some online games make your ability to play competitively a question of how much time and money you've invested in a game, rather than the skill you possess.
I get the "money" part (if he means the purchase of game features), but the "time" part is silly. You get skill by investing time. Skill is the payout for a time investment, and time is often the payout for a money investment. It's different if you can buy game components with real money, but if you buy play time... how is that different than the guy who put in $347 worth of quarters and 4120 hours to get the top score on Space Invaders at an arcade in 198x?
Not really... try to imagine a jungle or other wild forest habitat/village with the same amount of attention-grabbing distraction as Manhattan; that would be truly bizzare. That is, unless you just mean out in the middle of the wild; but that would be a silly and unreasonable comparison. We could make up all sorts of fantastical scenarios about !!!X-TREME ATTENTION-GRABBING SETTINGS!!! (Next on Fox!) in which a human *might* find himself, but the point of the article is that an urban setting *in which people may commonly be found* is more distracting and energy intensive than a natural setting *in which people may commonly be found*. It's not like jungle dwellers (villages, etc.) fight off 3.9 tigers per hour or swat at 120344 deadly insects per day, though it's probably more intensive than a hike through Yellowstone.
That might be the case in a particularly harsh jungle setting, but it's hardly to be counted normative for the considerations of this article, just as it would be to say cities are more focus-intensive because there are more terrorist attacks in cities.
yeah, that extra 1.5" is an unbearable distance to reach..
Hold on. Take a step back and look at the big picture:
Doing some basic, preliminary research while reading the article (and extrapolating the data), I've found that I use the escape key an average of 2983742 times per day. Now, that inch-and-a-half may not seem like much, but do some conversion: that's around seventy extra miles I'm moving my arm per day. Now, I'm an above average escapist, so I figure that if I'm moving my arm an extra 70 miles, the average user is probably moving only about 68 miles per day. I'm not an expert, but from what I gather from 60 Minutes, I'm probably burning calories equivalent to those I would take in consuming an entire cow. We know that forfty percent of cows are fed on the burning corpses of amazon rainforest trees. I saw a movie once (starring Sean Connery and someone else) in which they found the cure for cancer in the Amazon! And think of all the heat emitted from those trees, coupled with the MEGAJOULES of energy being emitted in the form of heat from the burning of the cows (for food) each day, per person. Now, INSFBCL (I'm Not Some Fancy Big City Lawyer), but you don't have to be teh inventor of the intarweb to know that that much heat escaping into the atmosphere is at least quintupling the effects of Global Warning every year.
Move the escape key to the caps-lock slot? Is there really any question? Is there really any choice?
Think of the children. And their melty ice-cream cones.
First of all, there are two categories here interacting to produce elements of a third category (as the idea is being structured):
Home-school kids vs. Public(/Private?)-school kids
Religious vs. Nonreligious upbringing.
These two are mixing to produce the category of behavior we're interested in:
Socially well-adjusted vs. Socially ill-adjusted
I went to public schools my whole life (except for one year in a private school in 6th grade). In college and after, I have known several dozen people (between my age -- now 29 -- and younger -- 21-ish) who were home-schooled. Some of them were Christians, some were not. There were plenty of ill-adjusted homeschool people of both the religious and non-religious variety, and plenty of ill-adjusted people of the home-schooled and public-schooled varieties.
There are two types of disconnect among these groups that are being perceived as identical but are not. On the one hand, there is a social ill-adjustment by which a person is unable to interface with others in social situations due to a lack of exposure and a lack of instruction about social graces. On the other hand, there is a social disjunct arising from a desire to be separate from certain behaviours or experiences viewed as undesireable (profanity, pornography, lude speech, self-righteousness, judgementalness, prudishness, or whatever else they may perceive to be objectionable). In this latter case, the disjunct is often complementary; that is, those who would like to distance themselves from lude speech, for example, may not interact freely around those who use such speech, whereas those who do speak in a way they consider lude may not interact freely around those they consider prudish. In such cases, each tends to perceive the difficulty as coming from the other exclusively.
This is categorically different than the former sort of difficulty, in which there is no reason for the separation -- that is, it is not by choice on any level -- but it is for reason of inability.
Having said this, the cause of the former sort of person -- people who are unable to interact socially -- is parents who do not know how to socialize their kids or instruct them in social matters. There are lots of people who homeschool who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children, and there are lots of people who farm schooling out to the state who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children. There are lots of Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct there children, and there are lots of non-Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children.
The other difficulty is one of choice. It stems from Christians not wanting to be certain behaviors (whether from weakness or strength or whatever), as well as from non-Christians not wanting to be around certain behaviours (whether from weakness or strength or whatever). It stems from Christians not wanting to accomodate people (Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors, and non-Christians not wanting to accomodate people (non-Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors. Some parents -- Chrisitan and non-Christian -- pass on these preferences to their children, often passively, but sometimes actively.
The "loony" behavior to which you have alluded is the latter sort -- choosing things you consider ridiculous to choose (I know you do because you ridicule them by calling them "loony"). Going far down any branch of choice makes the decisions of those on other branches seem ever more peculiar (and I'm not one who is for "moderation at all costs" -- it seems to me we should do something all the way if it's worth it to us). I have a relative who always talks about "those damn Republicans" in such a manner as that he sounds as though he believes they are these impish wretches rubbing their hands together and plotting how best to destroy other people. I have a friend who seem
During his reign, Peter the Great of Russia taxed:
beards
souls
hats
boots
beehives
basements
chimneys
food
clothing
birth
marriage
burial
For more "fun" tax trivia (did you know the Brits were the first to tax income (1400s), depending on how you look at religious governments earlier, but it was the Romans who first came up with the clever "Urine tax" (A.D. 1)), look for "tax trivia" on the web =)
My point is specifically that there is some data that doesn't need to be secured. Who cares if someone breaks in and steals access to my science homework? It's not that valuable. When I'm doing genuine original research, then I'll pay enough money to secure it on a local machine. But when I'm doing the lab experiment on page 194 of the standard workbook for this semester's textbook, who cares? In the worst case scenario, a cheater breaks in and uses my data for his grade. To protect against that, having a password-protected account on a server is sufficient to protect me from charges of dishonesty.
So what, then? Is it the little league schedule that you want to generate then print and distribute on paper? Uh-oh! Someone might find out when the Fighting Pandas are playing the Twirling Tweeties -- before the release date!
Which grocery store is less expensive? CRAP! Now my $75/month advantage over my neighbors is shot! Dang, and I was hoping to be the lucky winner of natural selection on this one, and pass on my genes more frequently based on my superior shopping abilities.
