The Digest Mon, 16 May 2005 Volume02 : Number 743
************************************************************************
Sent to: 743 subscribers
In today's The Digest 07 messages
=============================
- Re: The Digest V1 # 742
- CF card partitioning - WaHaY!
- A 9500 question
- Re: Evolution
- Re: Copyright
- Re: The previous discussion of evolution
- Re: The Digest V1 # 739
Date: 13 May 2005 19:51:55 +0000
From: Bernard Hill <address truncated>
Subject: Re: The Digest V1 # 742
In message <b2dcrq4WkwHy.gsX3mSQb@smtp.eclipse.co.uk>, The Digest<address truncated> writes
>
>I think that is probably immoral but surely it is stupid? Perhaps any>new rules should nod towards patent law, I don't know.
Patents are quite a different thing.
>But 70 years, in your case Bernard, 70 years after your death (whichI >hope is a l-o-n-g way away)? Is that reasonable?
Not particularly. But it's the least of evils in that it does no harm.Would you want your parliamentary representatives to spend time sayingthat "70 years except for software, which is xx years. And softwareis defined as...."
Sounds like money for lawyers or civil servants there. Much easier toleave it all at 70.
--
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland
Date: 13 May 2005 20:19:32 +0000
From: Victor E.Kviat <address truncated>
Subject: CF card partitioning - WaHaY!
Phil Aypee wrote<address truncated>
TD> As my 256 MB cards are Transcend I imagine that'll work too, but I TD> want a much bigger CF - possibly 2 (or even 3) as my PC only has a TD> 1.4 GB hard disk. If anyone wants to know, RPM (Ranish Partition TD> Manager) 2.40 can only define 4 partitions. It's not exactly a
TD> serious limitation but it is a limitation.
Hi Phil,
It is not a limitation of RPM but FAT system itself: partitions table in Master Boot Record is designed to have four partitions only. In DOS mode you usually have only primary and _secondary_ (a.k.a. Extended) partitions. And all logical drives except "C" are located inside the secondary partition.
--
Best regards,
Victor Kviat
mailto<address truncated>/a>
http://vkvplace.da.ru
Date: 14 May 2005 09:49:47 +0000
From: Charles Davies <address truncated>
Subject: A 9500 question
On my 5mx Contact a search will find any text in any field including
notes.
Does the 9500 allow the same or does one have to install an extra
program ?
With a migration in view bought an iPaq 5550 earlier this year but
based on Microsoft Outlook Contacts this type of search does not seem
to be possible so I may have to look at the 9500. Connections between
the iPaq and P800 phone are not too happy.
Regards
Charles Davies
Date: 14 May 2005 10:56:31 +0000
From: Rolf Brunsting <address truncated>
Subject: Re: Evolution
Dear Itamar,
<< Scientists can measure what happened after the "big bang" and can try and explain the big bang with these measurements, but they can't be sure as the actual bang can''t be measured >>
That's not the case as the Big Bang theory has a number of repercussions that can be verified. One of the repercussions is the presence of a background radiation which has been found. You can compare it to verifying that you stayed in a particular hotel room by checking the room for fingerprints, the DNA material from hairs, etc. and comparing them with your fingerprints and DNA profile.
<< Furthermore, science cannot explain what was present before the big bang, why there was a point (no mass, no time) that exploded the way it did and continues to expand, why it did not explode earlier or later, where it came from, etc. >>
Well, when I'd ask a well known British biographer to write a book under the title "Itamar Engelsman and the Norman Invasion - 1066 to 1075" the response will be that it's impossible to write such a book. Itamar Engelsman didn't exist at that time. Though it's possible to write a biography of Itamar Engelsman from the moment of his conception to the current day. The same applies to a scientist and the universe. Science investigates the universe and tries to discover its underlying principles. The job of a scientist as biographer of the universe therefore starts at the conception of the universe - the Big Bang.
Your "Furthermore..." is therefore correct but doesn't stop scientists speculating. The Inflation Theory which explains the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang allows more of these bangs to happen. So that there's the idea that our universe is part of a 'multiverse'. You can visualise this multiverse as a kind of foam. And our universe is an expanding bubble in this multiverse foam. These other universes may have different characteristics. Like a universe that has twice the mass but is otherwise identical to ours. Such a universe would expand until the gravitational force would halt the expansion and pull the universe together again so that it collapses and disappears. Question is whether such a multiverse leaves its fingerprints inside our universe so that a study of these tell-tale signs allows us to draw conclusions about the nature of the multiverse. When that's no possible it means that the multiverse is a nice idea that won't become scientific theory.
