08:27
- I get very tired of hearing people say that you can't save
money building a PC. It's simply not true. So, this weekend, I set out
to prove it. The first thing I did was search out the prices of minimal
configurations from many vendors, from Dell to no-name stuff like you'd
find at Fry's. A typical minimal configuration was something like:
- Case and 250W to 300W power supply
- No-name motherboard with integrated everything
- AMD Sempron 2200+ processor (or similar Celeron)
- 128 MB of PC2700 memory
- 40 GB hard drive
- CD-ROM drive
- generic keyboard and ball mouse
- no speakers, or a set that would cost about $4 if bought
separately
- no operating system, Linspire, or Windows XP Home
A typical price for such a configuration, after rebates if any, was
around $225, not counting shipping, for systems without an OS or with
Linux installed. Similar configurations with Windows XP Home were
typically about $50 more. So I set out to configure a similar system,
using mostly products carried by NewEgg, to see what the total would
come to. Here's what I came up with:
| Rosewill Value R203A Black Steel ATX mid-tower case w/ 350W
power supply |
19.99 |
| PC CHIPS M863G Socket A motherboard |
35.99 |
| Sempron 2200+ with HSF |
57.73 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 8 6K040L0 40GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra
ATA133 Hard Drive - OEM |
46.00 |
| Samsung SH-C522C/BEBE CD-ROM drive |
13.99 |
| pqi POWER Series 128 MB 184-pin DDR SDRAM DDR 333 (PC 2700)
MD3428UOE |
11.74 |
| DCT Factory KB-790A Beige PS/2 Wired Slim Keyboard -
Retail |
4.25 |
| KEYBOARD-2000 HM2002/42P White 2 Buttons 1x Wheel PS/2 Ball
Mouse - Retail |
2.79 |
|
|
|
$
192.48 |
Yes, that's right. The commercial systems cost about $32 more,
or 17% more, than the home-built one. Shipping actually cost more
for the commercial systems than for having the individual components
shipped. And,
although we've used some truly garbage-quality components--everything
except the processor, hard drive, and CD-ROM drive is crap--they're at
least as good
as those you'll probably find in a cheap mass-market commercial system.
So, how much more would it cost to build an inexpensive but
high-quality budget system to these specifications? A decent case and
power supply, something like the Antec SLK1650B, adds about $40. A
decent motherboard adds $35 more. Replacing the no-name memory with a
128 MB Crucial DIMM adds $6. And replacing the garbage keyboard and
mouse with a basic Logitech optical mouse and keyboard adds $9. All
told, upgrading the junk components to high-quality components adds
about $90 to the price of the system, which puts it in at $282.48
range,
or $57.48 more than the mass-market system built around junk
components.
Of course, I wouldn't be satisfied with that. Even for a budget system,
I'd boost the memory to 512 MB and replace the $14 CD-ROM drive with a
$40 NEC or BenQ DVD writer. Of course, that'd mean the price of my
system would skyrocket into the $320 range, which is to say about $45
more than the garbage system costs with Windows XP Home installed.
And I'd install Xandros OCE, which is free for personal use. That'd
give me a $320 system that's perfectly capable of doing just about
everything that most people want to do, and is a lot more secure than
the Windows system. Linux sucks for gaming, of course, but then you're
not going to be playing games on the cheap Windows system, either.
Heads-down work this week, getting the decks cleared for Thanksgiving
week. Barbara and I are taking that week off. We have some friends
coming down from Virginia for the week.
Tuesday,
15 November
2005
08:50
- It is a sign of Microsoft's increasing desperation that it is
considering making
Windows free-as-in-beer, albeit with embedded ads.
It may sound strange to describe a corporation that has the resources
of Microsoft as "desperate", but desperate it is. Microsoft
is losing the server room to Linux. Its Windows monopoly faces the
growing threat of desktop Linux, which is a superior operating system
in every sense except breadth of application support, and that gap
continues to narrow every month. MS Office, which is the keystone of
the Microsoft monopoly, is threatened by OpenOffice.org, and more
particularly by the rapidly growing sentiment that favors
open OpenDocument Format. And then there's Google and web-based
services.
Windows and Office contribute most of Microsoft's revenue and more than
100% of its profits. Every other Microsoft endeavor, including Xbox, is
either barely profitable or a major money loser. Microsoft is losing
key senior staff to sexier companies, and the best and brightest
college graduates no longer want to work for Microsoft. At high-tech
job fairs, job applicants are lined up six-deep at the Google and Yahoo
booths, while the staff at the Microsoft booth look like the Maytag
repairman. No longer can new Microsoft hires hope that they'll
eventually be able to cash in stock options for millions. There is
no new generation of MicroSerfs.
So, like all doomed companies that are no longer able to compete in the
marketplace, Microsoft has turned to the legislature and
judiciary to prop up its failing business. Years ago, people
laughed when I said that Microsoft would attempt to make Linux illegal,
but that's exactly what's happening now. The only reason Microsoft
hasn't launched a major patent offensive against Linux is, as I've also
said before, that one doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight. Although
Microsoft is filing numerous patents every month, it's still far behind
IBM, which is committed to defending Linux and would like nothing
better than to watch Microsoft fall flat on its face. IBM remembers
OS/2. Other companies like Google, Novell, Sun, and Red Hat are also
joining the fight to prevent Microsoft from tying up Linux in patent
battles.