How in the world does "homework and little league schedules" get interpreted "business documents and credit card (personal) info?" Question -- is there any data that doesn't need to be secured? Should I secure my name? I guess I should encrypt my business card, so that I can distribute it freely, but only people with the secret decoder ring can figure out what it says. Also, I should protect my business's phone number and web URL. It would be TERRIBLE if someone found out what those were without my explicit invitation.
I understand what you mean, but this is precisely what is laudable about this service. I just finished a degree that took me 10 years -- during which I lived as a poor college bum. I am very much in favor of a service like this that students can use for free, legally from any computer lab, for any physics/chemistry/etc. experiments. I personally don't care if my homework is moderately secure or heavily secure. I know lots of students who don't use spreadsheets when they could and should, preferring a word processor to arrange data they calculated manually.
The point? It is one thing to create a product designed to fill the need of the main market. It's another thing to be just a little off-center such that you are a force causing the expansion of the market. If more college students start using this for their data, then the user-base of the "spreadsheet technology" increases. I don't care about this from a business standpoint, particularly, but I do care that more people will be using tools more appropriate to their tasks, and everything will improve by a degree each time that happens.
Students aren't the only group who ought to be using spreadsheets but aren't, either. Little League scheduling, minor family finance ("Which grocery store is more economical? Let's record our receipts for a month from each and find out"), and many, many others.
Not to pick nits, but... here's a nit I'll pick (just a "pet peeve").
"Begging the question" doesn't mean "begs for the question to be asked." It's a fallacy in reasoning that means something like "assuming that which is to be proved in a premise from which the proof is derived." It can be more loosely used to mean "avoiding answering a question by a very verbose non-answer." There's a pretty good write-up in the wikipedia that can be found here.
Why is it called begging then? From the article:
The term was translated into English from the Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii (petitio: petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument), literally means "a request for the beginning or premise." That is, the premise depends on the truth of the very matter in question.
The parent post correctly points out that often there is not enough context to provide cues to allow the recipient to decode all the information the sender intended to convey.
There are something like four main channels we use to communicate when speaking with another in person:
Diction (This is the words we use.)
Intonation (This is a 'hyper-verbal' channel. We raise our tones at the end of a sentence to indicate interrogation, etc.)
Gesticulation (Use of 'body language' to provide cues as to how to interpret things spoken. Examples: Raising one eyebrow to indicate irony.)
Tempo (This is the rate at which we speak certain words or phrases.)
There are other more subtle channels, and some of these channels are the interplay of two channels (intent to be humorous, for example, can be indicated by offering conflicting information on different channels, or on the same channel at different times). The primary channel is Diction: verbal language is a model of rational thought. This is not the case for the media of the other channels; they are not models of rational thought, but are accompanying channels designed to offer logical content regarding the interpretation of the model.
Because the content of these channels is logical in nature, they can be rendered within the model -- that is, they can be rendered verbally. The information conveyed in these other channels is designed eliminate interpretational ambiguity. Thus, if one is skillful at this rendering, ambiguity can be largely eliminated in typewritten communication, at the minor cost of brevity. The less skill the sender posesses, the less the ambiguities are eliminated and the more major the cost to brevity. This is sometimes (but not always) the reason for the rambling nature of e-mails in any type of communication.
P.S. Note that in sentence two above, I did not offer supplimental verbal text to offer interpretation. That is because without context, it should be read in an even "tone," none of the words being emphasized. The other interpretations are the result of the assumption that the statement is in contrast to some other (often implicit) statement.
I represented him on appeal, and argued that reporting on security flaws doesn't impair the integrity of computer systems.
I'm inclined to agree with the defense here, but I can see how the opposite view could be taken if one were using a different set of considerations when determining "security."
That is, I would argue that if, in any system, there exist conditions that would allow someone to achieve undesireable effects, then that system is inherently insecure. Whether or not there is anyone who knows how to do it, or even know that the hole exists, the system is insecure -- because the existence of such an informed user is accidental to the system itself.
On the other hand, a more simple view might place the question of security entirely in human will: If there is such a system, and everyone knows how it could be exploited, but no one would dare do so, then the system could be said to be secure inasmuch as the chances of actual exploitation are very small. This line of reckoning is both reckless and foolish, but not necessarily unreasoned.
If a system has a weakness , but no one has heard about it , is the system secure? If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
I know what you mean -- and I don't disagree. I'm just saying that it is something that has a certain likelihood of success in reducing stresses, but there's a much better solution (extreme stress reduction at almost no cost).
Such a thing may allow people more time to allow stress levels to subside, but there's a greater problem. One major reason I have little stress is that I enjoy what I do. Another reason is that I am aware that circumstances are not coersive. That is, just the awareness of this issue diminishes the need for "let-down" time. Things don't build up because there's nothing to build up. It's just something that happened, and I'll have to move on and deal with it.
The solution isn't to mandate anything (if individual companies would like to increase days off of their own volition... that sounds like a good idea). It is to bring about in the culture less of a sense that things necessarily induce stresses. This is a specifically non-legislative issue... partially because the tendency to increase legislation about such matters is tending to exacerbate the problem (in America, people seem to think that legislation will fix things... and when it doesn't, they worry more).
I'm just making a cautionary statement, really... and offering a "self improvement" tidbit in case it is helpful to anyone.
I've tended to work quite a bit over the past 10 years (even during two non-consecutive years working regular 60- to 70-hour work weeks without missing any days). I am almost never ill -- I've had one or two colds, and I got a very mild case of the flu about five years ago.
I agree that the stress of it all is taking a toll, but it's not the long hours, nor the unpaid overtime, nor the paucity of holidays -- it's the stress. The stress, anxiety, and depression are causing unnecessary strain on our bodies and minds and fostering the root causes of illness (not causing illnesses themselves, but creating conditions of susceptibility).
Studies (see excerpt from an abstract below) have shown such trends as well:
A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN environmental stressors and illness has been indicated in numerous studies. Stress has been found to be positively related to the severity of chronic illness, and several studies have indicated that decreased immune system functioning is involved ( Borysenko, 1984; Hinkle, 1974; Holmes & Masuda, 1974; Leigh, 1982; Rabkin & Struening, 1976; Schwartz, 1984). Shortterm stress has also been implicated in reports of more immediate physical complaints ( DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Hicks & Garcia, 1987; Rahe, 1974). Other studies have found that physical fitness and social support moderate the relationship between stress and illness, whereas negative affect serves as a mediator for illness ( Brown, 1991; Jorgensen & Richards, 1989; Watson, 1988; Wohlgemuth & Betz, 1991).
Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Physical Illness in College Students
HARVE E. RAWSON KIMBERLY BLOOMER AMANDA KENDALL Department of Psychology Hanover College
The problem isn't the long hours, nor the work schedule. It's definitely not the "burden of health care falling on individuals" (I, for one, am very glad it falls to us -- even though, by the way, I currently do not have health insurance because it is too expensive... but I don't want public health care to cover me for a wide variety of practical and principled reasons).
No, the problem is stress. Psychological stress, emotional stress,... these require both a stimulus and a permission: when something happens "I'm getting laid off from work next week" there is an impetus to become stressed (a strain on the emotions or mind). But these are also a choice. With practice and with grace, one can choose not to worry, but to anticipate the future without worry.
The thing is, we have far fewer things to worry about than most people in the world (take Chad or N. Korea for examples of extremes, or just India for a middle-of-the-road example). Reducing causes of stress never reduces causes of stress -- people will just get stressed about smaller and smaller things unless the root is taken care of. As a post above pointed out, Japan has a similar work schedule and similar health care, but not the similar issues with health.
I disagree... I think the ends do not justify the means. I'm one such person who has bills to pay while waiting for absurd things to work themselves out (I work in an IT industry too, and have felt 'the pinch'), but relief of inconvenience is a terrible reason for doing something detrimental. The basic idea of it would be to choose pleasure over health -- a choice all too frequently made -- instead of health over pleasure (the wise choice, when a choice must be made).
The most obvious application of this to me is the video-phone. Interestingly, this could be the culmination of a pretty long technological road for this concept. According to my mother, her father (long dead now) was an inventor/tinkerer who especially liked photographic technologies. Once, he took her on a "field trip" in the 1950s to AT&T's laboratory in Houston (where they lived). There, she saw an early attempt at the video phone that is more closely related to the web-cam two-way set ups of today than the Star Trek-style video communication of sci-fi. I can easily imagine a future version that is coupled with a dedicated processor intended to hang freely on a wall to be used as a telephone (with, say, video display options, or whatever).
I would very much like to see this kind of technology perfected (so to speak). I'm interested in how this will relate to phone-tapping laws, etc. Also, I wonder if a "passive" reception would be integrated at some point into this kind of display, and what that might mean for surveillance.
First, regarding the H1B visa and the spending of money earned in the US in poorer countries, I agree that this is the case. More power to him. Reasonable lawmaking would allow for such a thing to occur -- for all people en-route to citizenship in the US, with a time-based cap on how long he can work here (say, 10 years or something). There's no good reason (ok, possibly a rare exception that should be able to be handled in a "rare exception discretion" clause) for someone to work here for more than 10 years without seeking citizenship (I hear the citizenship process can sometimes take more than 10 years, and the average is 7 (I believe?). Perhaps with proper documentation this can be extended to 15 years). Of course, the numbers are all unimportant here, the principles behind them are what is important. If he is here on a work visa and has not achieved citizenship after X years (a reasonable number) then deport him.
Of course, as you correctly pointed out, this isn't the same as 'outsourcing' jobs elsewhere. As far as that goes, I should start with the disclaimer that I do not mean that they do it because it is actually economically advantageous, but because the decision-makers have the perception that it is so. (I expect this to be a standard disclaimer for everyone about statements involving decision making. It just points to the natural and obvious breaks between reality, perception, and cognition when we make decisions.) Your company, if they have done something (economically) stupid in "outsourcing" will eventually suffer one or more of a few fates (barring foolish legislative influence):
They will realize it was not cost effective and cease to 'outsource' labor.
They will realize it was not cost effective and find a cost-effective means of doing it.
They will 'downsize' after having 'outsourced' foolishly until they are just some piddly company that holds their own and is not any kind of real power in its industry.
They will be overcome by a less foolish competitor.
They will collapse.
They will move their entire operation to the overseas location and cease to be a US company.
... some other such thing...
And all of those are appropriate to the decisions of a company making such decisions. If your company is making foolish decisions to spend twice as much on 'overseas outsourcing' then let them learn from it. If not, then let them get better management or fall. Maybe an economist or mathematician as consultant or something If you see the weakness in their model, quit and start your own business and be their downfall (or whatever). I stand behind my original point about "outsourcing"... legislation is not the solution, patience is. It ought not to be expected for the so-called "market forces" to reach equalibrium quickly. Sometimes it takes a few years, or decades, or longer. As long as civil liberties are preserved (and not handed over to government for 'protection' because of short-sightedness), it will work itself out. Assume all the appropriate disclaimers about continued volitility of markets due to innovation and crud.
I would solve this by making companies show that there are NO Americans at all who can do the job before getting an H1B. Also, I would love to see companies that are shipping jobs away boycotted.
Legislating it is an atrocious idea. The reason the companies hire out elsewhere is because it is economically advantageous. The solution to this isn't to tell the companies "don't act according to reason when presented with data; act against reason." The solution is to correct the conditions that are causing it to be more beneficial to hire out elsewhere (if that is a desired end... I don't care, myself, for the reasons stated herein). Adding a disincentive appears to accomplish this, but it is mere cookery that covers over the disease.
This is basically the same thing as telling a civil engineer to build a bridge over a 2000' river. He'll build a 2000' bridge (well, probably 2500' for stability, but you get what I mean). But wait! We've gotten funding for a 4000' bridge... and because of existing laws, we need to "make it to specifications!" So we tell the engineer to build a 4000' bridge over a 2000' river instead of changing (or better yet, removing) the ridiculous law. A multitude of laws doesn't make abuses fewer, it just makes them more obscure.
Legislation is the enemy of discretion. Discretion is the son of civil freedom.
There is so much rampant illogic in the parent post that it is difficult to know what to say. I often feel this mild obligation to correct such errors, if for nothing else than to articulate to others who read it exactly what is wrong with this kind of "argument."
I'll just do a quick response that leaves out a lot of the steps. I'll leave it to the reader to work out the principles and syllogisms himself.
First, whether or not the theory (the one proposed by the lawmakers) is "stupid" is irrelevant to whether or not the original critic's comment made sense. It didn't. The highlighted sentence above ("But copyright...") is completely accurate, inasmuch as it reflects the notions of the theory (and it only claims to reflect the notions of the theory).