However, I think that your "Furthermore..." is more than a factual statement as you've used "science cannot explain" before. And you've used it in the sense of "YOU can't explain. Which is also correct as there's an explanation for the formation of the universe in the Old Testament, in Norse Mythology, the Songlines of the Aboriginals, etc., etc. Thing is that we have left the realm of science in these cases and entered the realm of religion. A realm that has quite different rules than the realm of science. Religion allows a wide range of contradictory explanation to live side by side. Something science only allows during the first investigative phase of newly discovered phenomenon. Factual evidence is then used to weed the wrong ideas/theories out until science comes to a single explanation. While explanations aren't weeded out in the realm of religion because factual evidence isn't required for many key elements of its explanations. Science and religion are therefore two separate realms that may touch each other but don't overlap each other. They're two distinct forms of human enquiry.
So, when it comes to explanations we have to take account of the realm these explanations come from and discuss them in accordance with the rules of the realm. When it's the explanation of the Old Testament we need to discuss it using the rules of the realm of religion. Asking for factual evidence for the existence of God is then out of bounds. Similarly, a discussion of Darwin's theory of evolution means we're in the realm of science. Meaning that proposed alternatives to Darwin's theory need to be accompanied by the factual evidence to back them up - the explanation of the Old Testament can't be submitted.
<< Even if we human beings develop the self-conciousness only after some months or more, we still develop it while the other animals (imho clearly) do not >>
As you're talking about "the other animals" you're including Bonobos and Chimpanzees. While it has been demonstrated that Bonobos and Chimpanzees are self-concious. And there are signs that some species of dolphin are self-concious as well. We've come to these conclusions through scientific work - I've mentioned the work by Frans de Waal, for example. While your "imho" is a repeat of what you've already mentioned a number of times already. It has the characteristic of the no evidence required IT IS of the realm or religion. When that's the case - your opinion is based on religious teaching - then please say so. And, please, accept that what you write above won't carry much weight within a discussion on a scientific theory as it's not science based. In case it's not based on religious teaching, isn't it time that you say a bit more than the above? That you refer to work of scientists, for example. Even better, that you explain why it is that the paintmark test I described is flawed and that its results don't give us a true mark of self-conciousness.
<< The real question in my mind is however, that if evolution is try, why are there no other group of animals that developed the same self-conciousness as the human beings did ? >>
First of all, evolution isn't trial and error as that's what I understand you're referring to. The reason why evolution doesn't work that way is because it would require a largely undiversified genetic code within species that are themselves diversified. Such a genetic code contains all the elements for a trial and error process by changing the activation of genes. And it isn't subject to a loss of genes when a specific species, or a related group of species, dies out. That's not what we see when we compare genetic codes. We see the diversification of species back in their diversified genetic codes i.e. specialisation.
Secondly, Darwin's theory allows for the emergence of unique characteristics. And there are several plants and animals that show such characteristics. Culture is a rather unique characteristic. One you say is truly unique as you claim that it's only found in humans. While that's certainly not the case.
<< We went within 6,000 years from the stone age to reaching the moon, computers, wireless communications, etc. The monkeys using the stick or other tool in that period still uses the same tools. In my mind there is a clear distinction in the development that cannot be explained with the Darwin theory. >>
Darwin's theory certainly can explain the differences between chimpanzees and humans as it can explain the emergence of culture. Now, culture is a self-accelerating process that can be compared to the number sequence 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - etc. We add what we've learned to what our parents learned. And our children will add what they will learn to what we learned, our parents learned, etc. Culture is an accumulative process. Meaning that the species in which culture emerged early (humans) will rapidly accelerate away from the closely related species in which it emerged later (chimpanzees) culture wise.
Now, Darwin's theory stops at the emergence of culture as the key principle on which it's based, natural selection, doesn't work as an explanation for the way culture develops. Meaning that you have to refer to different theories when you're talking about the way humans went from the stone axe to the chain saw.
