Of monkeys and penguins (Economist) [LWN.net]

The Economist catches up with the SCO case. "Indeed 'the SCO case' of 2003 sounds increasingly like the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which pitted religious fundamentalists against progressives wanting to teach Darwin alongside the Bible in American classrooms. The SCO case plays the same role in a culture war now consuming the software industry. On one side are the equivalents of the fundamentalists -- buttoned-down types clinging to proprietary and closed computer systems. Facing them are today's evolutionists -- the pony-tailed set championing collaboration and openness in the form of Linux, an operating system that anybody can download and customise for nothing."

to post comments

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 21:47 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (4 responses)

Given that it took over 60 years after the Scopes trial for the Supreme
Court to overturn "equal time" laws, a very large fraction of the US
population still doesn't accept the idea of evolution, and states even
today are removing it from the syllabus and putting warning labels on
textbooks that teach it, this comparison doesn't exactly reassure me...

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:04 UTC (Thu) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] (1 responses)

You're braver than I am rsidd, I could never admit that one of my relatives slept with a monkey.

Sorry...

Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:35 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Does that mean that none of them ever have, or only that you're not prepared to
admit that they did? (-:

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 29, 2003 14:28 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (1 responses)

I have regaded the United States' handling of Darwin's theories and discoveries as one of our most serious social disasters.

Please keep in mind that these large numbers of "spiritual" people contribute large numbers of dollars to their fundimentalist churches. In turn, these churches spend large numbers of dollars trying to keep this part of biology education away from American children.

In an argument with a fundamentalist, Isaac Asimov once referred to evolution as a fact (something that happened, and is continuing to happen.) I have no reason to feel otherwise.

If (since) this is true, humans who are discouraged from understanding this fact are being denied access to a major component of human history in particular, and ecological history in general. This puts those people at a decided disadvantage when competing against people who do comprenend the nature of evolution. In the long run, such competitive mismatches will result in (voila!) a selection process which operates against the future of the victims.

There are times when I believe that the principles behind evolution are the same principles driving human intellectual advancement. Since software is part of human intellectual advancement, I believe that there is a selection process that operates against some methods of software development, distribution, etc., and in favor of others.

While I really love the open-source model, I am not yet willing to predict how it will fit into the big future. There are too many factors at play.

One thought did occur to me, though; what if artificial intelligence proved to be possible on a massive scale, and open-source software were made available to the robots and computers which had that intelligence? Already, there are "robots" out there on the internet which know how to compile software (albeit in a rudimentary fashion) on the "victim" computer, and thereby infect it with an unwelcome program......

In short, I cannot help but wonder if human acceptance and understanding of open-source principles wouldn't work strongly in favor of people who must battle creatures like these.......

That's really amazing - where'd you get the money for that?

Posted Sep 1, 2003 1:31 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Please keep in mind that these large numbers of "spiritual" people contribute large numbers of dollars to their fundimentalist churches. In turn, these churches spend large numbers of dollars trying to keep this part of biology education away from American children.

Y'know, in years of keeping an eye on that particular flamewar, I have yet to see the slightest evidence of substantial amounts of money being spent towards this goal. Given the number of churches which officially accept evolution, and that most of the fundamentalist Christian churches I've seen could most charitably described as "parsimonious" (and less charitably described as "dirt-poor"), I'm having a real struggle seeing eye to eye with your assertion that they're somehow managing to wave evolutionary teaching off with money.

So... if you have any source for real figures, it would be most welcome.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:03 UTC (Thu) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (16 responses)

How come everyone thinks that people who use and like open-source and free software have to have be "pony-tailed?" Some of us do wear suits and make business decisions, too.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:11 UTC (Thu) by bradfitz (subscriber, #4378) [Link]

Your username does have "grime" in it. :-)

It's a cheap, incompetent smear job

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:16 UTC (Thu) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] (13 responses)

What a terrible article. OK, it makes SCO look bad, too, but it's full of nasty little suggestions of communism and theft, and it makes absolutely no attempt to be properly informed about the facts of the case.