Regarding the quote from Benjamin Franklin (and the implicit claims made by "gentleman_loser" in the parent post), there are a few things that I would say:
It's a catchy quote, but I disagree with Franklin here. Even fools deserve basic liberties. I'll throw out another quote for you, just for kicks:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sound familliar?
I really doubt that Franklin was speaking of copyright infringement as a "basic freedom."
I agree that Franklin was a patriot. I am too. I don't like this law. But I can still see that the first parent post (original response) was foolishness. Mostly because of a capacity to divorce my desires and opinions from a rational discussion of something that is not essentially about my desires and opinions. (Woops! Don't get confused here, that was tricky. The discussion (started by the comment to which I originally replied) isn't about what we want, though the topic may be related to some desire or other of ours. Remeber, words are used to mean stuff, not just to put pretty lines together!)
I'm inclined to agree with you that this is a weak law that will very likely result in unfortunate abuses by some in power. That's why I said in my opening line that I'm not such a fan of this kind of bill myself. Generally, no matter how good the intentions, legislation will get twisted around in this way or that to accomplish the pet ends of some one or another. If that's the objection, that's fine (although it's foolish to judge anything by its abuses -- though it is worthwhile to judge something by its weaknesses that may lead to abuse). I'm mainly responding to the nonsensical vitriol of the other guy.
As to the notion that "most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer," that's claim isn't justified by anything in the article at least. It does happen that the bill, according to the article,
would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else.
But this is hardly mostly directed towards the individual, non-profit criminal. It happens to encompass both the higher-level and lower-level criminals, and would make it easier to levy penalties designed to combat terrorism on the copyright infringement criminals who are not guilty of terrorist activity, but that would be an abuse of the law that may be able to come out of abuses of its (possibly) poor safeguards.
As for it being overseas... well, that may be one of the aims of the legislation (who knows?). That's a large part of why we put hefty penalties on things we don't want... to make the potential cost very high in order that potential criminals refrain from doing it... here at least.
I'm not a huge fan of this kind of legislation myself, but your summary is ridiculous. The claim isn't that
"Copyright infringement = terrorism" or "Marijuana = terrorism" but that these are "industries" in which terrorists operate in order to fund terrorist activities. Now here's where you (yes, you at home!) can draw a Venn diagram: Make a circle and label it "Copyright Infringers." Now make another circle and label it "Terrorists." Make sure that the two circles overlap in such a way as that the CI circle has some hangng out the side, and the T circle has some hanging out the side.
Good! Now, careful analysis of this diagram will show that they aren't calling Copyright Infringement the same as Terrorism or even calling Copyright Infringers the same as Terrorists.
What it is saying is that since the "Copyright Infringement 'Industry'" has no legal checks and is "free" to operate outside the law (obviously), that it's a prime place for terrorists to work to get funding, without having to pay taxes on it (and thereby identify themselves in a traceable way) -- or if they do (laundered), not to leave a paper trail that leads back to the person himself. It's also a very-low-capital-for-fairly-high-profits business. It's the same as saying that lots of terrorists are getting into the medical profession because it is very lucrative and they can fund terrorism well with it. But if this is the case, why not crack down on it, since they are facists? Oh, because it's not illegal to be a doctor so that's just one of those "private choice" things that someone can do with their money. But copyright infringement is illegal. So they can stop some of the terrorists there (in theory).
Maybe a minor point, but an important one
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think you have hair on your head? It's to insulate all of the blood carrying oxygen to your brain so it doesn't leak off as much heat.
Just in the interest of clarity, according to the theory there actually is no 'why' about it. Someone at some point either got hair on the top of the head (or lost hair elsewhere but on the top of the head) as a random mutation. It turned out that that was one of the functions it served. It also turned out the hair wasn't detrimental to reproduction (and was not linked to something that was), or else was beneficial to reproduction (and/or linked to something that was).
After my freshman year of college, my brother and I went on a several month road trip around the US. When we got to Montanta we saw a weird looking road sign up and when we got closer it turned out to be a speed limit sign. It said that the speed limit was "Reasonable and Prudent." (See it here) We thought that was a great idea and, since it was a bright sunny day with a nice, straight road (just some hills), and only an occasional other car out, we floored the pedal of our minivan and were shaking terribly as we got to around 105mph. To our surprise, a police cruiser rocketed past us like we were standing still. He must have been going at least 140. No sirens, no anything, just getting where he needed to go.
In retrospect, I see that -- considering the type of vehicle and condition -- even with a speed limit of "reasonable and prudent," we had broken the law =) Fortunately, the cop didn't seem to care.
Just for the sake of clarification, so that everyone is aware of a (seemingly ubiquitous) equivocation ocrruing in the vernacular of this "social discussion". I should say that I am not referring to the professions of the dogmatic as much as the actual ideas of the informed (and yes, it's a mistake to think that all creationists are uninformed and morons -- as foolish as the mistake that all evolutionists are informed and brilliant. There are people who have all the data and have PhDs in biology and so forth who are also creationists -- not out of zealotry, but out of genuine skepticism about as-yet-unanswered questions relating to evidence for the theory of evolution).
Creationists (generally) aren't actually troubled by the notion of evolution. When people refer to the "evolution-creation debate" there's an equivocation going on with the word "evolution." The point of contention for creationists is with universal speciation -- that is, the theory that all the species of the world evolved from a common ancestor organism. Creationists generally won't have difficulty with the notion that poodles are related to great danes or even wolves. To this end, they will claim that speciation occurs within a "kind" (most likely similar to "order" or "family" in the taxonomical chain -- which is problematic for its own reasons, which I'll mention in a moment -- but possibly as restrictive as "genus") but not to the scale that differentiation of "kingdom" occurs.
The dispute over findings in articles such as the one cited here will rest generally on paragraphs like this one:
"The fossils represent unambiguous evidence for human evolution," he said.
The remains of eight individuals found in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia belonged to the species Australopithecus anamensis -- part of the Australopithecus genus thought to be a direct ancestor to humans, according to a report due to be published Thursday in Nature magazine.
Claiming that there's a step being taken here that isn't logically necessary (that is, there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant calling it necessary -- since this isn't an empirical science); namely that just because the species has changed, doesn't mean that humans evolved from a non-human ancestor (where non-human is referring to a creature whose closest biological connection to us is in the "kind" level (again "order," "family," or "genus").
Finally, a major point of difficulty for the honestly skeptical creationist is that the taxonomy of organisms has generally been phenotypical rather than genotypical. This is pretty much analogous to the genetic response to Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics. It's a reasonable doubt. We're still working out what havoc -- if any -- is caused by making that change (there is some evidence that some species may be wildly mis-placed genetically).