Nor does Microsoft's roadmap promise much. Vista is many years late,
and at this point looks unlikely to ship by Microsoft's latest promised
date of late 2006. Even if Microsoft does make that date, it will be
with a gutted version of what had originally been promised for Vista.
In effect, Vista will be nothing more than a service pack for
Windows XP, although one you'll have to pay for. And I don't think many
people will. Pay for it, that is. Of the very few "new" features in
Vista, nearly all will be back-ported to Windows XP, further reducing
the incentive for companies to upgrade. Even the pro-Microsoft Gartner
has recommended that corporations not consider upgrading to Vista until
at least 2008.
When I look at where desktop Linux was three years ago and imagine
where it will be three years hence, I can only pity Microsoft. Vista is
going to be much too little, and much too late.
13:53
- Thanks to Roland Dobbins for this heads-up. If there is
any chance that your system has been polluted by the Sony XCP DRM
rootkit, I suggest you read this page.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sony DRM uninstaller opens up huge security holes, Sony to
recall discs
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:33:52 -0800
From: Roland Dobbins
To: Jerry Pournelle, Robert Bruce Thompson
Sony DRM uninstaller opens up huge security holes, Sony to
recall discs.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=927
14:29
- More from Roland Dobbins:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Potentially millions of hosts compromise by Sony rootkit
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:08:11 -0800
From: Roland Dobbins
To: Jerry Pournelle, Robert Bruce Thompson
Potentially millions of hosts compromise by Sony rootkit.
http://www.doxpara.com/?q=sony
The maps that show rootkit infections are particularly interesting.
Barbara has been a member of the BMG music club for years, and has
bought several hundred CDs from them. Every once in a great while, I'd
mention that I'd really rather she not buy music from RIAA companies,
but she always shrugged it off. Sunday night, she announced she was
canceling her BMG membership. Last night, she told me she'd canceled,
and on the on-line form she'd had to fill out she'd answered the "why"
question with one word: "rootkit"
Wednesday,
16 November
2005
08:45
- The CyberHome
DVR1600 DVD recorder arrived from NewEgg yesterday afternoon. After
dinner, while Barbara was at the gym, I hooked it up. It works as
advertised, an $80 replacement for a VCR and DVD player.
Some people had reported that some DVD recorders have significant
overhead when beginning and ending a recording, so I set up a 10-minute
test recording to check. With a freshly formatted DVD+RW disc in the
recorder, it fired up about 10 seconds before the scheduled start of
the recording and initialized the disc. Recording started at the
designated time, to the second. (I'd sync'd the DVD recorder's clock
with my computer's clock, which is sync'd to an Internet time server.)
The DVD recorder stopped recording at the designated time, to the
second, and then spent another 10 seconds or so finishing up. I don't
know if the overhead at the end of the recording is dependent on the
length of the recording or not.
When I played that disc, the first thing it displayed was a list of the
recordings on the disc. There was only one in this case, and it was
represented by a thumbnail icon screenshot of what was on screen when
the recording began, along with the date, time, and channel. I'd
recorded at Standard Play, which fits two hours and three minutes on a
DVD+RW disc. Video quality was DVD-like, as good as the original
broadcast signal.
I stuck the disc into a computer to look at the file structure. The
actual recording is in the video_ts directory, just as it would be on a
normal DVD, with the usual filenames. There's a second top-level
directory that apparently contains meta data, and which would be
ignored by a normal DVD player.
With such devices available for under $100, the VCR is deader than King
Tut. We happened to catch a segment on the evening news last night
about the death of VHS. Hardly any stores are still carrying
pre-recorded VHS tapes. They interviewed a salesman at Best Buy or
Circuit City, who said they sold more than 100 DVD players a day, but
only one VCR per day, if that. But I have to wonder how much longer
it'll be before DVD players are a dead product category. Why buy a
playback-only device, when for not much more you can buy one that also
records?
Of course, there's still the looming shift to digital TV, but analog TV
feeds--via cable and converter boxes--will remain available
for many years to come.
09:23
- I'd forgotten that I intended to post an exchange of messages
between me and Jerry Pournelle on the topic of Intelligent Design.
Usually, Jerry and I have such discussions on the phone, but this time
we used email. It all started when Jerry posted the following on his
Mail page.
Subject: Interesting Take on Darwinism vs.
Intelligent Design
From Lee King
Dr. Pournelle:
From the blog of Scott Adams, the
creater of "Dilbert":
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html
Intelligent Design, Part 1
To me, the most fascinating aspect of
the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither
side understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one
seems to understand their own side’s argument. But that
doesn’t stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.
I’ve been doing lots of reading on
the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to
validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of
credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist
kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the
media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a
lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight. (Note: I’m
not a believer in Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism, free
will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can’t eat if
I try hard enough.)
First of all, you’d be hard
pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design,
of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t
find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side
misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good
argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t
believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)
To make things more complicated, both
sides have good and bad arguments lumped into them. If you make a good
argument on your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument
instead. If it were a debate contest, both sides would lose.<snip>
I've said much the same things.
Clearly some evolution has taken place. Clearly there is a universe
which may or may not have a purpose. Clearly there is no current
scientific method for determining that purpose if there be one. Clearly
science is the best weapon we have for understanding how things work.