In the future, I'll try to figure things out on my own and ignore the press. They're obviously not qualified to comment on much of anything. Sorry to rant, but the death of investigative journalism depresses me.

It's a cheap, incompetent smear job

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:29 UTC (Thu) by davidw (guest, #947) [Link] (1 responses)

I thought they were being sarcastic with the 'communism' bits myself. The Economist has generally written very favorably and intelligently about Linux. They understand that certain parts of the IT scene are becomming comodotized, and that fighting it is useless. To boot, SCO is compared with backwards, ignorant troglodytes.

Economist has long been following free software

Posted Aug 29, 2003 6:37 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

The Economist has generally written very favorably and intelligently about Linux. They understand that certain parts of the IT scene are becomming comodotized, and that fighting it is useless.

Very true! In fact, they may well be the first in mainstream business media to present the idea of a free software business favourably. I remember an Economist article from about 10 years ago, which criticized the tendency towards stricter intellectual property protection (the illustration was a cartoon helmeted IP stormtrooper), and it had long sidebar explaining the business of Cygnus software. It was later acquired by Red Hat, but at the time Cygnus was the most visible example of a free software support company. The illustration for that sidebar showed a swan slipping throught the fingers of the IP stormtooper...

It's a cheap, incompetent smear job

Posted Aug 28, 2003 22:35 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

The article is not up to the usual standards I expect from The Economist. I thought it was an OK summary, though, as well as an indication of how important this case is becoming. And the fundamentalist comparison was fun...

Suggestions of communism

Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:17 UTC (Thu) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]

It's not the Economist which is accusing us of communism, they're attributing that attitude to McBride.

Not at all

Posted Aug 29, 2003 5:11 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

The author was attempting to write tongue-in-cheek. Remember that the Economist is a British news magazine, and thus their style of sarcastic humor will be more dry than you might be used to.

We spent a long time talking about this and he understands.

Bruce

Not at all

Posted Aug 29, 2003 8:32 UTC (Fri) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link]

Bruce is right on the money here; after reading the Economist for a while one notices that almost all of their articles are interspersed with slightly "subversive" humour (and make that 99% of their photo & figure captions).

UK humour and education

Posted Aug 29, 2003 9:14 UTC (Fri) by james (guest, #1325) [Link] (4 responses)

Remember that the Economist is a British news magazine, and thus their style of sarcastic humor will be more dry than you might be used to.

I do wonder how the Register and the Inquirer come across to American minds...

Americans might not know that the "creation vs evolution" debate is taught in UK schools in Religous Education lessons. In my experience, it is taught that most theologians believe evolution is how God created.

Usually in RE, and virtually always in biology, "pure" creationism is portrayed as archaic.

James
Product of a UK Church of England school

Surprised American

Posted Aug 29, 2003 12:29 UTC (Fri) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link]

"In my experience, it is taught that most theologians believe evolution is how God created."

Aw man, and I thought that was my own unique and special insight. Uh, wait, it is! I can provide proof under NDA. . . .

UK humour and education

Posted Aug 29, 2003 12:59 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (1 responses)

Americans might not know that the "creation vs evolution" debate is taught in UK schools in Religous Education lessons.

How enlightened.

That's where it ought to be taught here. But there is an agenda among many in the USA legislate the teaching of creationism in science classes, even though it decidedly does not belong there.

-Rob

UK humour and education

Posted Aug 30, 2003 2:45 UTC (Sat) by ee_man (guest, #14294) [Link]

The USA does not have a Religious Education class in any public school. That violates the separation of church and state. The UK has an OFFICIAL RELIGION. The USA DOES NOT!!!!!

Perhaps that's why many Creationists converted as adults?

Posted Sep 1, 2003 2:07 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

If you go an have a look at the bios of leading Creationists, and also at the bios of some fellow-travellers like ARN, you'll find that most of them became Creationists as adults. Ironically, their RE classes may have been a significant factor in keeping them away from Creationism until they grew up.

The Americans are all too aware of the CvsE debate. Perhaps if you poke your nose outside the UK occasionally you might notice a few high-profile CvsE political bunfights like the Kansas board of education one. To give you some idea of the flavour, it's being claimed that they "removed evolution from the textbooks", which is odd because they did nothing of the sort.