I should disclaim that I am not arguing that it is necessary to be a creationist if one is skeptical about evolution, but it is also not necessary not to be.
The find is appropriate for anthropologists (as in the article), but the conclusions aren't. Palentologists are more qualified to make such judgements (and I was glad to see that one was quoted at the beginning of the article), but the rest of the article seems simply to be quoting an anthropologists take on a matter possibly outside his field.
First, before I transferred to get my degree in philosophy, I had 7 semesters of training with a double major in physics and math (with an strong elective emphasis on computer science). I've worked in tech fields for almost a decade -- primarily as a programmer. I surely qualify as "a technical person who works with computers."
But let it be that "philosophy" is generally absurd or whatever else. Still no one has said what "a computer" "actually" means. All that's happened is that
someone (the reporter) described a certain device as a computer
everyone understood what was meant
someone else complained about this usage (that everyone seems to understand)
I inquired about the better meaning the questioner preferred
- No one has offered a new meaning, but has said that the usage that everyone (technical and otherwise) understands is not the usage that most people use (...weird -- though the first response did make a legitimate attempt, but merely missed the analysis a little) and - that my defense of the common use was invalid because I was defending a meaning not in common use.
The last bit is especially odd -- that my defense of the common usage is being criticized for not being part of the common usage. Also strange is the grouping of philosophers (and would-be philosophers) with "marketing people" -- groups that are usually quite at odds.
This response is mostly just for the principle of the matter. I'll assume that since no one has responded sensically, no one with sense is interested in responding (which is a shame because it seems like there could be some worthwhile intercourse in a conversation about this topic, were there any actual thoughts to be shared).
Slashdot Mirror
I get the "money" part (if he means the purchase of game features), but the "time" part is silly. You get skill by investing time. Skill is the payout for a time investment, and time is often the payout for a money investment. It's different if you can buy game components with real money, but if you buy play time ... how is that different than the guy who put in $347 worth of quarters and 4120 hours to get the top score on Space Invaders at an arcade in 198x?
Not really ... try to imagine a jungle or other wild forest habitat/village with the same amount of attention-grabbing distraction as Manhattan; that would be truly bizzare. That is, unless you just mean out in the middle of the wild; but that would be a silly and unreasonable comparison. We could make up all sorts of fantastical scenarios about !!!X-TREME ATTENTION-GRABBING SETTINGS!!! (Next on Fox!) in which a human *might* find himself, but the point of the article is that an urban setting *in which people may commonly be found* is more distracting and energy intensive than a natural setting *in which people may commonly be found*. It's not like jungle dwellers (villages, etc.) fight off 3.9 tigers per hour or swat at 120344 deadly insects per day, though it's probably more intensive than a hike through Yellowstone.
That might be the case in a particularly harsh jungle setting, but it's hardly to be counted normative for the considerations of this article, just as it would be to say cities are more focus-intensive because there are more terrorist attacks in cities.
Hold on. Take a step back and look at the big picture:
Doing some basic, preliminary research while reading the article (and extrapolating the data), I've found that I use the escape key an average of 2983742 times per day. Now, that inch-and-a-half may not seem like much, but do some conversion: that's around seventy extra miles I'm moving my arm per day. Now, I'm an above average escapist, so I figure that if I'm moving my arm an extra 70 miles, the average user is probably moving only about 68 miles per day. I'm not an expert, but from what I gather from 60 Minutes, I'm probably burning calories equivalent to those I would take in consuming an entire cow. We know that forfty percent of cows are fed on the burning corpses of amazon rainforest trees. I saw a movie once (starring Sean Connery and someone else) in which they found the cure for cancer in the Amazon! And think of all the heat emitted from those trees, coupled with the MEGAJOULES of energy being emitted in the form of heat from the burning of the cows (for food) each day, per person. Now, INSFBCL (I'm Not Some Fancy Big City Lawyer), but you don't have to be teh inventor of the intarweb to know that that much heat escaping into the atmosphere is at least quintupling the effects of Global Warning every year.
Move the escape key to the caps-lock slot? Is there really any question? Is there really any choice?
Think of the children. And their melty ice-cream cones.
And cancer.
Well done. This is the first slashdot post I've ever actually laughed at aloud. (I'm not a moderator or I'd mark it funny =)
Bon mot. =)
These two are mixing to produce the category of behavior we're interested in:
I went to public schools my whole life (except for one year in a private school in 6th grade). In college and after, I have known several dozen people (between my age -- now 29 -- and younger -- 21-ish) who were home-schooled. Some of them were Christians, some were not. There were plenty of ill-adjusted homeschool people of both the religious and non-religious variety, and plenty of ill-adjusted people of the home-schooled and public-schooled varieties.
There are two types of disconnect among these groups that are being perceived as identical but are not. On the one hand, there is a social ill-adjustment by which a person is unable to interface with others in social situations due to a lack of exposure and a lack of instruction about social graces. On the other hand, there is a social disjunct arising from a desire to be separate from certain behaviours or experiences viewed as undesireable (profanity, pornography, lude speech, self-righteousness, judgementalness, prudishness, or whatever else they may perceive to be objectionable). In this latter case, the disjunct is often complementary; that is, those who would like to distance themselves from lude speech, for example, may not interact freely around those who use such speech, whereas those who do speak in a way they consider lude may not interact freely around those they consider prudish. In such cases, each tends to perceive the difficulty as coming from the other exclusively.
This is categorically different than the former sort of difficulty, in which there is no reason for the separation -- that is, it is not by choice on any level -- but it is for reason of inability.
Having said this, the cause of the former sort of person -- people who are unable to interact socially -- is parents who do not know how to socialize their kids or instruct them in social matters. There are lots of people who homeschool who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children, and there are lots of people who farm schooling out to the state who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children. There are lots of Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct there children, and there are lots of non-Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children.
The other difficulty is one of choice. It stems from Christians not wanting to be certain behaviors (whether from weakness or strength or whatever), as well as from non-Christians not wanting to be around certain behaviours (whether from weakness or strength or whatever). It stems from Christians not wanting to accomodate people (Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors, and non-Christians not wanting to accomodate people (non-Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors. Some parents -- Chrisitan and non-Christian -- pass on these preferences to their children, often passively, but sometimes actively.
