depending on how "upscale" the computer is. But, very quickly, people will gravitate towards the beefiest (no pun intended) versions for their use, but it home or office. The corporate environment might go with differing versions just to shave off costs for the lower wage employees' systems.
But, in the end, there will be Home and Business/Full. Gamers will gravitate towards the Full end of the spectrum, and wittle the unnecessary out of their systems. The hard core gamers will not even use the built in game performance optimization. Serious gamers, imho, go through every setting on their system, in the game, on their video card, on their sound card, and on their drivers by hand at least once.
The only thing MS is missing in their selection is MS Zero. MS Zero is not like the "zero" cola out there. It will be a non-OS. Computer companies will continue to pay their mandatory per-CPU license fees, and ship without a real OS. Technically, it will ship with the equivilant of a floppy boot disk OS. It will be capable of formatting hard drives, and nothing else.
Give it a while. MS will dance around any anti-trust aligations about MS even trying to charge for computers without Vista by simply offering Vista selections that take away more and more and more, until you're left with an MS Zero.
IMHO, if this is supposed to be MS's answer to consumer choice, I can already guess the next version of Office. Office Starter with Hotmail-only support, Office Home Beginner with POP3 support, Office Home Advanced with IMAP support, etc. Prices increase by $500 per copy at each step up.
Yeah, I bashed a bit. Then again, compare this to recent announcements by Google and Apple, and MS just looks dumb in this story.
I was so excited to read that! I thought someone had perfected a Star Trek-esk machine to pop off chips for free. I read "Unix hardware" and thought to myself (thinking more linux than unix), "Jesus, I need to find that free-as-in-beer hardware ASAP!"
Even if it was true, the question remains... would you need a WINE chip to run a *Nix CPU with Windows RAM.
Yeah, dumb question, because everyone knows most people would just run a CYGWIN monitor with the optional CYGWIN compiled GNOME mouse/keyboard/webcam. But, rate of conversion to all *Nix hardware would be high, considering the mandatory Teledildonic EULA Anal Invader hardware that would come with Windows Vista 2.0.
Actually, I was referring to the single axis (left vs. right) view of politics. (Obviously there are better multi-axis models, but for the related topic, it's more anecdotal I was going for.)
/. is a place of diverse individuals, and as such, much information on the topic (and links to papers). I'm sure I'll correctly identify a more precise statement of my intended thoughts next time... perhaps "Communal versus Tyranny" or "Hippy versus Yuppy" (though, I'm sure I'd get into muddy water with the "Yippy's").
Of course, if you look at political theory versus practice, there aren't much differences. Communism and Naziism is dominated by a dictator-like rule by violence system. Single axis models stick out in my mind, though, simply because the only true definition of personal politics is an axis for every single issue. All other models fail to properly define, imho. For instance, a pro-choice Republican.
In my mind, theoretical communism is the epitomy of democracy. Rule of the people, for the people, by the people, with the welfare of the people in mind. Naziism, in theory and practice, is dictatorship, with national interests over personal interests. In practive, communism has yet to live up to its ideals, and naziism (as a socialist movement) never lived up to its ideals. I could be wrong, but it is with that frame of mind that I added that last comment.
But,
Now, if your PS is asking if I think Gates is Hitler, absolutely not. Everyone knows Gates can't grown any facial hair.
I agree 100%. And, you also have to understand MS mentality here. They see each individual user as a flower of creativity. Ok, that's BS, they don't see that at all.
What they fail to understand is that *shocker* governments should use a unified format for very specific reasons. Anyone from any branch can read any document from any other branch of the government. And, such format should be 100% open, so that should a future format come along that they want to change to, they can write up their own free utility to automatically update all documents.
Wow, that mean that governments can actually move away from the days when every department used its own forms/formats, and paper copies had to be made of everything because every system was proprietary, so the only way to transfer information was to print it out, hand it over, and re-type it in.
That would sound amazing if it had said it in 1995. Its about time that governments stepped up to the plate. Such changes are long overdue.