That got my attention: what's all of the fuss about? Why would "hard-science" authorities like the AAAS see the need to tell direct lies about anything, especially when they're promoting themselves as standard-bearers of truth and impartiality? Nobody's giving me any straight answers yet. But I keep asking occasionally. (-:

One of the craziest sideshows to this bunfight I've run across is a Creationist (Dr Walt Brown) refusing to debate an Evolutionist (Dr Joe Meert) because the Evolutionist is refusing to stick to debating science! Like, wha...? The Evolutionist wants to talk religion, and the Creationist doesn't? (Each of them has their own slant on this, as you might expect, and I do wish one or the other would cave in far enough that they can both get on with it).

I stand corrected

Posted Aug 29, 2003 15:23 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

Remember that the Economist is a British news magazine, and thus their style of sarcastic humor will be more dry than you might be used to.

Fair enough. The combination of dry British humor and standard journalistic "X said/Y said" faux objectivity cheesed me off, and I ranted a bit unfairly. Given my usual respect for the Economist as a fairly intelligent conservative paper, I guess I expected a bit more.

Very few mainstream papers have looked seriously at (1) the staggaring number of factual errors in the SCO briefs, (2) the actual evidence of copyright violations--any good tech reporter should be able to get a copy of SVR4.1 and run the comparison themselves, using one of several free tools--and (3) the legal plausibility of SCO's claims to own RCU, etc.

Several allies of the free software community with access to SysV are taking care of (2) now, running private code comparisons between SysV and Linux. So far, they've only found a very tiny number of slightly suspicious snippets. Unless something nasty turns up soon, this means SCO has only RCU and NUMA to complain about.

I'm still pretty disappointed in the quality of press coverage on this issue. Reporters keep quoting SCO's story-of-the-week without any historical perspective or serious investigation.

It's a cheap, incompetent smear job

Posted Aug 29, 2003 9:23 UTC (Fri) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]

I don't feel that way at all.

I thought it was typisch brit tongue-in-cheek reporting. I felt
the fellow had his facts pretty much straight, and he hinted
at some deep barbs that his regular readers will certainly pick
up on concerning McBride, the SCO-Scopes comparison was certainly
no accident, nor was it meant very kindly.

Been reading the Economist for many years, and I simply love the
fact that they report hard news without taking it all so damned
seriously the way we do with our so-called free (corporate
advertising) press here stateside.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Sep 1, 2003 20:06 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

How come everyone thinks that people who use and like open-source and free software have to have be "pony-tailed?"

It's common for people to partition things they don't understand into categories. It's convenient to have some predetermined way to think about things that one doesn't understand without having to actually stop and think about them. The world is a very complicated place, but this method makes it easier to deal with.

The downside to this approach is that most of us are wrong about just about everything.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:16 UTC (Thu) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] (2 responses)

I think that people who wish to observe the demise of SCO's fraudulent schemes
should step back and control the anger they feel. Vindication cometh.

Cooler heads would lead to more reasoned observations about this money grab.
The people at OSI, FSF, IBM, Red Hat and thousands of developers at large
could be accurately labeled as some of the best and brightest in their
respective fields.They are composed of lawyers, computer scientists, engineers
and experts in many specialties. They are hard at work

One project that is ongoing is ESR's campaign to get information concerning the
literally thousands of public releases of documention and information
concerning the birth and evolution of Unix. There is in the making a very
strong case that there are no trade secrets in SCO's Unixware. The Court
held in UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES vs. BERKELEY SOFTWARE DESIGN that:

"In summary, I find that I am unable to ascertain whether
any aspect of Net2 or BSD/386, be it an individual line of code or
the overall system organization, deserves protection as Plaintiff's
trade secret. Since Plaintiff has failed to provide enough
evidence to establish a "reasonable probability" that Net2 or
BSD/386 contain trade secrets, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for
misappropriation of trade secrets. No preliminary injunction will
issue."