And clearly children will be
contaminated beyond belief if anywhere in the country there is a school
teacher who suggests that the Hand of God might guide certain events,
and all those teachers need to be rooted out and sent to the salt
mines. How we ever survived as a nation with all that talk about Divine
Providence from the Framers and the Patriots, and all that religious
stuff put out by chaplains to the military is beyond me.
To which I replied:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:15:03 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
>> And clearly children will be contaminated beyond belief if
anywhere
in the country there is a school teacher who suggests that the Hand of
God might guide certain events, and all those teachers need to be
rooted
out and sent to the salt mines. <<
Um, you're doing it. No one I know who is against teaching ID in
science classes has said anything remotely like what you suggest. Their
(and my)
argument is that ID is not science, and should not be taught as such.
ID is not a theory. ID is not even a hypothesis. You surely know that.
Although I am an atheist, I wouldn't have the slightest objection to
public schools teaching courses on Christianity (or any other religion,
come to that), as long as students (or parents, on their behalf) could
opt out. What I do object to, most strongly, is religion masquerading
as science.
I would have thought that you, given your education in science, would
have the same objections.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:36:21 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
What I object to is hypothesis labeled as certainty.
But let's burn teachers at the stake who point out that there are
alternative views.
You elect your school board, I will elect mine, and we can leave each
others schools alone; but that is not what happens.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:44:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
> What I object to is hypothesis labeled as certainty.
Theory, surely? Perhaps Gravitational Theory is better established than
Evolution Theory, but there are many accepted scientific theories with
less basis.
> But let's burn teachers at the stake who point out that there are
> alternative views.
I don't know anyone on the anti-ID side who wants to burn teachers. As
to pointing out alternatives, that of course is acceptable when in fact
alternatives exist. There is no scientifically accepted alternative to
evolution. If you want to teach ID in religious class, that's fine, but
don't label it as science.
> You elect your school board, I will elect mine, and we can leave
each others
> schools alone; but that is not what happens.
I agree, unfortunately.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:00:33 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
Please. There is evidence of the evolution of species. There are also
big gaps in the evidence.
None of which is important to being with. What is taught is not
evolution but militant reductionist humanism with no room in it for
anything else. Perhaps that is good. Perhaps that atheist humanism (see
The Drama of Atheist Humanism for more details since this has a long
historical record) is doing us good although the evidence of history
(see The Drama of Atheist Humanism again) is to the contrary.
It is not the case that Darwinian Selection is known to be correct: for
a hundred years anyone who postulated that there were catastrophes in
earth's history was thrown out of the scientific community on the
grounds that they were fools or religious fanatics: this because
Darwinian Selection was thought then to require LONG periods of
relatively changeless conditions to allow selection to work. And that
was done with fanaticism.
To forbid teachers to point out that there are oddities in the
Universe; that our existence depends on about 6 independent numbers all
of which have to be about where they are or we won't be here -- is
silly. The real fanaticism now is from the atheist humanists and
reductionists.
And while the Darwinian fanatics assume that they know how to explain
all of the problems with irreducible complexity, they fact is that they
don't: they say they do, they say they have computer programs that show
how certain gaps can be bridged, but when challenged they don't have it
yet. They just have faith.
I have yet to see a real confrontation with Sir Fred Hoyle's critique
of Darwinian evolution. Sir Fred ended up postulating "evolution from
space" by the introduction of DNA chains broadcast through the galaxy
by some entity; the entity may well have itself evolved, but on Earth
there are some gaps that are extremely difficult to explain. Again you
can have faith that they will be explained; but they haven't been. Sir
Fred ended up postulating what he thought was a simpler hypothesis, and
that was hardly simple. He wasn't a theist.
I find the fanaticism of the scienticist about on a plane with
scientologists. Both want to control all input to other people in the
vain hope that the other people won't think about the matter and will
be just like them.
Me, I got all my religious beliefs challenged by experts. You ain't had
your faith shot up until you have had Jesuits and FSC Brothers go after
you. I have absolutely no problem with teaching evolutionary biology,
and I encourage people to take evolution seriously (and that leads to
the conclusion that homosexuality cannot possible be hereditary since
the genetic burden is so high). I think if you are going to teach
evolutionary theory you ought to be honest and say that there are gaps
that you have to HAVE FAITH in science to get past. And if you do that,
then I see no great harm in pointing out that another explanation is
that the gaps were bridged in another way. By DNA from Space. Or
by the Hand of God.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:00:58 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
No they just want to fire them. Not burn them. Excuse the hyperbole
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:04:26 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
What you call "scientifically acceptable" is the crux of the
matter. If you HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE then you can never admit that
there are gaps in the theory that not only have not been overcome, but
can never be overcome.
Now of course the notion that the gaps cannot be overcome is itself an
act of faith. But that's my point. To be scientifically acceptable you
must BELIEVE that SCIENCE IS THE ONLY PATH to knowledge, and that
eventually all questions will be answered by science, and those
questions will be answered by physics or be reducible to questions
answered by physics. If only we understood enough we would know all.