---
Kind Regards,
Rolf Brunsting - Beilen - Netherlands
Date: 14 May 2005 10:57:44 +0000
From: Rolf Brunsting <address truncated>
Subject: Re: Copyright
Dear Phil,
<< It seems odd to me that breach of copyright in Britain ceases to be a (civil) offence 1 day after 70 years have passed. The previous day it was an offence! >>
Why don't you spell out the alternatives to a fixed copyright period and the associated change of copyright status from one day to another. As the first copyright period that doesn't involve a status change is an infinite copyright period - nothing ever comes out of copyright. The second alternative without a status change is a copyright period of zero years - no copyright protection whatsoever.
<< I don't see how that can be moral >>
You're taking morality to such extremes that it becomes meaningless. The truly moral question is whether you grant copyright or not. When the answer is 'Yes, we do grant copyright' it's then a question of practical implementation and finding the right balance.
<< Where literature is concerned it may be defensible if a little silly - but software? The word I would use is "stupid" >>
When I had to check UK copyright law six years ago the copyright period for software was ten tears. In other words, UK law does take account of what it is that's protected by copyright.
---
Kind Regards,
Rolf Brunsting - Beilen - Netherlands
Date: 14 May 2005 11:59:12 +0000
From: Rolf Brunsting <address truncated>
Subject: Re: The previous discussion of evolution
Dear Chris,
<< It's a pity that you seem to have taken to disputing the motives & integrity of the questioner (i.e. Mr Hogan & even me!), rather than discussing the issues (& evidence) that are raised >>
What I've written were some first observations. When Mr. Hogan uses Kicking The Sacred Cow as the title for his book it's not very strange to make the observation that Mr. Hogen appears to challenge authority. Given the list of theories Mr. Hogan appears to question it's not very strange to make the observation that Mr. Hogen appears to see more in, what's now called, the Intelligent Design theory, than others do. Even though I haven't read the book myself. Let's be honest, when I mention Wheels - Engine - Bonnet - License Plate - Boot - Steering Wheel - Doors - Brakes - Seats and Gearbox and the word that pops up in your mind is : Car.
As for the issues, there's nothing new about scientific theory becoming dogma. Think of the Phlogiston Theory people held on to for well over a century despite all the signs that it was fundamentally flawed. The Catholic Church adopted Aristotle's natural philosophy and persecuted those who discovered things that were at odds with it. That scientists can become very authoritarian because they think that they've got it absolutely right is nothing new either. Nor is it limited to those who work in science.
<< Not that yours is an unusual reaction against someone who questions science's emotive theories, unfortunately... >>
I'm sorry, but when you want people to make their minds up on the basis of the available scientific evidence the last thing you should do is to write the above. What an "Oh, that's the usual reaction" does is to create two opposing camps - Us versus Them. It unleashes all kind of subjective influences and forces that cloud the question whether a particular theory is right. Scoring political points becomes much more important, for example.
<< So although I have discussed Mr Hogan (and myself!) this time, please don't expect me to get into a long-running personal discussion, because I won't. >>
Sorry again, but mentioning that you agree with Mr. Hogan in that the Big Bang theory isn't as solid as it appears to be can hardly be called a discussion.
<< What his book is REALLY about is a call for science to be more evidence-based, and hence less reliant on fancy theories that are
either (a) beautiful/intuitive but difficult to test, (b) have been patched to hell to keep them matching every new observation (like the church's old crystal spheres!), or (c) where (admittedly) he believes some of the evidence has been ignore or mis-represented >>
Saying that science should be more evidence based is the equivalent of calling for a chicken to be more chicken. There's no scientific theory without the scientific evidence to back it up. A theory without
evidence remains an idea or a speculation.
And I'm afraid that your points (a) to (c) apply to all scientific theories. Not only those you have grave doubts about. Some intuitive theories have been a success, others a failure because nature sometimes works in counter-intuitive ways. While there are theories that have
been 'patched' because the original idea they're based on wasn't exactly right. A number of them have survived patching as the original idea wasn't that far off. Others have failed because the idea was too far off but looked promising enough for quite some work to be done on the theory. That some things were ignored hasn't damaged some theories because what was ignored proved to be of no influence. But it has been the downfall of a number of other theories. While the
misrepresentation, or misinterpretation, of evidence hasn't only meant that good theories were pushed aside while bad theories remained in place. Some theories have survived the misinterpretation of evidence as both the mistake and the correction worked in favour of the theory.