The present day SCO Unixware is based on stuff so old and generic and is so
well documented that likely there are no trade secrets today. Novell
clearly owns any Unix patents. ESR is working on establishing that no secret
methods exist. Once this fact is established there is no reason that SCO cannot
be forced by legal discovery to divulge not only code it claims is infringed,
but the complete source code to Unixware since there are no secrets to hide.
This is step one.

Step two occurs when the actual source code is divulged. It will be ripped to
shreds by analysis. BSD code without copyright notice, GPL code without notice
or permission, misappropriated proprietary code. Any code actually written by
SCO and predecessors will be de minimus.

Why do you think IBM and Red Hat confidently filed counterclaims ?
Red Hat, ESR, IBM, and half the developers on this planet already have
access to either licensed or bootleg copies of SCO's SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
"Unixware" source code. While SCO blows off about MIT scientists no one can
find, open source scientists and programmers have analyzed SCO's source
code to the last "/* comment */". They just can't legally say anything until
the process takes it's proscribed course in the system.

I know that prophets are maligned in their own time but I predict that Unixware
source code will be declared in the public domain. Then the bad guy's will hide
behind an "advice of counsel" defense and Ms. DiDio will still be bleating
about "indemnification", but SCO will be no more.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 29, 2003 1:56 UTC (Fri) by stevegehl (guest, #3738) [Link] (1 responses)

Very well put-- I agree that Unixware will likely lose its copyright. I think the Scopes trial analogy is bogus, though. This is not proprietary vs. open source, or any other religious confrontation. This is a dying company making a last noisy death thrash, while the stockholders try to make a few bucks in the process. Like a chicken with its head cut off, it will thrash and make noise, but regardless of the commotion, there is but one outcome: it will surely die.

Not propietary vs open source?

Posted Aug 29, 2003 15:24 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

This is narrowly SCO vs IBM, but in the larger scheme of things it is the first large real battle of Propietary Source Code (and "IP stormtroopers" and such) vs Open Source Software. Or perhaps the second, after USL vs UCB ("The BSD trial").

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:29 UTC (Thu) by mtflyboy (guest, #14545) [Link]

Darl McBride's problem is not that Linux or free software are communist, but rather that he has forgotten some of the primary rules of free market capitalism: Understand your market and your own business model. A key point that he and many other "old school" industry executives appear to have missed is that in todays internet age, information (ie, software) is an infinite resource. Once created, any piece of information can be copied and distributed as many times as desired essentially for free. This is one reason that Microsoft is as profitable as it is. Once the first copy is developed, the cost to create further copies is so small that it can be considered zero. This can create massive profits. Conversely, if an individual or group creates a piece of software which they desire to give away, then everyone in the world who wants a copy can have one for free. Proprietary software has made money because good, reliable, free software was scarse. People would pay money for the increase in value that came with proprietary software. The advent of Linux and other free and low-cost software means that good, useful and reliable software is becoming plentiful. Any business model that makes money on the scarsity of good free software is destined to fail. The environment has changed and the business models have not. That is a purely capitalist failure.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 28, 2003 23:34 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] (19 responses)

Probably more appropriate than most of us would guess only the reverse of the way The Economist plays it.

The teacher in Scopes didn't actually teach evolution, but was paid to say that he did; it was a shonky put-up job, just like this one. The main evidence for the defense - a tooth from "Nebraska Man" vociferously supported by the expert witnesses - later turned out to be a pig's tooth; so the evidence was completely useless, just like this time. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will pay the defendant's fine again. (-:

It also seems somehow appropriate to place Linux on the side of religion and creativity, and appropriate to place SCO on the side of untested theory and lethal competitiveness.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 0:18 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (18 responses)

I hope you aren't serious about that.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 0:26 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (17 responses)

If the poster is American, I'm sure he is. Nothing surprises me about America anymore.

"Religion and creativity" -- well, I have to admit, religion certainly is creative (not just creationist) in this country.

The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the world put together. -- Sir Peter Medawar

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 0:45 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, to be fair, the nuttiest fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East rather outdo the nuttiest fundamentalist Christians in the USA.

