- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
30th Edition of the TOP500 World’s Fastest Supercomputers Released
|
|
|
Comments (39)
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Many paleontologists believe that the meteorite/catastrophe was just the final straw for a group already tottering on the edge of obsolescence.
That's what makes science so exciting, because there are just as many who believe the evidence is that the dinosaurs were flourishing.
Quoting:Many paleontologists believe that the meteorite/catastrophe was just the final straw for a group already tottering on the edge of obsolescence.
Well, even that debate fits nicely into our analogy, doesn't it :-) Some people are already thinking MS is becoming obsolete and that it's just a matter of time, while other's believe MS is flourishing and needs a hand to be pushed off the cliff.
Yeah Sander good point. Hypotheses are formed (in science and the market) in the absence of complete evidence. The market differs from science in that there is a potential feedback loop absent from science. Thus if lots of people start believing M$ is a dinosaur heading for extinction then the prophecy may become self fulfilling....
That can happen in the real life too montezuma. If we all start believing than mankind is doomed, all hell will break loose and you'd see mayhem that will indeed doom mankind :-)
> Am I the only one?
15 years ago. Probably pretty much so, yes. Now, even 10 years ago, it was becoming obvious to anyone who took the time to look into it.
> The market differs from science in that there is a potential feedback loop absent from science.
The feedback loop in science is supposed to be experimentation confirming hypotheses with independent testing and verification. Now that we've entered an age where science seems to be mostly funded by governments that's getting replaced by meeting political goals and furthering political causes. Which was, of course, easily predictable. Governments subvert everything they touch to their purposes. It's the nature of the beast.
15 years ago. Probably pretty much so, yes. Now, even 10 years ago, it was becoming obvious to anyone who took the time to look into it.
> The market differs from science in that there is a potential feedback loop absent from science.
The feedback loop in science is supposed to be experimentation confirming hypotheses with independent testing and verification. Now that we've entered an age where science seems to be mostly funded by governments that's getting replaced by meeting political goals and furthering political causes. Which was, of course, easily predictable. Governments subvert everything they touch to their purposes. It's the nature of the beast.
> Now that we've entered an age where science seems to be mostly funded by governments that's getting replaced by meeting political goals and furthering political causes.
It's only the uses made of scientific research that suffer from this problem and this problem is as old as science itself. Political manipulation of scientific evidence has occurred since Galileo: Remember the Catholic Church and its attempt to silence him?
Most legitimate scientists believe there is an objective reality out there and IN THE LONG TERM severely punish falsehood and spin through the independent testing of ideas. There is actually a very strong incentive for them to do so since if a prevailing orthodoxy is taken down with hard evidence or a lie exposed then huge browny points accrue to those who do it.
As to Governments "subverting everything they touch" well your ideological bias appears to be showing ;-).
It's only the uses made of scientific research that suffer from this problem and this problem is as old as science itself. Political manipulation of scientific evidence has occurred since Galileo: Remember the Catholic Church and its attempt to silence him?
Most legitimate scientists believe there is an objective reality out there and IN THE LONG TERM severely punish falsehood and spin through the independent testing of ideas. There is actually a very strong incentive for them to do so since if a prevailing orthodoxy is taken down with hard evidence or a lie exposed then huge browny points accrue to those who do it.
As to Governments "subverting everything they touch" well your ideological bias appears to be showing ;-).
> As to Governments "subverting everything they touch" well your ideological bias appears to be showing ;-).
Bias? BIAS?
Ha! It's fact, I tell you. FACT! Argh! The inefficiencies of central planning extend to _all_ of human action. :^)
Bias? BIAS?
Ha! It's fact, I tell you. FACT! Argh! The inefficiencies of central planning extend to _all_ of human action. :^)
Quoting:Most legitimate scientists believe there is an objective reality out there and IN THE LONG TERM severely punish falsehood and spin through the independent testing of ideas.
No most all.
Quoting:There is actually a very strong incentive for them to do so since if a prevailing orthodoxy is taken down with hard evidence or a lie exposed then huge browny points accrue to those who do it.
FOSS works a lot like that.
> FOSS works a lot like that.
Yeah I know. That's why it is so successful and why it will eventually displace closed efforts.
Yeah I know. That's why it is so successful and why it will eventually displace closed efforts.
http://www.mises.org/th/chapter16.asp
"To maintain that the evolution of mankind from its original conditions to the present state followed a definite line is to distort historical fact. There was neither uniformity nor continuity in the succession of historical events. It is still less permissible to apply to historical changes the terms growth and decay, progress and retrogression, improvement and deterioration if the historian or philosopher does not arbitrarily pretend to know what the end of human endeavor ought to be. There is no agreement among people on a standard by which the achievements of civilization can be said to be good or bad, better or worse."