The irony is that one of the theories you have grave doubts about - Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - was largely ignored for some time. Trouble was, that the mechanism by which characteristics were inherited were largely unknown. Darwin recognised this and discussed it in his Origin Of Species. It's thanks to the work of such people as Hugo de Vries and J.B.F. Haldane that Darwin's theory was revived. It's de Vries, for example, who made the link between the work of Gregor Mendel on (genetic) inheritance and Darwin's theory.
<< I merely meant that discussions (like those on the Digest) should not be halted merly on the ASSURANCE that experts know best - which was just what I did at the end of the last discussion on evolution! >>
Well ... what happens when a scientist member of the Digest is able to answer all the questions and concerns other members have a bout a particular scientific theory? I'm quite sure that the discussion will quickly come to a halt. First, because some people will, indeed, be assured by the answer to their question(s). Secondly, that all
questions are answered will remove the doubts some people have. And there will be number of people who aren't satisfied by the answers but simply don't have the scientific background to challenge them.
<< Also, I personally think that the lack of a public discussion about the problems with evolution, big bang & OTHER scientific theories plays INTO the hands of Creationists, who can happily mention the (unpublicised & sometimes serious) flaws to the public, and then
suggest their own alternative 'theory'. It would be a lot better if scientists were candid about the problems & possible solutions, and
thus were willing to discuss other SCIENTIFIC alternatives - at least then the public would know that scientists weren't mis-representing the evidence, and that they had potential solutions up their sleeve >>
Creationists don't need all this as any scientific theory that contradicts scripture - whether it's the Bible, Torah, Koran or
whatever - is wrong anyway. They happily use scientific theory in any way they see fit. Like using those aspects of a theory that work in their favour, disregarding the aspects they don't like. They'll tell what a theory means irrespective of what the theory really is about. They'll tell "Scientists say..." even though a scientist in his/her right mind would never say anything like that. Introducing aspects which, by their nature, can never be proven one way or another is another part of Creationism. These people are very much convinced that what their religion has revealed to them is the Truth - with a capital T. You could call them the heirs of the crusaders and the Mahdi army, even though they don't fight by the sword.
Let's be honest, science doesn't explain everything we observe in the natural world. And new methods of observation - think of van Leeuwenhoek's invention of the microscope - will lead to knew questions that need to be answered. Scientific theory therefore expresses our current understanding of the natural world. With the emphasis on the word 'current'. Each and every scientific theory has a label attached which reads : Unless demonstrated otherwise. Creationists are in a
quite different position - they do have all the answers as they're revealed in the scriptures.
<< Hmmmm, I think you must have read a COMPLETELY different version of ID to me - presumably the one you've seen came from some Creationists
>>
I've read a number of accounts of both Creationism and Intelligent Design and they're two sides of the same coin. On one side of the coin is stamped "In God We Trust" while any reference to God, to religion
and to religious texts is painstakingly avoided on the other side.
<< I should mention that "Intelligence" does not necessarily imply a god - it could easily have been an advanced alien race (which I have a far easier time believing in, being a hard-SF fan & firm athiest) >>
The trouble with Creationism and Intelligent Design is that they're closed theories. The presence of an Intelligence - irrespective of it being a God - can be used to explain anything. Creationists aren't bothered by there not being a chapter on biology as the size, shape, anatomy and physiology of an elephant are as God intended them to be. The same applies to Intelligent Design as any aspect of nature can be seen as an integral part of the design. It's impossible to come up with a test to determine whether something is or isn't in accordance with
the design plan. What the Intelligent Design theory therefore does is to go against the rules of falsification Karl Popper developed in his The Logic Of Scientific Discovery : "Only hypotheses capable of
clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific". It also goes against one of the principles behind the scientific method and which underlies all scientific modelling and theory building : Occam's Razor - "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".