-Rob

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 2:41 UTC (Fri) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link] (1 responses)

Don't be so confident about that. How about Timothy McVeigh? Muslims have no monopoly on nuttiness.

[OT] Nutter or not, I've still yet to see an explanation of the physics...

Posted Sep 1, 2003 2:17 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

...which would let McVeigh's van parked across the plaza from the building knock more than half of it down while leaving other buildings just across the road almost untouched. And the seismo stations did say that there were at least two blasts. She's a jus' no' make-a sense.

I'd also like to know why the BATF happened to vacate their offices in that building completely for the day, but did nothing about the creche in it.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 9:55 UTC (Fri) by sqrt[-1] (guest, #14563) [Link] (13 responses)

If you are going to attack someone's argument you can do one of two things:

1) The Microsoft route: Make general sweeping clains with no evidence and generate a lot of FUD. Also throw in some character generalizations and group associations (ie linux == commies) to muddie the waters.

2) Construct a rational argument with counter arguments to the data/ facts points raised in the initial argument.

Lets have more of 2 and less of 1 in the future eh? (rsidd + others) Taking character pot-shots accomplishes nothing.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 11:39 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (6 responses)

"No evidence" for what? That creationist belief is widespread in America? Plenty of opinion polls show that, even if you don't believe anecdotal evidence: see for instance this article or google for more. It is a fact that Kansas removed evolution from their high-school curriculum in 1999 and that Alabama uses warning stickers on books teaching evolution. Reportedly one third of schools don't teach evolution at all -- not just in Kansas. As far as I know, no other major country, not even the Vatican, even finds the issue worthy of debate any more (a paradox since scientific research in US universities and labs is easily the best in the world).

My point in my first post was that comparing the SCO case to the Scopes trial is a worrisome thing in this country (the US), because it took over 60 years for the Supreme Court to come down firmly on similar anti-evolution laws and even then the issue is not resolved for a huge number of people. The first post in this thread amply shows that. Note that the Economist is a British publication; I'm not sure a major American journal would draw such analogies.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 13:22 UTC (Fri) by sqrt[-1] (guest, #14563) [Link] (5 responses)

Ok, my comment was about if you want to argue with someone, you have to counter point their initial argument. (The origional one made by leonbrooks) To give an example I shall now counter argue your post:
On polls: Ok your article said about 55% of Americans believe in a literial creation while I can easily find other surveys that "prove" the opposite. (ie here it states that 68% of all Americans favour the teaching of evolution in schools)
On Kansas: Your "fact" is apparently completely wrong. Kansas never removed evolution from it's curriculum. In fact when reporters posted in 2001 that evolution was being re-added, letters like this or this were being sent around. (a creationist site I know but if you want to read the boring details visit the kansas depertment of education site and view the meeting notes: here is a link to get you started or science standards 2001 version is all I could find I only skimmed read but found many places were they were only re-arranging the evolution curriculm. (and perhaps adding more!) Their site has a search function to get more.
On that report: I assume you are refering to this report. Well, I woun't enter into this debate but here is a rebuttal. (search for Kansas or read the entire thing)

BTW: I am not American myself and feel if you want to argue such issues you should take it to a more appropiate forum and structure your arguments.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 13:53 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

(ie here it states that 68% of all Americans favour the teaching of evolution in schools)

With these numbers you prove rsidd's point. He didn't make any numerical claim, or even claim majority; he simply said that belief in creationism was widespread. 32% of the population of this huge country is pretty widespread; a minority, perhaps, but hardly a small one.

-Rob

On how to argue...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 14:19 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] (2 responses)

Ok, my comment was about if you want to argue with someone, you have to counter point their initial argument...

You don't have to counter their argument. You could try the Ad Hominem approach if you're bored. By way of example...

Kansas never removed evolution from it's curriculum.

I might point at that since your grasp of English is so poor, as shown by the glaring error in the above quotation, nothing you say could possibly be of any worth.
Therefore your argument must be incorrect -- whatever it was :)

On how to argue...