And, they obviously can't choose a patented/DMCA locked format by MS, which is what MS wants. With the MS Office suite looking to use DMCA to lock out their documents from open source solutions, governments will have high barrior costs to ask MS permission to unlock their documents for them.
MS on the other hand sees such as a way to lock in customers, and exact ultra-high fees to unlock the documents. Anything less, and MS will tell you you're a Commie bastard who's not open to "freedom of choice".
I think it's a given that we all know what MS's definition of "choice" is. Choice is only that which chooses (or by default) to use MS products. Everything else is obviously not choice, because it slaps MS's hand away from your wallet.
By the way, the political opposite of communism, is naziism. I think I'd MUCH rather be called a Commie.
"If paypal believed my friend did something wrong, why not tell him, and ask for a response? Why keep everything secret, and keep the account frozen??"
Maybe the government runs a "No Paypal" list, and your friend's name was similar to a guy who's the friend of a guy who's the second cousin once removed from a man in Eqypt who's wife babysat for Bin Laden's sister-in-law's baby.
On a serious note, is it just me, or is this "Ask all you want, but we won't tell" mentality spreading like a cancer. Everyone figures, well, if you can't do anything to us, why should we even attempt to be curtious.
That's why I like dealing with banks I can actually walk into. People have a much harder time ignoring you face to face. That, and you can be very, very vocal when other customers are there.
I don't use PayPal, though I keep an account around for the occasional transfer that I can't do any other way. It's easier than Western Union to send small amounts like $5 to a friend. Other than that, PayPal is worthless for any large sums or for business purposes, imho. If you are a business, go through a real payment processing service (who does real fraud protection, and gives you control to flag bad sales as well, along with other tools like recurring billing).
Your smart mario has sunshine. God chips fights evil Gates reality.
Sony fandom is a lie, "PLAY CUBIC".
But, that doesn't disprove the existance of gravity, it just changes the definition of what exactly gravity is. Newton had a theory of what it was. Einstein changed it. That's science.
The same can be said of light, what it is, how fast it moves, etc. But the existance of light is not in question. Einstein changed all that, but he did not dispute the existance of light, because the existance of something is either positive (postulate) or negative. Evidence is only forthcoming depending on the limitations and advancement of the observer. Science does not create anything, but only discovers. That which is not discovered cannot immediately be thrown out as false, but only dismissed when some other postulate is discovered that emphatically disproves it.
Put simply, science is a giant game of minesweeper. The uncovered squares are the unknown, the numbers are the theories, and the flags are the postulates. Each square represents something we know definitely to be true or something we know definitely to be false. ID lies well within the area of uncovered squares.
The current uncovered squares, numbers, and flags cannot disprove it, but the patterns are interpreted differently as to the possibility that it is out there. Some say the pattern of our knowledge lends that it must exist, others that it cannot exist. Others still, like myself, believe it can exist with a probability higher than average that it does, but acknowledging that this "reading the tea leaves" proves nothing.
If anyone is reading any of my posts for answers or evidence of such existance, they won't find it. But, can I make the case for it not to be thrown out completely, I would think that would be obvious. Science is not wishy-washy like religion. Either something is, or isn't, or there is a definate rule that explains when it is or isn't, or a probability of is or isn't. Science can neither quantify the is or the isn't of ID, nor even its probability because of how it lies so far outside observation limitations.
At least Santa Claus can scientifically be disproven simply by watching the Christmas tree and seeing if a fat man in a red suit magically appears to drop off presents. This, of course, is how most children learn to disprove a theory in their first real experiment by waiting up. ID does not prove so easy to dismiss.
I never said gravity wasn't falsifiable. I said its mere existance was not theory, and that it is a postulate, meaning that it is taken for granted to exist. I've stated that it cannot be disproved, as it has been proven (not necessarily in all cases, but instead for locals on the surface of the earth and you standing on it, certainly). I was describing postulates, not falsifiability. My example of the Sun was an argument that falsifiability had nothing to do with truth. So, if you wish to promote whatever view you have, disprove the Sun. You'll most likely come up with the same scenario (or one like it) that I did. And still prove that falsifiability is a limitation of the observer, and not a measure of truth... except in the sense of the saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder".