That is an act of faith no less sweeping than belief in the Book of
Genesis.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:05:57 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
And finally: I don't spend much time with the Intelligent Design and
Irreducible Complexity people, but I know a few of their leaders, and I
have yet to hear ONE of them tell me that their view is "scientific";
what they say is that it is not contradicted by real science, but only
by faith in science.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:21:22 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
To my way of thinking, Intelligent Design is an "alternative view" in
the same sense that postulating that the moon is made of green cheese
is an alternative view. ID is a philosophical belief, not a scientific
theory, nor even a scientific hypothesis. There's no science in it, and
teaching it as science cheapens science.
I've never heard a scientist claim that evolution was proven, let alone
perfect. That's why they call it a "theory" rather than a "fact". Nor
does evolution make any claim to explain the origin of life, but merely
the origin of species. There is nothing in Evolutionary Theory that
denies the possibility of a Creator, and I've never heard any scientist
argue otherwise. Evolution is merely, like any theory, the best
scientific explanation we have for observed facts. Neither does any
scientist I know believe that everything can be known by using science
as a tool. The Uncertainty Principle alone demonstrates that.
As to "irreducible complexity", that again is philosophy--and bad
philosophy--not science. Its logical fallacy is that it assumes that
what we observe as fact is the only possible outcome. By the arguments
of the irreducible complexity folks, it's impossible for me to be dealt
any bridge hand at all, because the probability of my being dealt that
particular hand is so vanishingly small.
14:48
- More on ID.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:44:14 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
I see you have faith.
But faith in reductionist rationalism is still faith. If you want to
argue epistemology I will be glad to do so. We can add
metaphysics.
Scientific method is a way of discovering a great deal about the rules
of the universe. There is no way to prove it is the only way.
As to what you call science, can you define what you mean? I can.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:13:05 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
I have no faith. The Scientific Method is the best way I know of to
discover truths. If someone proposes a better way, I'd adopt it. Nor do
I assert that the Scientific Method is capable of revealing everything.
There are things I believe are probably true, based on the
preponderance of the evidence, but I would not deny that they may be
disproven or even, in some cases, turn out to be unprovable.
What I call science is the accepted definition, and has been since the
birth of the Scientific Method. The ID folks are trying to redefine
science to encompass their philosophy. By definition, no scientist
supports that attempt. In fact, there are many scientists who are
devoutly religious but who condemn the attempt to weasel ID into
science curricula.
Science depends on facts. ID has no facts. Science depends on
observations. ID has no observations. Science depends on theories. ID
has no theories. Science depends on hypotheses. ID has no hypotheses.
Science depends on rational arguments. ID has no rational arguments. ID
has nothing.
Please understand that, although I regard all religions as
superstitious nonsense, I also defend your right to believe whatever
you wish and to teach your children about your beliefs, as long as you
don't attempt to enforce your beliefs upon me. Most particularly, I
will fight the attempt by religious people to pollute science with
superstition.
Of Microsoft's many abominable business practices, one of the most
despicable is their "Get the FUD" campaign. Microsoft released another
of these so-called "independent" reports [PDF] today. As usual,
they're trashing Linux. They've followed their usual methodology: set
up a straw man and then knock it down. Shouldn't garbage like this have
to be labeled for what it is, a Microsoft-sponsored advertisement? I
wouldn't object in the slightest to such ridiculous documents if "Paid
for by Microsoft" were stamped at the top of each page.
Thursday,
17 November
2005
08:47
- More on ID.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:12:31 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
Tell me again what is the "accepted" definition of science?
As you say, if you set up the definition properly it encompasses all
knowledge: but that is a word game with no relationship to reality.
In addition, there is the way science really works: progress happens
when the old guys die off. Until then orthodoxy pretty well prevails in
the face of all scientific evidence.
But you clearly have Faith not only that Scientific Method is the best
way to determine facts and study nature, which is not a hard faith to
have; but also that it is the only way, and that is by
definition. Which is an act of faith.
Epistemology is fascinating, and not on such sound ground as many seem
to think. It may be that scientific method is the only way to know
something -- which seems to be what you are saying -- but there is most
certainly no proof of that.
Science studies the repeatable. Thus by definition the miraculous,
which is exceptional, cannot be studied by science and is not science.
So if a miracle happens before your very eyes, you have to say, well, I
don't know the explanation for that, but there has to be one, because
by definition there is no other possible explanation. That's what
the Portuguese Socialists said with regard to Fatima. That's what
rationalists continue to say about Lourdes. These things MUST have a
scientific explanation even though the best scientists we can bring to
look at the evidence cannot find one, but there must be one, because
there has to be one, because no other explanation exists, and boy do we
have faith in that.
Science hates the notion of the miraculous because by definition there
can't be any miracles within science. Just as it hates the notion of
magic. Magic is a bit hard to demonstrate; quite possibly impossible.
But then magic purports to be manipulation and that has a regularity to
it, and can be studied by scientific methods. The miraculous
makes no such claim.
But when a long series of highly improbably events brings about a
particular result, and there is no possible "explanation" of the chain
of events or how they fit together, and the sum total of them is
a probability quite low given the age of the universe, then one can
either say, "well, we got the assumptions wrong, and there must be a
scientific explanation because there has to be one because there is no
other kind of explanation"--
On the practical side, if you continue to encourage the ethical
positivists and the atheist reductionists to spread their view of the
world throughout the citizenry and the children of the citizens, you
may soon enough wish you had not done that. As Chesterton said (along
with Karamazov) when a man ceased to believe in God he will quite
likely believe anything at all. And that I assure you has been
demonstrated again and again. The Drama of Atheist Humanism is a
fascinating study. I recommend it to you.