Posted Aug 30, 2003 6:32 UTC (Sat) by sqrt[-1] (guest, #14563) [Link] (1 responses)

I can live with that. But I still think that by using Ad Hominem it is a bit of an opt-out.

(BTW: I was not quoting when I typed that. What English error did I make?)

On how to spell 'its'...

Posted Aug 30, 2003 7:34 UTC (Sat) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]

You weren't quoting; I was quoting you. Sorry if that was unclear.
Google for 'English possessive pronoun apostrophe'.

Compatibility

Posted Sep 1, 2003 2:44 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Believing in Creation is not incompatible with believing that Evolution should be taught in schools.

Confused? When I were a wee lad, I did Social Studies on India, and it did not make me Indian. We studied Islam, and it did not make me islamic. The key is that we were taught about Islam, questions along the lines of whether it was a true or false belief were not asked or answered by the school, they stuck to teaching observations.

I'm firmly of the belief that we need to teach about both Evolution and Creation (and variants of both) in our schools. The existence of many successful Creationist Biologists, Microbiologists and Organic Chemists tells me that Evolution is not a necessary component of an education in Biology, so I'm not buying the "but everything scientific is based on Evolution" claim. Engineering? Does a resistor care how it got here? Physics? Do aircraft wings heat faster in six-thousand-year-old air or billion-year-old-air? Marine biology? Will my dolphin subject jump higher for having confidence in a personal God or from the joy of having survived tens of millions of years of bloodshed?

If they're being presented badly enough that neither side is showing very much by way of truly rational argument in most of the visible debate, that tells me that neither PoV is being taught competently now, so in effect we have a clean slate. The argument I do see is all tautology (question begging, truth by democracy, proof by rapier wit and unrelenting assertion and so on), no substance. The "evidence" which is used is generally copied into the debate with little or no actual understanding. (Hey! Sounds like SCO!) Perhaps we should teach kids about reasoning before trying to make them reason?

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 13:01 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (5 responses)

You left out:

(3) The SCO route. Make up a lot of fake evidence, and deceive yourself into believeing that it makes sense and that you have a real case.

To my observations, that's how creationists (and flat earthers and "the moon landings were faked" conspiracy theorists and others who reject vast realms of empirical evidence) work.

-Rob

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 13:31 UTC (Fri) by sqrt[-1] (guest, #14563) [Link] (4 responses)

While (3) could apply to some creationists, Evolutionists are far from clean in this area (fake fossils, fake embryo drawings, discarding evidence not fitting their "model") (Too tired to look up links)

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 29, 2003 13:51 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (3 responses)

You're going to find people who've behavied unethically on *all* sides of *any* argument. Anecdotal evidence that somebody who thinks X cheated is hardly evidence that everybody who thinks X cheats.

I mean, heck, there's almost certainly some code in Linux that shouldn't be there-- whether it's just because of a missing BSD attribution, or because it was ill-gotten from proprietary code through enough obfuscated channels that nobody noticed. Unless you're SCO, though, you don't think that this invalidates the entire Linux codebase.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming amount of real, true, verified scientific evidence that the broad outlines of evolution are correct. Yeah, all the details are not perfectly understood, and there's a lot of controversy amongst evolutionary biologists about the details-- but the fact of the basic idea is plain and clear. That some tiny fraction of the evidence has been faked doesn't rule out all of the rest of it.

-Rob

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Aug 30, 2003 6:36 UTC (Sat) by sqrt[-1] (guest, #14563) [Link]

You just came up with a fourth in that statement.

4) If all else fails - resort to elephant hurling.

That tiny fraction...

Posted Sep 1, 2003 3:09 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

...might happen to be the bolt from which the rest is suspended. (-:

The most reasonable charge that I've most often seen levelled against Evolution is the same one that is most often levelled against Creation: that the adherents are blinded to the implications of many observations by their faith.

This can work both ways for the same observation. The Lewis Overthrust, for example, has its layers the wrong way up in sections hundreds of kilometers each way, and way-insufficient glassy slag underneath for it to have slid there gradually and way insufficient cracking for it to have "unrolled" to there. This makes a fine problem for Evolutionists to explain. It also makes a fine problem for Creationists to explain because while there isn't enough slag to explain it having slid there, the slag is present which implies that the whole unit was moved a little while more or less dry after it was emplaced.