Or to put it in two short phrases:
"Two steps forward, one step back."
and
"He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is." {insert blasting bass guitar riff and exquisite drumming here}
Or to put it in two short phrases:
"Two steps forward, one step back."
and
"He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is." {insert blasting bass guitar riff and exquisite drumming here}
> ...well your ideological bias appears to be showing ;-).
I certainly hope so. I seldom make any attempt to hide it, and when I do it's almost always due to lack of time or politeness.
However, I notice you don't refute the assertion. :)
I should also note that subverting something to another purpose is, in and of itself, neither a good nor bad thing. Whether it is good or bad depends entirely on your view of the original vs. the new purpose.
I certainly hope so. I seldom make any attempt to hide it, and when I do it's almost always due to lack of time or politeness.
However, I notice you don't refute the assertion. :)
I should also note that subverting something to another purpose is, in and of itself, neither a good nor bad thing. Whether it is good or bad depends entirely on your view of the original vs. the new purpose.
> However, I notice you don't refute the assertion. :)
That's because I was being polite.
That's because I was being polite.
> That's because I was being polite.
Although some folks might be surprised I would say this, it is possible to disagree, refute the other person's assertions, and remain polite.
I, also, tend not to do so because it takes too long.
Here's how it goes:
"I disagree. Governments have fostered many positive aspects of development, such as creating the non-profit research environment that was the early Internet, the basic research that underlies teh NASA projects, and you cannot deny that it was Isabella of Spain, acting as the head of government, that funded Columbus's voyages of discovery."
The retort would be:
I disagree. It was only after the government released its control of the routing tables and removed the non-profit rules that the Internet finally exploded into what we know today. NASA has retarded spaceflight with its inefficient contracting based upon the congressional district in which the manufacturers are located, along with the government crushing alternatives by law. Isabella wasn't acting as head of government, she hocked her private jewels in order to fund the greedy S.O.B., and then sent her military over to kill unknown numbers of natives and put those few that survived into slavery to fill the coffers of Spain and, as a result, _ruin_ the Spanish economy for hundreds of years."
But I digress...
Although some folks might be surprised I would say this, it is possible to disagree, refute the other person's assertions, and remain polite.
I, also, tend not to do so because it takes too long.
Here's how it goes:
"I disagree. Governments have fostered many positive aspects of development, such as creating the non-profit research environment that was the early Internet, the basic research that underlies teh NASA projects, and you cannot deny that it was Isabella of Spain, acting as the head of government, that funded Columbus's voyages of discovery."
The retort would be:
I disagree. It was only after the government released its control of the routing tables and removed the non-profit rules that the Internet finally exploded into what we know today. NASA has retarded spaceflight with its inefficient contracting based upon the congressional district in which the manufacturers are located, along with the government crushing alternatives by law. Isabella wasn't acting as head of government, she hocked her private jewels in order to fund the greedy S.O.B., and then sent her military over to kill unknown numbers of natives and put those few that survived into slavery to fill the coffers of Spain and, as a result, _ruin_ the Spanish economy for hundreds of years."
But I digress...
LOL Bob. Frankly I get a bit sick of (regular) politics in a linux forum so I (try to) keep mine to myself.
"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what your government is
actually doing is worse than you can imagine."
"I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit."
---Han Solo
> That's because I was being polite.
Actually, the restraint is appreciated, as I don't think either of us would convince the other. However, I suspect you think I intended it as a criticism of government, which (though you may not credit it) is not the case.
Actually, the restraint is appreciated, as I don't think either of us would convince the other. However, I suspect you think I intended it as a criticism of government, which (though you may not credit it) is not the case.
I would be so bold to go back to the dinosaur analogy and say that the "meteorite" that will take out MS will be DRM.
Quoting:I would be so bold to go back to the dinosaur analogy and say that the "meteorite" that will take out MS will be DRM.
Probably it would be more like the whole asteroid belt landing on MS, with the asteroid belt representing lots of different reasons.
Quoting:Governments subvert everything they touch to their purposes
So does human kind, so did the Europeans when they annexed America, so does business, and especially so does Microsoft. In fact, that subverting is what them makes them survive.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
There is actually a lot of debate on that point. Many paleontologists believe that the meteorite/catastrophe was just the final straw for a group already tottering on the edge of obsolescence.