Me I'd rather the schools be teaching belief in The Old Gods, Nemesis
and Catastrophe and pursuit by the Furies, than what they are teaching,
but that's merely a scientific observation of the likely effects of
undermining the basis of ethical belief for most people. I'd far rather
they taught about Odin and Thor and "A man must stand by his master,
until one or the other is dead," and what happens to oathbreakers, than
ethical culture and atheist humanism. But again that's merely a
scientific observation.
It's an epistemological observation when I say that if you define all
knowledge as science and define science so that it excludes anything
not studied by the scientific method, you have pretty well limited
yourself in what you can say about epistemology.
And you're in a spot of trouble when you come to try to explain just
what the hell consciousness has to do with all this and just what we
mean when we say people are responsible for their actions.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:13:24 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
I got long winded. tell me again what is the accepted definition of
science and what is scientific evidence, and how non-repeatable
phenomena fit into that.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:42:23 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
I fear I haven't as much time as I'd like to respond.
Science, as you know, is the organized study of natural phenomena. A
scientist observes a phenomenon, constructs a falsifiable hypothesis as
a tentative explanation of the phenomenon, constructs experiments
designed to prove or disprove his hypothesis and continues to observe
the phenomenon to gain additional data. Any datum that is at odds with
the hypothesis requires the scientist to go back to the drawing board
and create a new hypothesis that takes all of the data into account. As
additional scientists repeat the experiments and observations and
achieve the same result, and as new experiments are devised and run
that confirm the hypothesis, and as that hypothesis is found to have
predictive value, it achieves the weight of theory.
As you know, despite the attempts of ID proponents to denigrate theory
as nothing more than guesswork, a scientific theory is the next closest
thing to observed fact. As you also know, a theory needn't explain all
aspects of an observable phenomenon to be a useful working
approximation. Even today, we use Newtonian physics, which are merely
an approximation, but I doubt you'd question their utility.
As to non-repeatable phenomenon, by definition they are outside
science. Science requires that experiments and observations be
reproducible by other scientists. As to my own beliefs, I've never seen
a miracle or heard of one reported by credible observers. If I did see
a miracle, I would suspect it had a natural explanation, but I
certainly wouldn't rule out an explanation that was outside our
experience.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:46:40 -0800
From: Jerry Pournelle
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
In which case I fail to see the horror of showing in school that
intelligent people think there is more to the universe that a blind
watchmaker.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:53:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Jerry Pournelle
Well, as I said originally, I have no objection at all to that. What I
object to is calling it science, which it ain't.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ID
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:33:48 -0800
From: John Jacobson
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the info re your recently finished book chapters. I'll be
sure to take a look.
A brief bio, I was raised in a fundamentalist sect, received education
to a postgraduate/specialist level, and am currently agnostic in my
beliefs re origins. My basic philosophy might be best expressed in the
Linda Ronstadt Aaron Neville song "Don't Know Much."
I've been interested in the discussions re ID on the net over the last
few months. Discussions is too strong a word, it is more in the realm
of shouting matches. One thing we seem to have lost in this country is
the ability to have a civilized discussion. If I can't answer questions
I can at least call into question your mother's ancestry.
I think one problem is that we're discussing the finished product, i.e.
we're here, how did we get here. It would be helpful if the discussion
would be more in terms of the process by which we arrived. If each camp
would list their "axioms" and the "progression" from those axioms that
has led to the finished product, it would be much easier to have a
discussion. I get a little tired of the shouting, which doesn't clarify
origins at all.
Popper stated that "One can sum up all this by saying that the
criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability,
or refutability, or testability." Most people in science would agree
with that approach.
At the earliest level, "evolution" is vague at best, and clueless at
worst, as to how the first cells managed to reproduce. I'm unaware of
any mechanism that would explain the process, we certainly haven't
produced it in the laboratory, and there have been a few attempts
to reproduce the early earth's atmosphere and pass electron flows
through it to see what would happen. Some organic molecules were
created, hypotheses floated. That work was done 50 plus years ago, but
the basic process remains to be elucidated.
Many (not all) who espouse ID (as I would interpret it - there are
bound to be many interpretations of both ideas) don't actually say that
the events in the later history of life are any different than
"evolutionists" say they are. ID adherents may be somewhat deistic,
stating the "God" got it going, then left for another galaxy, and will
come back sometime to see what's happened. Other think he's been there
all along, "stirring the pot" as it were. If so, seems like he
could have stirred it a bit more skillfully, and saved a lot of people
a lot of grief. And others of course believe in a short chronology, and
a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. Each of those ideas is
clearly not falsifiable, and not science by Popper's definition. But
among ID adherents are many who practice good science in the strict
sense, and choose to invoke a "higher being" to light the first spark
of life, if not shepherd its development over the ages of the earth.
I would argue that at an early chronologic level, both ID and Evolution
suffer from not being falsifiable, and hence are both theories. There
is actually a lot of agreement on many levels re biologic processes
between the two camps, at least between some members of both camps. But
in the main they're not talking in a civilized fashion. So it has
become a religious debate, religion being defined as a belief system
that is not falsifiable.