Singularly appropriate comparison in some ways, but...

Posted Sep 8, 2003 17:42 UTC (Mon) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link]

For some facts, read Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", published by Adler & Adler. Denton is an Australian doctor and molecular biologist, and has no discernible religious bent. He effectively debunks most (maybe all) of the "facts" about the theory of evolution that were taught in the biology classes I've attended.

Darl McBride and Free Lunches

Posted Aug 29, 2003 0:20 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

[McBride] says: "We don't get the whole free-lunch thing."

Er... no.

What he doesn't get is the idea of anybody else having a free lunch. Meanwhile, he loves the idea of his company and himself collecting huge royalties on an operating system written by the long labors of many other people who put it out under the Free licence they wished for their work.

I guess, thinking about it, that that isn't a free lunch after all. Lunch is paid for. Darl just thinks that other people should pay for his lunch.

-Rob

SCO Says The Wont Sue Linux Companies

Posted Aug 29, 2003 3:21 UTC (Fri) by Frederick (guest, #14364) [Link] (1 responses)

At least that's what they said in Australia.

Looks like the whole house of cards is about to collapse.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050642514.html

SCO Says The Wont Sue Linux Companies

Posted Aug 29, 2003 4:06 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Yeah, sort of. They are saying they have no "current plans", so they are leaving it open. Kind of...

My bet is this:

1. They are well aware that they have no case.
2. They never actually planned sue users because they know the above.
3. The whole thing is about FUD, stock scams and being paid by MS. At one point it was also about getting some settlement money from IBM (it's now way too late for that one).

Any companyy that wants to be in the OS business would be shitting their pants right now, given the patent lawsuit from IBM. It is quite clear SCO aren't interested in any of that any more.

It remains to be seen how are they going to get out of the whole scam.

Evolution v Fundamentalism

Posted Aug 29, 2003 3:26 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (7 responses)

For what it's worth, Linus himself likes to view the history of Linux as an evolution - in the biological sense (best features survive). So, generally speaking, Linux folks would be closer to a scientific, evolutionary kind of thinking than to a religious one. After all, there are no mysteries in software development - every single thing can be explained in a perfectly scientific way. The article probaby got that part right.

As for SCO being fundamentalist, that's a bit of a stretch. Being protective about intellectual property is no way fundamentalist. After all, Linux code is protected by copyright. As for clinging to proprietary and closed - this could be considered conservative, but I don't think fundamentalist quite fits.

It makes a good joke though... :-)

What he means by "Fundamentalism"

Posted Aug 29, 2003 5:29 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

I'll try to explain where the fundamentalism aspect comes from.

Some religious people experience divine inspiration. Let's not argue whether it is real or not, and just accept that they experience it and sincerely believe it is real.

Some people who live in religious communities see that others around them receive divine inspiration, and want it for themselves. They become desperate and frantic to experience divine inspiration. People who are desperate and frantic aren't generally thinking very clearly, and will tend to identify any bit of imagination as divine inspiration. It's from God, so it must be right and they must be right.

Thus, you get some people who develop an unimpeachable belief in their own correctness, and who go around doing crazy things. More well-grounded religious people find them objects of humor, except when their actions cause people harm.

This is not to speak ill of sincerely religious people. A very sincere Mormon helped me to understand this phenomenon, and I hope I'm passing it on clearly.

Thanks

Bruce

What he means by "Fundamentalism"

Posted Aug 29, 2003 9:20 UTC (Fri) by james (guest, #1325) [Link]

Thus, you get some people who develop an unimpeachable belief in their own correctness, and who go around doing crazy things. More well-grounded religious people find them objects of humor, except when their actions cause people harm.

The comparison with the stereotypical Slashdotter is very accurate...

James

What he means by "Fundamentalism"

Posted Aug 29, 2003 14:47 UTC (Fri) by cdmiller (guest, #2813) [Link]

One thing to keep in mind, as my Grandfather once told me, "Any type of fanatic is dangerous".