/., and I don't draft and re-write just to post here. It's just train of thought. But you're no debate professor considering all of your own fallacies, so I'll take your "grade" with a shovel full of salt, tyvm.
You at one time argue against ID (correct me if I'm wrong but this is the impression I get), then at the same time go on to tell me how I'm defining ID wrong? Intelligent design is based on the creation of the world and/or universe depending on who you talk to and how far they press the issue. More specifically, it deals with the creation of living organisms. If you had actually read any of my writings on the topic about the possibly inevitability of ID, the two may be one and the same. Our possible future may be the ID of another species, or it could possibly impact our own past.
I'm sure you could argue that you can't change the past, but that argument also concludes that you can't really change the future either. Whether time is interchangeable/traversable in different directions is currently being contested among the scientific camps.
You would fail debate based on your own arguments. You imposed the false view upon me that I was arguing against the falsifiability of gravity, then proceeded to argue that view, and not the actual view I hold. That's the Straw Man fallacy. Not to mention you also had fallacies of Argumentum ad hominem, by attacking me, not the idea. And, btw, this is very far off topic. Even if you disprove a indirectly related item, this disproves my entire argument?
You'd make a good presidential debate candidate probably. They love using such fallacies. I, btw, fully accept that I'm also full of my own fallacies. Then again, I'm not writing my ideas into a scientific journal. It's
Some advise, don't personally attack someone of stealing the cookies at the same time your hand is in the cookie jar. It makes you look uneducated by looking hypocritical, unable to deal with the topic at hand, and lacking in any useful input. The AC name doesn't help much either. I'm just wondering when you will break down and start criticizing my spelling.
It's not that I don't like good debate. I love a good debate... with someone willing to have a real debate and a good knowledge of in the opposing view they hold. Such debate results in the education of all sides. This debate is resulting in arguing the rules of debate, aka "going nowhere fast".
'Science has deemed the question of "God" as "useless"'
I've heard those things. And while I certainly understand that point of view, I would go back to my own theory. I like the logic to science, but science isnt' a crystal ball either. It's explaining things we already know of, but don't understand.
I rather take the point of view of a diety in the perspective of this: Can a god exist? If so, "must" a god exist?
I think the answer to both is yes, but that's not based on very scientific measures. I think a god can exist, simply because our definition of a god is not an unachievable goal. God's of history don't really rule the universe, as they rule human perception of the universe. I think anyone can realize that with sufficient technology, you could shroud and control a planet. We're far from anything like that, but it is feasible.
The second answer I think comes from a power struggle that can and most likely does exist (not a scientific theory, just my perception). In that, if there is more than one intelligence in the universe, one will evolve faster than the other (evolve in the sense of knowledge and technology). This intelligence, as a single "hive mind" or as a top leader of the intelligence could certainly be a god over the other intelligence.
If there is only one intelligence in the universe, namely us, then we will eventually evolve to the same point. However, at that point, we could create lower intelligences like ourselves to rule over. For all we know, we're a live game of the Sims for a more advanced human race. Maybe that race is trying to correct the problems of their past in us, or they are reconstructing their own history to view if a small change here and there could have changed their own evolution.
Maybe there is no race like that, but that the first ones to achieve that level of superiority over our universe will be us.
Then again, maybe the apocolyptic nightmares of the movies will be realized with AI that will be as powerful as a god.
In any case, being "a god" is not only achievable, but is also a possible logical outcome of evolution. That said, could such an intelligence time travel, and "start over" with the universe?
Only such an intelligence would know the answer. But, our past could be our future if we are the ones to evolve to that level, thinking in those terms.
This doesn't explain if there was a god that actually created this universe, but then again, who is to say if a universe can exist inside another universe, a mini-verse.
These are questions far outside the limits of current science, and are only touched upon by those on the outter edge of theory. They certainly dabble in the philosophical with their theories.