Anyway, thanks for your daily thoughts, and the real help you've
provided over the years re computers.
Jack Jacobson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:41:29 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: John Jacobson
Well, that is the problem with ID. It has no axioms or progressions,
nor hypotheses nor theory.
Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, but merely about
the origin of species. Life may have originated in any number of ways,
although applying William of Ockham's Razor leads me to believe that
the origination proposed by religionists is unlikely. There are simply
many too many required degrees of freedom.
No ID adherents practice "good science", at least with respect to ID. A
good scientist, in the absence of data, simply says, "we don't know"
rather than proposing an unfalsifiable, untestable explanation.
I think you misunderstand what a theory is in science. You say that
"both ID and Evolution suffer from not being falsifiable, and hence are
both theories." A theory *is* falsifiable. Evolution *is* a theory, and
a well-established one with immense amounts of evidence supporting it.
ID is no theory at all, nor even a hypothesis.
And on a different subject:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Britannica
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:29:18 -0800
From: John Jacobson
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
You've referenced this before on your site. Britannica now is offering
their DVD encyclopedia for 19.95 plus shipping/applicable state tax if
you have an upgrade code, which you would have if you've purchased from
them before.
Thanks. I still have the original version I bought, which I think was
the 2000 edition. I've not upgraded it since, mainly because it
requires WIndows to run. That's a shame, really. There's no reason the
EB couldn't have used industry-standard tools to build their product
instead of a bunch of proprietary Microsoft crap.
13:10
- A reader reports that if you search the Sony DRM files
for "pbclevtug" you'll find the following string:
pbclevtug (p) Nccyr Pbzchgre, Vap. Nyy
Evtugf Erfreirq.
ROT13 that string, and you'll find:
copyright (c) Apple Computer, Inc. All
Rights Reserved.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Sony has betrayed its customers,
violated any number of laws, infringed copyright on both commercial and
OSS software, and probably tossed in the kitchen sink for good measure.
If any of us did even a small part of this, they'd probably lock us up
and throw away the key. What will happen to Sony? Nothing. It's a
corporation.
More
on ID:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:26:22 -0800
From: John Jacobson
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
Hi Robert,
You are of course correct in your statement re theory and science. I
admit that despite my education, when I write late at night I
oversimplify or mistate what I should know. The confusion arises partly
because theory is defined in many ways, e.g.
theory (thê´e-rê, thîr´ê) noun
plural theories
1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a
relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of
assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to
analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a
specified set of phenomena.
b. Such knowledge or such a system.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.
3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or
judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best; the
modern architectural theory that less is more.
4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge;
aconjecture.
So I was not being scientifically rigorous in my statement, you, being
a blogger and an author, probably check definitions on a regular basis
to be sure that you are not called out on a simple statement. I
apologize for my incorrect statement.
I should have stated that "I would argue that at an early chronologic
level, both ID and Evolution suffer from not being falsifiable, and
hence are both speculations or conjectures." While you may be correct
in stating that evolution only discusses the origin of species, most
evolutionists, if I may use that term broadly, probably accept that the
processes that are responsible for species differentiation may be
extrapolated back in time to predict probable mechanisms for the
"origin of life." You may have seen the book "Vital Dust: Life As a
Cosmic Imperative" written by Christian De Duve, a Nobel prize winning
biochemist. In a technical sense, it may not be an evolutionary tome,
but it is written by an evolutionist to explain the probable origins of
life.
As I stated in my previous letter, a clarification of definitions as
I'm attempting here would move the discussion to an area where there is
actual agreement. As a former creationist, knowing many creationists
well, my understanding of the viewpoints of many of them is that they
accept many if not most of Darwin's ideas about the origins of species,
as well as the extensions of that idea by modern geneticists. They
don't accept the conjectures about the origins of life. There are of
course many "short chronology" creationists, and they vehemently
disagree with "evolution." I am leaving them out of the discussion
because I don't agree with their approach either, it is definitely not
science.
To me the more interesting discussion is about the origins of life, or
abiogenesis. I believe for many evolutionists when the term
"creationist" is used, they think of one who doesn't believe in
genetics, biochemistry, or science in general. On the other side, when
a "creationist" thinks of an "evolutionist," they think of one who
denies the possibility of a higher being ever having been involved with
ANY of the many steps that led to the world as we know it. So the
discussion is more of a shouting match because the two parties are not
even discussing the same thing.
The statement below is from information theorist Hubert Yockey in a
book written in the early 1990s discussion of the primeval soup
hypothesis of the origin of life.
"Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth
consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is
self-deception on the ideology of its champions. …
"The history of science shows that a paradigm, once
it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in
textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only
when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order
to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to
speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the
decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic
of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he
must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a
primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an
example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it
is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the
case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail.
There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the
origin of life." (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular
Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN0-521-80293-8).
Dr. Yockey is clearly an evolutionist, as a cursory examination of his
web site makes clear. http://www.hubertpyockey.com/ . He is also very
derisive of ID.
ID finally, by admittedly my own interpretation, is most interested in
the "Prime Mover." It attempts to use arguments such as "irreducible
complexity" to buttress the idea that there was a "Prime Mover." And
you are correct in stating that the word "theory" is not properly used
by many in the ID camp. And ID is not science. But any paradigm re the
origins of life is probably not a theory in the scientifically rigorous
sense of the word, as I believe Dr. Yockey is arguing.