- cameron

What he means by "Fundamentalism"

Posted Aug 29, 2003 15:50 UTC (Fri) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm going way OT here, but I thought I'd clear one thing up.

The description Bruce posted above would generally be confined (in the U.S.) to Mormons and possibly some Pentacostals and charismatics, in the Christian sects.

Most U.S. Christian fundamentalists tend to discount personal religious experience completely and are more focused on more-or-less-systematic theologies that can be justified by prooftexting from the Bible. (I think this is also typical of Muslim fundamentalism with respect to the Quran, but I have little firsthand experience with the latter.) The bulk of fundamentalists in the U.S. tend to distrust any claimed new revelations, saying that divine revelation stopped after the apostolic era, essentially putting the Bible above any human authority. In this context, "God told me to do it" is usually accompanied by a scriptural reference, and the Spirit works by "pointing" the believer to an applicable scripture. Naturally, in this type of environment anything that challenges the idea that the Bible contains something other than literal absolute truth (such as evolution rather than strict seven-day creationism) is considered anathema.

Pentacostals and charismatics have a higher regard for the workings of the Holy Spirit, and as such often claim to have types of revelation though usually not in a strictly doctrinal form. Adherence to scriptural norms as in standard fundamentalism is often reduced, though scripture usually does act as a check (though not necessarily a complete override) on individual personal revelation.

Mormonism, on the gripping hand, was originated by an individual who claimed direct revelation from an angel, and adherents even now claim experiential revelations as part of daily life. In this context, a direct revelation can't really be opposed in a nonexperiential way - Mormon fundamentalists of this stripe who have revelations at odds with the doctrine espoused by the church hierarchy usually end up getting excommunicated from the LDS church. (An example would be Elizabeth Smart's alleged kidnapper, who claimed a revelation that he was engage in polygamy; another case is detailed in the recent book by Jon Krakauer, _Under the Banner of Heaven_.) Most Mormon fundamentalists are distinguished from reformers by the fact that their revelations cause them to return to practices of the early LDS church that have since been done away with by later revelations to the church hierarchy.

None of which is to contradict Bruce's point, merely to point out that there are many different flavors of "fundamentalism" in different religious sects, and to point out also that the fundamentalism that most in the U.S. would be familiar with is rather different from what Bruce's Mormon friend explained.

What comes after gripping hand? (-:

Posted Sep 1, 2003 3:32 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Perhaps if we printed the kernel onto gold plates and handed Darl a seer stone and a hat to read it with he'd accept that it was the genuine original? Or perhaps that's already happened with System V - in which case could we get an ex-cathedra pronouncement in our favour from the head honcho of the LDS?

Thanks for the Motie reference, BTW, it's nice to be reminded every so often. (-:

What he means by "Fundamentalism"

Posted Sep 1, 2003 3:26 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Bruce, can you please expand this explanation to include the fundamentalism
imposed by the likes of Mao and Stalin? They (and many others) seem to have
come to similar conclusions (and excesses) without the "divine inspiration"
ingredient, in these cases with a definite emphasis on the absence of any
divinity, and I wonder if you're aware of any valid substitutes?

Software Fundamentalism

Posted Sep 1, 2003 3:20 UTC (Mon) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

there are no mysteries in software development - every single thing can be explained in a perfectly scientific way.

Ah! An idealist! (-:

Linus himself likes to view the history of Linux as an evolution - in the biological sense (best features survive)

Unfortunately that's the least "interesting" (contentious) side of evolution. Linux is constantly having revision and extension done by intelligent planners, which is closer in principle to Intelligent Design (or possibly Progressive Creation). Linus "Natural Selection" Torvalds is the Death of Hopeful Monsters, but excesses of coffee and Jolt notwithstanding, kernel contributors don't map very well to accidental mutation as a concept.

Of monkeys and penguins (Economist)

Posted Sep 1, 2003 14:32 UTC (Mon) by biber (guest, #14687) [Link]

For those interested in evolution and compuer science: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/