The "loony" behavior to which you have alluded is the latter sort -- choosing things you consider ridiculous to choose (I know you do because you ridicule them by calling them "loony"). Going far down any branch of choice makes the decisions of those on other branches seem ever more peculiar (and I'm not one who is for "moderation at all costs" -- it seems to me we should do something all the way if it's worth it to us). I have a relative who always talks about "those damn Republicans" in such a manner as that he sounds as though he believes they are these impish wretches rubbing their hands together and plotting how best to destroy other people. I have a friend who seem
- beards
- souls
- hats
- boots
- beehives
- basements
- chimneys
- food
- clothing
- birth
- marriage
- burial
For more "fun" tax trivia (did you know the Brits were the first to tax income (1400s), depending on how you look at religious governments earlier, but it was the Romans who first came up with the clever "Urine tax" (A.D. 1)), look for "tax trivia" on the web =)My point is specifically that there is some data that doesn't need to be secured. Who cares if someone breaks in and steals access to my science homework? It's not that valuable. When I'm doing genuine original research, then I'll pay enough money to secure it on a local machine. But when I'm doing the lab experiment on page 194 of the standard workbook for this semester's textbook, who cares? In the worst case scenario, a cheater breaks in and uses my data for his grade. To protect against that, having a password-protected account on a server is sufficient to protect me from charges of dishonesty.
So what, then? Is it the little league schedule that you want to generate then print and distribute on paper? Uh-oh! Someone might find out when the Fighting Pandas are playing the Twirling Tweeties -- before the release date!
Which grocery store is less expensive? CRAP! Now my $75/month advantage over my neighbors is shot! Dang, and I was hoping to be the lucky winner of natural selection on this one, and pass on my genes more frequently based on my superior shopping abilities.
How in the world does "homework and little league schedules" get interpreted "business documents and credit card (personal) info?" Question -- is there any data that doesn't need to be secured? Should I secure my name? I guess I should encrypt my business card, so that I can distribute it freely, but only people with the secret decoder ring can figure out what it says. Also, I should protect my business's phone number and web URL. It would be TERRIBLE if someone found out what those were without my explicit invitation.
I understand what you mean, but this is precisely what is laudable about this service. I just finished a degree that took me 10 years -- during which I lived as a poor college bum. I am very much in favor of a service like this that students can use for free, legally from any computer lab, for any physics/chemistry/etc. experiments. I personally don't care if my homework is moderately secure or heavily secure. I know lots of students who don't use spreadsheets when they could and should, preferring a word processor to arrange data they calculated manually.
The point? It is one thing to create a product designed to fill the need of the main market. It's another thing to be just a little off-center such that you are a force causing the expansion of the market. If more college students start using this for their data, then the user-base of the "spreadsheet technology" increases. I don't care about this from a business standpoint, particularly, but I do care that more people will be using tools more appropriate to their tasks, and everything will improve by a degree each time that happens.
Students aren't the only group who ought to be using spreadsheets but aren't, either. Little League scheduling, minor family finance ("Which grocery store is more economical? Let's record our receipts for a month from each and find out"), and many, many others.
Not to pick nits, but ... here's a nit I'll pick (just a "pet peeve").
"Begging the question" doesn't mean "begs for the question to be asked." It's a fallacy in reasoning that means something like "assuming that which is to be proved in a premise from which the proof is derived." It can be more loosely used to mean "avoiding answering a question by a very verbose non-answer." There's a pretty good write-up in the wikipedia that can be found here.
Why is it called begging then? From the article:
Consider the following sets of sentences:
The parent post correctly points out that often there is not enough context to provide cues to allow the recipient to decode all the information the sender intended to convey.
There are something like four main channels we use to communicate when speaking with another in person:
There are other more subtle channels, and some of these channels are the interplay of two channels (intent to be humorous, for example, can be indicated by offering conflicting information on different channels, or on the same channel at different times). The primary channel is Diction: verbal language is a model of rational thought. This is not the case for the media of the other channels; they are not models of rational thought, but are accompanying channels designed to offer logical content regarding the interpretation of the model.
Because the content of these channels is logical in nature, they can be rendered within the model -- that is, they can be rendered verbally. The information conveyed in these other channels is designed eliminate interpretational ambiguity. Thus, if one is skillful at this rendering, ambiguity can be largely eliminated in typewritten communication, at the minor cost of brevity. The less skill the sender posesses, the less the ambiguities are eliminated and the more major the cost to brevity. This is sometimes (but not always) the reason for the rambling nature of e-mails in any type of communication.
P.S. Note that in sentence two above, I did not offer supplimental verbal text to offer interpretation. That is because without context, it should be read in an even "tone," none of the words being emphasized. The other interpretations are the result of the assumption that the statement is in contrast to some other (often implicit) statement.
I'm inclined to agree with the defense here, but I can see how the opposite view could be taken if one were using a different set of considerations when determining "security."
That is, I would argue that if, in any system, there exist conditions that would allow someone to achieve undesireable effects, then that system is inherently insecure. Whether or not there is anyone who knows how to do it, or even know that the hole exists, the system is insecure -- because the existence of such an informed user is accidental to the system itself.
On the other hand, a more simple view might place the question of security entirely in human will: If there is such a system, and everyone knows how it could be exploited, but no one would dare do so, then the system could be said to be secure inasmuch as the chances of actual exploitation are very small. This line of reckoning is both reckless and foolish, but not necessarily unreasoned.
If a system has a weakness , but no one has heard about it , is the system secure?
If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
I know what you mean -- and I don't disagree. I'm just saying that it is something that has a certain likelihood of success in reducing stresses, but there's a much better solution (extreme stress reduction at almost no cost).
Such a thing may allow people more time to allow stress levels to subside, but there's a greater problem. One major reason I have little stress is that I enjoy what I do. Another reason is that I am aware that circumstances are not coersive. That is, just the awareness of this issue diminishes the need for "let-down" time. Things don't build up because there's nothing to build up. It's just something that happened, and I'll have to move on and deal with it.
The solution isn't to mandate anything (if individual companies would like to increase days off of their own volition... that sounds like a good idea). It is to bring about in the culture less of a sense that things necessarily induce stresses. This is a specifically non-legislative issue... partially because the tendency to increase legislation about such matters is tending to exacerbate the problem (in America, people seem to think that legislation will fix things... and when it doesn't, they worry more).
I'm just making a cautionary statement, really ... and offering a "self improvement" tidbit in case it is helpful to anyone.
I've tended to work quite a bit over the past 10 years (even during two non-consecutive years working regular 60- to 70-hour work weeks without missing any days). I am almost never ill -- I've had one or two colds, and I got a very mild case of the flu about five years ago.