<< ... Hogan might have been better-off without the chapter on evolution in his book, to avoid the emotional rhetoric it is likely to cause. But as it demonstrates some of the fallacies which he thinks science has fallen into, and as evolution also forms a backdrop for
much of modern science, I guess he decided to leave it in >>
Well ... the main reason why Darwin's theory of evolution is so controversial is because it challenges our self-esteem. The Christian faith teaches us that we're the pinnacle of Creation as God created us in his own image. While Darwin's theory tell us that shaking hands with a Chimpanzee is the equivalent of shaking hands with your cousin. Non-religious people don't accept the biblical account of the Creation or any other account. Still, a very large number of them have a (strong) feeling that "We were meant to be". Darwin's theory quashes that feeling as the mechanism of natural selection introduces the
factor of chance events. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, rewind evolution, press the play button and the chance that humans don't
appear on the face of the earth is infinitely higher than that they do. Much has been (and will be) written about Darwin's because it's an uncomfortable theory for a very large number of people. Which gives the impression that evolution "forms a backdrop for much of modern
science". Look closer and you'll find that this evolution isn't the one Darwin is talking about. Darwin's theory has a rather limited scope and simply doesn't work outside its scope. The application of Darwin's theory within Sociology has been a disaster, for example.
<< And of course, in other cases he has raised problems with theories which I had never had any cause to even think about, such as with CFCs supposedly causing the ozone 'hole'. There are even problems with how the dinosaurs could have lived on Earth (!), but he has never directly addressed that issue in great detail >>
These are relatively easy targets for Hogen. We know that CFCs contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer (1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry - Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland - Crutzen being a Dutchman). Question is whether CFCs caused the hole in the
ozone layer over Antarctica or whether they enlarged a hole that was already there. In case the hole was already there, how long has it been there and why is it there in the first place? The jury is still out,
I'm afraid. As for "how the dinosaurs could have lived on Earth", are you able to tell how your great-great...great-great-grandfather lived 1,500 years ago? It's not strange that Hogen doesn't discuss the life
of dinosaurs (65,000 years ago) in detail as he can't make much more out of what we know than paleontologists can at this moment.
<< I guess you could imagine the latter issue has Creationist overtones, but that's simply because you don't know the details, and
are seeing Creationist's lurking in all the dark corners, much like the Bogey man... >>
I'm sorry, but you're assuming too much - you're theorising well beyond your data.
<< I know you have a habit of assuming that everyone who holds a different opinion to you is stupid or ill-educated, but I would like to assure that I am not >>
Well ... I simply use the knowledge I've acquired through education, work and personal interests (hobbies). I trust you're doing the same.
As we haven't followed exactly the same path in life it means that I know more that you do on a number of subjects. That you know more than
I do on a number of other subjects. And that there are people who know more than you and I combined on another range of subjects. Personal talents do play a role, of course. However, that somebody doesn't have
a talent for the sciences doesn't mean (s)he's stupid. Nor does it mean that those who didn't go to university are ill educated. Some people have their brains in their fingers, so to speak, and almost instinctively know what they can do with a piece of wood or a chunk of metal. In other words, there's no problem in people having different knowledge and experience. That is, for as long as people don't make a problem out of it. Thereby creating an atmosphere similar to the Us versus Them I mentioned above.
<< I can only be thankful that NS is often willing to ALSO publish articles on alternative theories to the current ones, although
obviously ID is not one of them >>
That New Scientist doesn't cover the Intelligent Design theory is probably because the basic idea behind it makes it a religious explanation rather than a scientific one. Even though the explanation doesn't follow a particular religious 'school' and could therefore be described as non-denominational.
---
Kind Regards,
Rolf Brunsting - Beilen - Netherlands
Date: 14 May 2005 15:33:55 +0000
From: Dimitri Corpakis <address truncated>
Subject: Re: The Digest V1 # 739
Dear all,
I recently made the jump to the Nokia 9500 and I am very pleased about its connectivity and performance. However as an active Psioneer I have not yet found out how to:
- synchronise the Psion 5mx Agenda with the Nokia 9500 Calendar in one step (works with individual entries over infrared but not over the whole file);
- connect and retrieve mail from my Compuserve account by using a local dial-up Compuserve number (works through GPRS connections but I wanted to avoid this). Is there any dialer for the Nokia 9500 available ?
- synchronise my Psion Contacts with the N9500 in one step (again works on an individual basis but how I transfer 3500 contacts ?).
The solution may be is to do it through my PC. Those of you who are about to buy a N9500 have to know that the Nokia PC Suite which gives connectivity between the N9500 and a PC works **only** with Win 2000 or XP (all other legacy Windows versions are **excluded** ).
Thanks for any tip
Dimitri Corpakis
Brussels
>
>
You've Been Reading The Digest
1