You stated, "A good scientist, in the absence of data, simply says, "we
don't know" rather than proposing an unfalsifiable, untestable
explanation." There are few on either side of the discussion who are
willing to state "We don't know." <G>
Thanks for your time.
Jack Jacobson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ID
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:55:39 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: John Jacobson
I always try to speak precisely, although at times I do not.
I don't know any scientist who claims that evolutionary theory explains
the origin of life. And, at best, we can never know for sure how life
originated on earth. Even if scientists succeed in creating primitive
life in the laboratory from a primordial ooze stimulated by electrical
discharges, that would at most prove one possible explanation, not
establish that that was the actual explanation. Life may have
originated spontaneously, or it may have been "seeded" here from outer
space. My own guess is that it originated spontaneously, but it's only
a guess.
My primary objection to ID is that it tries to present itself as
science, which it is demonstrably not. ID is also intellectually
dishonest and sloppy, full of logical errors. Most of those, I fear,
are intentional, because there are some very intelligent people
supporting the ID agendum.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: "Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design" ...
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:34:54 -0800
From: Sam Olson
To: Robert Bruce Thompson
CC: Jerry Pournelle
PLEASE DON'T PUBLISH MY E-MAIL ADDRESS !
Jerry Pournelle -- Current View
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/currentview.html
Robert Bruce Thompson -- DayNotes Journal
http://www.ttgnet.com/thisweek.html
Hi Bob (and Jerry),
Thanks for the fascinating dialogue on Evol vs. ID -- it's probably
some of the most important questions that we all can endeavor to answer.
My own "label" has /evolved/ over the years, and I now describe myself
as a "meta-agnostic". Both theism and atheism are untenable in my
limited understanding of reality -- as neither one seems to be
"provable" with the tools we have available. I used to call
myself an "agnostic", but even that level of understanding is untenable
-- as one might someday discover or find out the answers to these
ultimate questions about reality. I guess you could say that I'm
the ultimate "fence-straddler", not wanting to make any kind of
commitment to any kind of belief-system. I've not come across
anyone else using this particular self-created terminology to describe
their beliefs. I also look at myself as the ultimate "optimist",
hoping against experience that someday someone may know the answers.
I also personally am attracted to Fred Hoyle's hypotheses about life
arriving on planet earth from other systems, possibly having "evolved"
on those far-distant planetary/stellar systems. We are thereby
not so limited to the age of the earth (a few billion years), but have
the entire age of the universe to facilitate the creation and evolution
of life forms.
Another hypothesis that captures my imagination is Arthur C. Clark's
intriguing idea that stars have embedded intelligent life. Look
out at the night sky, and what do you mostly see -- STARS! We
don't understand how such life could exist in the inferno inside a
star, but it's certainly a possibility. There's so much we just
really don't know or understand. Instead we are so busy fighting
our "turf wars", and destroying so many chances and opportunities we
have of answering and better understanding these important questions --
quite disgusting. "Life" doesn't have to be limited to biological forms
involving DNA.
One of the things that really bothers me about evolution as taught in
our schools: the "survival of the fittest" concept, which promotes our
advocation of serious competition and the consequent "dog-eat-dog"
culture of our society. A far more powerful force is "symbiosis"
-- which is the working together of species to ensure survival and
prosperity. Jesus of Nazareth may or may not be "God", but the
ideas he did promote about "loving your neighbor as yourself" follow
these same concepts and could transform our society
"miraculously". Jiddu Krishnamurti is one person who explored
many of these possibilities. Robert Pirsig (Metaphysics of
Quality) is another.
When one attempts to answer these ultimate questions, one must also
consider the possibilities explored in the "Matrix" movies -- that
reality is not what it seems, but we may only be "programs" running in
a vast complex "computer system" that is the "mind of God"!
Our apparent "physical reality" is a mere (convenient) delusion!
Then the question one must ask is: how does one induce a system
interrupt ? Eureka!! (I.e., how does one get off the
merry-go-round without getting hurt?)
Subject: Re: "Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design" ...
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:08:43 -0500
From: Robert Bruce Thompson
To: Sam Olson
CC: Jerry Pournelle
I don't think of my atheism as something that needs to be proven or is
in any sense provable. I see no evidence that religion has any basis at
all. Show me data and I'll reconsider. But, worst case, if it turns out
I'm wrong and I end up at St. Peter's gates, I won't be at all upset if
he points toward the down escalator. From what Christianity and other
religions teach of heaven, I have no interest in being a citizen there.
As Billy Joel said, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with
the saints. The sinners are much more fun..."
As to survival of the fittest, we don't have that other than in the
limited Darwin Awards sense. And Jesus Christ, if he even
existed--which, having examined the data for and against the
historicity of Christ, I doubt--was nothing more than a communist, at
least if the gospels can be believed.
09:55
- UPS was supposed to deliver two boxes from Antec on the 16th.
One arrived, and when I checked tracking it said the other had been
rescheduled for delivery yesterday. It hadn't shown up by the time we
took the dogs out last night for the last time of the day at around
9:00 p.m. Sometime between then and 6:55 a.m. today, the UPS Fairy
showed up with a large, 50-pound box. Incredibly, the dogs didn't hear
him, or, if they did, they didn't say anything.