Either way, my own beliefs about what could be certainly prove nothing. But, in my mind, if I could come up with that possibility, there are certainly other routes to the "creation/existance of a god". As such, I think that ruling out ID from discussions (scientific or otherwise) closes too many feasible outcomes to too many questions.
ID is about being open minded to the future, not close minded about our past. The past concerns me far less than the future, assuming they are not one and the same.
But, I will just say that I'm not really contesting ID is not science, in that no experimentation has really been done (to anyone's satisfaction, at least).
Do I think ID should be taught in a science class. Absolutely not! Such initiatives are religion in disguise. If I choose to teach my child religious beliefs, I don't want some teacher imposing their differing beliefs. (To ID supporters, they believe evolution is the differing belief, but I'll not go there.)
What I would say is that science is the pursuit of truth through repeatable/provable methods, as a layman's definition. However, my point of view is that something like ID can fully well be true, even if science doesn't even know how to answer such a question. Science is limited to the abilities of the scientists. It is my assumption that it would take total knowledge of the universe to discover beyond all recourse, that ID happened, is happening, will happen, or is even possible.
Then again, I believe there is a theory to the effect that if you could know the position and direction of all matter simultaneously, then you could know its entire past as well as its future. Unfortunately, we are limited to never knowing both position and direction.
I'm not an ID in schools advocate. Quite the opposite. However, in my mind, there is so much "religious nuts vs. godless whores" (to use the image each puts on the other) labelling. I don't believe any thoughtful resolution will come of this issue as long as that is the case. The same holds true for abortion, gay marriage, etc. etc.
I have always believed in one thing. I have my views. They are mine. They aren't to be imposed on others, but neither are theirs to be imposed on me. In a perfect world, that would work. It doesn't always, but I can at least not impose my personal views on the school boards of my local districts. However, I would find it acceptable to speak up when opposing views are trying to be imposed.
Evolution, by the way, is a major stepping stone for any student, as is all genetics. There are people that go off to college not even knowing the "eye color" chart of determining the eye color of kids depending on the genetic makeup of their parents. I thought that was something basic that everyone knew. Unfortunately, such information is left out at many religious schools that shun anything hinting of genetic change over generations.
It's like someone leaving out the Pythagorean theorem just because there was a cult of Pythagoras.
Schools don't teach it, but my parents did. It's called the Golden Rule, otherwise known as manners. I am not a binary machine of 0 or 1 answers. You sound like one. If I mention love, will you start smoking like in a B Sci-Fi movie and yell "Does not compute, does not compute!"
But, ok, if you want to go down the road of falsibility, we'll start again.
Disprove the existence of gravity. Gravity isn't a theory. What gravity is, what causes it, and what all of the effects it has are theories. Whether the earth attracts you to it, or you attract the earth to you, whether dark matter plays a role, and what role gravity plays in a macrovision of the univers, are all interesting questions. But its existence is not theory. Just as the sun's existance is not a theory, what is in its core could constitute many theories.
School? I suggest you come down from the ISS and walk around on terra firma. Gravity is very real, my friend. Or did you skip that class? You obviously took a class in the pitfalls of advertising claims, but that can hardly be applied to science.
"That is in fact exactly what it means. If it isn't falsifible, it can not be a theory. If it can not be a theory, there is no way to test it. If it can not be tested, no proof can be provided. If no proof can be provided, it can never be true."
"Circular logic. If it isn't proven, it isn't proof."
Take math before venturing off into science, you will be greatly rewarded.
You forget that there are assumed proofs, called postulates. But, that's in Geometry, a class I surely didn't miss. The proof you are talking about is one originating from a theorem. I am referring to the scientific equivalent of postulates. Those things we can directly observe are normally assumed to exist, though what they may consist of are up to interpretation.
You may be thinking more of the falsification of unproven "miracles". Those things which occur once, and are not reproducable, and are limitted to first person observations with no permanent record of measurement. In there you would find your faith, and such stories as those in the Bible.