I agree that the stress of it all is taking a toll, but it's not the long hours, nor the unpaid overtime, nor the paucity of holidays -- it's the stress. The stress, anxiety, and depression are causing unnecessary strain on our bodies and minds and fostering the root causes of illness (not causing illnesses themselves, but creating conditions of susceptibility).
Studies (see excerpt from an abstract below) have shown such trends as well:
The problem isn't the long hours, nor the work schedule. It's definitely not the "burden of health care falling on individuals" (I, for one, am very glad it falls to us -- even though, by the way, I currently do not have health insurance because it is too expensive... but I don't want public health care to cover me for a wide variety of practical and principled reasons).
No, the problem is stress. Psychological stress, emotional stress, ... these require both a stimulus and a permission: when something happens "I'm getting laid off from work next week" there is an impetus to become stressed (a strain on the emotions or mind). But these are also a choice. With practice and with grace, one can choose not to worry, but to anticipate the future without worry.
The thing is, we have far fewer things to worry about than most people in the world (take Chad or N. Korea for examples of extremes, or just India for a middle-of-the-road example). Reducing causes of stress never reduces causes of stress -- people will just get stressed about smaller and smaller things unless the root is taken care of. As a post above pointed out, Japan has a similar work schedule and similar health care, but not the similar issues with health.
I disagree ... I think the ends do not justify the means. I'm one such person who has bills to pay while waiting for absurd things to work themselves out (I work in an IT industry too, and have felt 'the pinch'), but relief of inconvenience is a terrible reason for doing something detrimental. The basic idea of it would be to choose pleasure over health -- a choice all too frequently made -- instead of health over pleasure (the wise choice, when a choice must be made).
The most obvious application of this to me is the video-phone. Interestingly, this could be the culmination of a pretty long technological road for this concept. According to my mother, her father (long dead now) was an inventor/tinkerer who especially liked photographic technologies. Once, he took her on a "field trip" in the 1950s to AT&T's laboratory in Houston (where they lived). There, she saw an early attempt at the video phone that is more closely related to the web-cam two-way set ups of today than the Star Trek-style video communication of sci-fi. I can easily imagine a future version that is coupled with a dedicated processor intended to hang freely on a wall to be used as a telephone (with, say, video display options, or whatever).
I would very much like to see this kind of technology perfected (so to speak). I'm interested in how this will relate to phone-tapping laws, etc. Also, I wonder if a "passive" reception would be integrated at some point into this kind of display, and what that might mean for surveillance.
(In case you missed the link above, check out the video phone write-up at http://www.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/70p icture.html.)
GreyPoopon, yours is a most excellent response.
First, regarding the H1B visa and the spending of money earned in the US in poorer countries, I agree that this is the case. More power to him. Reasonable lawmaking would allow for such a thing to occur -- for all people en-route to citizenship in the US, with a time-based cap on how long he can work here (say, 10 years or something). There's no good reason (ok, possibly a rare exception that should be able to be handled in a "rare exception discretion" clause) for someone to work here for more than 10 years without seeking citizenship (I hear the citizenship process can sometimes take more than 10 years, and the average is 7 (I believe?). Perhaps with proper documentation this can be extended to 15 years). Of course, the numbers are all unimportant here, the principles behind them are what is important. If he is here on a work visa and has not achieved citizenship after X years (a reasonable number) then deport him.
Of course, as you correctly pointed out, this isn't the same as 'outsourcing' jobs elsewhere. As far as that goes, I should start with the disclaimer that I do not mean that they do it because it is actually economically advantageous, but because the decision-makers have the perception that it is so. (I expect this to be a standard disclaimer for everyone about statements involving decision making. It just points to the natural and obvious breaks between reality, perception, and cognition when we make decisions.) Your company, if they have done something (economically) stupid in "outsourcing" will eventually suffer one or more of a few fates (barring foolish legislative influence):
And all of those are appropriate to the decisions of a company making such decisions. If your company is making foolish decisions to spend twice as much on 'overseas outsourcing' then let them learn from it. If not, then let them get better management or fall. Maybe an economist or mathematician as consultant or something If you see the weakness in their model, quit and start your own business and be their downfall (or whatever). I stand behind my original point about "outsourcing" ... legislation is not the solution, patience is. It ought not to be expected for the so-called "market forces" to reach equalibrium quickly. Sometimes it takes a few years, or decades, or longer. As long as civil liberties are preserved (and not handed over to government for 'protection' because of short-sightedness), it will work itself out. Assume all the appropriate disclaimers about continued volitility of markets due to innovation and crud.
Legislating it is an atrocious idea. The reason the companies hire out elsewhere is because it is economically advantageous. The solution to this isn't to tell the companies "don't act according to reason when presented with data; act against reason." The solution is to correct the conditions that are causing it to be more beneficial to hire out elsewhere (if that is a desired end... I don't care, myself, for the reasons stated herein). Adding a disincentive appears to accomplish this, but it is mere cookery that covers over the disease.
This is basically the same thing as telling a civil engineer to build a bridge over a 2000' river. He'll build a 2000' bridge (well, probably 2500' for stability, but you get what I mean). But wait! We've gotten funding for a 4000' bridge... and because of existing laws, we need to "make it to specifications!" So we tell the engineer to build a 4000' bridge over a 2000' river instead of changing (or better yet, removing) the ridiculous law. A multitude of laws doesn't make abuses fewer, it just makes them more obscure.
Legislation is the enemy of discretion. Discretion is the son of civil freedom.
There is so much rampant illogic in the parent post that it is difficult to know what to say. I often feel this mild obligation to correct such errors, if for nothing else than to articulate to others who read it exactly what is wrong with this kind of "argument."
I'll just do a quick response that leaves out a lot of the steps. I'll leave it to the reader to work out the principles and syllogisms himself.
First, whether or not the theory (the one proposed by the lawmakers) is "stupid" is irrelevant to whether or not the original critic's comment made sense. It didn't. The highlighted sentence above ("But copyright ...") is completely accurate, inasmuch as it reflects the notions of the theory (and it only claims to reflect the notions of the theory).
Regarding the quote from Benjamin Franklin (and the implicit claims made by "gentleman_loser" in the parent post), there are a few things that I would say:
I'm inclined to agree with you that this is a weak law that will very likely result in unfortunate abuses by some in power. That's why I said in my opening line that I'm not such a fan of this kind of bill myself. Generally, no matter how good the intentions, legislation will get twisted around in this way or that to accomplish the pet ends of some one or another. If that's the objection, that's fine (although it's foolish to judge anything by its abuses -- though it is worthwhile to judge something by its weaknesses that may lead to abuse). I'm mainly responding to the nonsensical vitriol of the other guy.