I
think the Evolution/ID debate between Jerry and me is over. We're not
really far apart, as it turns out. I got what I was looking for. On his
page yesterday, Jerry
posted the following:
Of those
who claim "Intelligent Design" is "science" I can only say they don't
know what science is.
Which is all I really wanted to hear him say. A scientist friend of
mine adds some useful comments:
I saw a bit of the discussion but
haven't kept up. I don't doubt that that really is his
position. I've taken his comments more as political speech than
scientific or theological. He objects to local school boards
having folks come in and dictate what and how things are taught.
A local school board in Kansas wishes to teach ID as science; he
objects to the idea of folks outside that town/county telling them they
must do otherwise. In this I agree with him as I suspect you do.
I think a lot of (the more visible, anyway) scientists do arrogantly
state that the theory of evolution explains more than it does (i.e.
that it explains the origin of life and disproves the existence of
god(s)). At least, I've seen enough arrogant condescension to
make me understand why a lot of ID folks take up that banner. I
don't know Jerry that well, but I suspect that is some of it. The
crux of it, to me, is that while ID shouldn't be taught in a classroom,
neither should evolution (or any science) be taught the way it
is. Science is absolutely presented to students as a set of facts
to memorize and that one shouldn't question. The drive toward
standardized exams is at the heart of it. And a lot of science
types do overstate how much we understand. Or worse, they really
do think we understand everything pretty well. Ask any
professional researcher in any field and he'll quickly come up with
half a dozen fundamental problems we really don't get. That is
the heart of science: discovering what we don't yet know in a rational
manner. That doesn't fit well into the current science education
dogma.
In other words, I think this debate is mostly a political one focused
on who controls the education of our children. Thus, we all miss
the point when we make it about science v. theology, as that is a false
debate. Science can't speak to the supernatural nor should it
try.
If anyone does sincerely believe that ID is science and should be
taught in science classes, then they're ignorant or loony. But
someone who thinks their locality should control the schools is right
even so.
Hope that makes sense.
Yes, I agree with Jerry on local control of schools. In fact, as I've
said repeatedly, public schools raise a false dichotomy. Any time there
is an apparent conflict of rights, it's likely that the underlying
assumptions are at fault. I can certainly understand the outrage of
religious fundamentalists who are forced to support public schools by
their taxes and then watch those public schools require that their
children attend and be taught concepts that are abhorent to them. The
solution is to get rid of public schools. Issue vouchers if we must,
but allow parents to choose a school that they consider best for their
children, without any state certification requirements or other
government control.
Perhaps I'm too dismissive, but if someone tells me that Evolutionary
Theory explains the origin of life and disproves the existence of
god(s), it wouldn't even cross my mind to consider that person a
scientist, regardless of what degrees or other qualifications he might
hold. I'll defer to your and Jerry's superior knowledge of what passes
for science teaching in today's schools. I guess I was lucky to be in
school in the 60's, when science was taught correctly.
And you're correct that it's a political debate rather than science
versus religion. Although Jerry and I are both in favor of strictly
limiting the power of state and federal governments, where we differ is
just how much control local governments should have. Jerry, for
example, thinks that it should be within the rightful power of
Winston-Salem city government to ban books it doesn't like, to
require everyone to attend a church every Sunday--not just church
in general, but a specific church designated by the city
government--and to require everyone to pay a tenth of his income to
that church. If you don't like it, says Jerry, move.
I consider that intolerable, although I recognize the conundrum. In
order to put limits on what actions a local government can take, there
must be a superior power. And that superior power, as we've seen
demonstrated, can be even worse than the tyranny of the localities.
Saturday,
19 November
2005
12:06
- Here's something I should know the answer to off the top of my
head, but I don't. We have Time-Warner analog cable service. If I
record a program on our new DVD recorder, how does the image quality of
that recording compare to the quality of a commercial DVD-Video disc,
assuming that we choose SP mode (2 hours, 3 minutes per 4.4 GB DVD+R/RW
disc)? How about in LP mode (3 hours, 3 minutes per disc)?
IIRC, DVD video is 720X480, and I'm assuming that our DVD recorder
records in that resolution, but with differing degrees of compression.
It offers HQ (61 minutes on a 4.4 GB DVD+R/RW disc), which the manual
describes as "best quality", SP (2 hours; "better quality"), LP (3
hours; "good quality"), EP (4 hours; "better than video tape quality"),
SLP (6 hours; "video tape quality"), and SEP (8 hours; "worse than
video tape quality"), which I assume differ only in the degree of
compression used.
I assume that standard DVD-Video quality uses 4.7 GB to provide two
hours of video (plus multi-channel sound and so on), so SP on this
recorder at 2 hours on a 4.4 GB disc should be DVD-Video quality,
assuming the cable TV feed is in fact DVD-Video quality. Using LP puts
three hours of video on a 4.4 GB DVD+R/RW disc, which translates to
what DVDshrink would call 67% compression (the duplicate is 67% of the
original size.) Frankly, Barbara and I can't tell the difference
visually between 100% and 67%, so I'm assuming we can safely use this
recorder up to LP mode without noticeably degrading the video quality.
Any advice appreciated. Please post it on the
messageboard.
00:00
-
Copyright
© 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 by Robert Bruce Thompson. All
Rights Reserved.