But again, ID "might be" one such postulate, one that we simply haven't observed yet. It may even be falsifiable, though I'm assuming that it is not for the sake of argument. However, falsifiability is a limitation of the observer, not the thing in question.
US schools need to start teaching that just because you can't see the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, it is there, even if you will never falsify or prove the idea yourself. Remember that all of your teaching is based on "faith" that your teachers know at least some truth. Otherwise, you are left to rediscover everything for yourself.
I suspect you skipped philosophy and "truth". Until you realize your actual limitations as an observer are, and the assumptions you hold with you, you can never really know what you can prove or falsify.
You would then realise that something cannot be disproved to exist if it does exist, nor can anything outside the limitations of the observer be disproved to exist whether it does or not. And thus, falsifiability of the question does not answer it. It simply reveals the limitations of the observer.
Back to the example of the sun. Men living their entire lives in caves could not prove or disprove the existance of the sun. It is the limitations of the observer to prove or disprove their hypothesis. As able observers, we can clearly see that the existance of the sun as a postulate. We can measure the distance from the sun as an equation theory.
Take any person who's seen the sun, and lock them down in that cave with those who have never seen it. Those in the cave simply claim lack of proof and falsibility of the sun, and call the person a nutjob.
Still, the sun continues to shine outside their cave. Scientifically, man is still in the cave and is starting to peak his head out. Eliminating any possibilities of what lies outside is jus
"it's whether ID is falsifiable or not that's important. Which, AFAICT, it isn't, so it's still not science."
That, however, does not mean it isn't true. For instance, gravity isn't really "falsifiable" in that it is taken for granted because it affects us all. Anyone trying to disprove that there is not an attraction force between an object near earth and the earth itself would be laughed out of any scientific discussion.
If something is not falsifiable, it's called a proof. Falsifiable describes a theory. If ID isn't falsifiable, it could still be a proof that nobody has proven yet.
Science is about eliminating all possibilities until one remains that isn't falsifiable, which becomes the proof. If science can eliminate every explination except ID... IANAS, but logic seems to dictate that it would then be a proof.
This, of course, will be the last answer science will ever provide us. The origin and outcome of this universe will require complete knowledge of all things in the universe. Until that day arrives, and we find ourselves of matching intelligence of that which could have initiated ID, we are just shooting in the dark. Ironically, if that day does arrive, we could find that we've answered our own question by becoming a universe shaping intelligence ourselves.
Thus, ID may not be an explination of our past, but a prediction of our future.
"Good luck getting buy-in from 100% of drivers. Not during my lifetime."
I'm more of the opinion that cars carrying people will become extinct in my lifetime (say, in the next 50 years), except for goods transportation. Mass transit and/or taxi services will move those who absolutely have to move (say, for going to an airport).
There will come a time when the technology breaches a threshold whereby we will leave our homes virtually. Either we will visit friends and family daily through VR, we will telecommute to work more, including many manual laborers. Unless we construct a true AI, many jobs in factories and retail may be replaced by robots. However, it is my opinion that with ultra-high-bandwidth wireless, it will be humans behind the controls of the robots, not a computer. Surgeons are already demonstrating this capability.
The day will come when there will be truly no reason to physically leave home. We will be leaving virtually (VR) and metaphysically (telerobotics). Those long haul trucks may become fatality free. A combination of smart cars and telerobotic drivers sitting in a main office will remove the human from having to endure 10 hour drives and cheap greasy spoons (restaurants).
This will truly open up the world to globalization. Not only could someone in China do your job, they could do it in the same factory you are now. But, the opposite holds true as well. No longer will you be restricted to jobs in your area, but any job, anywhere. I think that such will be a positive, not negative, force on the world economy. It will accelerate equal wages among all workers, as changing jobs will be as easy as typing a different URL.
The car will remain only as a luxury item, not a necessary one. I would expect a rise in the ownership of motorcycles in that possible future. Its cheaper and more of an "enjoyable transportation" than your average car if your object if purely for fun.
" Obviously the traffic is due to Numa Numa, the starwars kid and All Your Base. Doesn't he know anything?!"