As to the notion that "most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer," that's claim isn't justified by anything in the article at least. It does happen that the bill, according to the article,
But this is hardly mostly directed towards the individual, non-profit criminal. It happens to encompass both the higher-level and lower-level criminals, and would make it easier to levy penalties designed to combat terrorism on the copyright infringement criminals who are not guilty of terrorist activity, but that would be an abuse of the law that may be able to come out of abuses of its (possibly) poor safeguards.As for it being overseas ... well, that may be one of the aims of the legislation (who knows?). That's a large part of why we put hefty penalties on things we don't want ... to make the potential cost very high in order that potential criminals refrain from doing it ... here at least.
I'm not a huge fan of this kind of legislation myself, but your summary is ridiculous. The claim isn't that "Copyright infringement = terrorism" or "Marijuana = terrorism" but that these are "industries" in which terrorists operate in order to fund terrorist activities. Now here's where you (yes, you at home!) can draw a Venn diagram: Make a circle and label it "Copyright Infringers." Now make another circle and label it "Terrorists." Make sure that the two circles overlap in such a way as that the CI circle has some hangng out the side, and the T circle has some hanging out the side.
Good! Now, careful analysis of this diagram will show that they aren't calling Copyright Infringement the same as Terrorism or even calling Copyright Infringers the same as Terrorists.
What it is saying is that since the "Copyright Infringement 'Industry'" has no legal checks and is "free" to operate outside the law (obviously), that it's a prime place for terrorists to work to get funding, without having to pay taxes on it (and thereby identify themselves in a traceable way) -- or if they do (laundered), not to leave a paper trail that leads back to the person himself. It's also a very-low-capital-for-fairly-high-profits business. It's the same as saying that lots of terrorists are getting into the medical profession because it is very lucrative and they can fund terrorism well with it. But if this is the case, why not crack down on it, since they are facists? Oh, because it's not illegal to be a doctor so that's just one of those "private choice" things that someone can do with their money. But copyright infringement is illegal. So they can stop some of the terrorists there (in theory).
Just in the interest of clarity, according to the theory there actually is no 'why' about it. Someone at some point either got hair on the top of the head (or lost hair elsewhere but on the top of the head) as a random mutation. It turned out that that was one of the functions it served. It also turned out the hair wasn't detrimental to reproduction (and was not linked to something that was), or else was beneficial to reproduction (and/or linked to something that was).
It's not for that, but it does do that.
After my freshman year of college, my brother and I went on a several month road trip around the US. When we got to Montanta we saw a weird looking road sign up and when we got closer it turned out to be a speed limit sign. It said that the speed limit was "Reasonable and Prudent." (See it here) We thought that was a great idea and, since it was a bright sunny day with a nice, straight road (just some hills), and only an occasional other car out, we floored the pedal of our minivan and were shaking terribly as we got to around 105mph. To our surprise, a police cruiser rocketed past us like we were standing still. He must have been going at least 140. No sirens, no anything, just getting where he needed to go.
In retrospect, I see that -- considering the type of vehicle and condition -- even with a speed limit of "reasonable and prudent," we had broken the law =) Fortunately, the cop didn't seem to care.
Just for the sake of clarification, so that everyone is aware of a (seemingly ubiquitous) equivocation ocrruing in the vernacular of this "social discussion". I should say that I am not referring to the professions of the dogmatic as much as the actual ideas of the informed (and yes, it's a mistake to think that all creationists are uninformed and morons -- as foolish as the mistake that all evolutionists are informed and brilliant. There are people who have all the data and have PhDs in biology and so forth who are also creationists -- not out of zealotry, but out of genuine skepticism about as-yet-unanswered questions relating to evidence for the theory of evolution).
Creationists (generally) aren't actually troubled by the notion of evolution. When people refer to the "evolution-creation debate" there's an equivocation going on with the word "evolution." The point of contention for creationists is with universal speciation -- that is, the theory that all the species of the world evolved from a common ancestor organism. Creationists generally won't have difficulty with the notion that poodles are related to great danes or even wolves. To this end, they will claim that speciation occurs within a "kind" (most likely similar to "order" or "family" in the taxonomical chain -- which is problematic for its own reasons, which I'll mention in a moment -- but possibly as restrictive as "genus") but not to the scale that differentiation of "kingdom" occurs.
The dispute over findings in articles such as the one cited here will rest generally on paragraphs like this one:
Claiming that there's a step being taken here that isn't logically necessary (that is, there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant calling it necessary -- since this isn't an empirical science); namely that just because the species has changed, doesn't mean that humans evolved from a non-human ancestor (where non-human is referring to a creature whose closest biological connection to us is in the "kind" level (again "order," "family," or "genus").
Finally, a major point of difficulty for the honestly skeptical creationist is that the taxonomy of organisms has generally been phenotypical rather than genotypical. This is pretty much analogous to the genetic response to Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics. It's a reasonable doubt. We're still working out what havoc -- if any -- is caused by making that change (there is some evidence that some species may be wildly mis-placed genetically).
I should disclaim that I am not arguing that it is necessary to be a creationist if one is skeptical about evolution, but it is also not necessary not to be.
The find is appropriate for anthropologists (as in the article), but the conclusions aren't. Palentologists are more qualified to make such judgements (and I was glad to see that one was quoted at the beginning of the article), but the rest of the article seems simply to be quoting an anthropologists take on a matter possibly outside his field.
First, before I transferred to get my degree in philosophy, I had 7 semesters of training with a double major in physics and math (with an strong elective emphasis on computer science). I've worked in tech fields for almost a decade -- primarily as a programmer. I surely qualify as "a technical person who works with computers."
But let it be that "philosophy" is generally absurd or whatever else. Still no one has said what "a computer" "actually" means. All that's happened is that
- that my defense of the common use was invalid because I was defending a meaning not in common use.
The last bit is especially odd -- that my defense of the common usage is being criticized for not being part of the common usage. Also strange is the grouping of philosophers (and would-be philosophers) with "marketing people" -- groups that are usually quite at odds.
This response is mostly just for the principle of the matter. I'll assume that since no one has responded sensically, no one with sense is interested in responding (which is a shame because it seems like there could be some worthwhile intercourse in a conversation about this topic, were there any actual thoughts to be shared).