Actually, I was wondering how sites like Slashdot and iFilm.com have affected this. Beyond P2P, you also have online flash-mob type activities, which would include these.
For instance, 100,000 people watching streams of John Steward call Tucker Carlson a you-know-what on Crossfire undoubtedly had an impact (not even considering multiple views). I'm sure these numbers are nowhere, by themselves, even remotely close to someone downloading the entire Rocky movie collection. However, aggregately, the affect could be larger than a lot of the less popular P2P networks.
Slashdotting alone can give average sites heart attacks, but also fuel fast recognition and profit. When those files are linked torrents and hosted movie clips, I think saying that memes hold great sway over online activity is pointed. Memes would them act like the moon, pulling the giant tide of downloaders around with it.
On the other hand, I would guess that the number one bandwidth uses online are for downloading porn and playing games. Sex and Violence is meme king of all memes, imo.
Well, I'm going to opt to mod myself down a bit on that one. Always a good idea to RTFA before posting, heh. Apparently these pins are for ATMs, and thus, pretty much makes (most of) my above post irrelevant.
I was thinking of the security pin located on the back of most credit cards.
In this case, then, I'm in full agreement with the parent of my original post, though this is something that should be fixed... possibly through online pin activation:
Mail someone a temporary pin they have to enter online to get a one time view of the real pin. After the first view, no other views allowed. Thus, you really wouldn't even need that much initial security in the mailing, as no two people could view the pin, and if a second view was attempted, the issuer could be alerted to potential fraud.
Don't you see? See, we all know that the programmers at Google know exactly what digital data belongs to who, regardless of who actually is displaying it. I mean, Google made a javascript map... thingy... and you could clicky it and it moved, so obviously they must know everything right?
Ahhhhhhhhh! *removes the "think-like-your-adversary" helmet*
Hmmm, think a jury would buy it?
"slow process that forces them to be in the geographic neighborhood of their victims."
This is very true. But lets not forget one of the oldest scams in the book. Ship bogus credit card products to an abandoned location with instructions to leave at the door. Only, with this, you could ship products to your neighbor's house (when you know they won't be there) with that neighbor's credit card and proper pin.
Because the number, pin, and address were all to the same person, it makes it much harder on the card holder to prove fraud. After all, the theif could even be standing on the porch to forge the signature to the UPS guy. The theif would have to have a set of brass balls to pull this off, but old targets are in many cases still the easiest targets. Most home mailboxes aren't locked.
Video of the event
It's a hypothetical statement to make a point, though it is also a statement about a payment option I may opt for in the future if the MPAA continues on their current path. Or, did you not read "almost". Nor did you make the connection, probably obvious to everyone else, about how movie/library records can be used in criminal investigations, and a CC receipt would give your name, whereas cash wouldn't.
Ever since they made it a federal crime to video tape in theaters, how long before the MPAA starts pushing for a database of movie goers to connect to the IP numbers (and subpoena'd names) they see in P2P programs. They won't sue anymore. If you are caught sharing the same movie you went to go see, well, then, you had to have been the video taper, and thus, you'll go to federal prison. But, why stop there, if you support P2P and don't download movies, I'm sure they can get the Piracy Czar on your ass anyways.
I don't have a credit card, I have a debit card, which can act as a credit card. Last movie I saw at the theater was Batman Begins. The last DVD I saw was A Walk to Remember (not by choice). The next movie I plan on seeing on DVD is Constantine. My sign is Gemini, and I like long walks on the beach. You asking me out, or you trolling me?
Public face on Slashdot? This is my public face everywhere on the Internet. I am the Ikioi. This is the same me that is on my personal site I8-D. This is also me, and this, and this, and this. Your slashdot face is the top result on a search for your name, and you have no real info in your profile.
Let me guess, because you have a low UID and I have a high UID you thought that'd I'd make a good newb target to troll on. Sorry to disappoint you, but my online presence, and recent mod history, is better than your's pal. Try trolling the 900,000's.