In drunkenbatman we trust

I had the inbox down to 98 unreads, but the equilibrium point for it seems to be responding to 10 a day, which means it's backed up while I'm trying to figure out what Steve Jobs is doing in Playa de Oro, and whether it means Mac OS 10.6 will be code named jaguarundi or margay, along with how quickly the obvious more ghey moniker would follow the second.
While it isn't ideal, because there were amusing nuggets in some of those emails, we're going to do the paraphrased-questions thing again, because the inbox must get below 200 before I can try my hand at making sweet potato biscuits tomorrow. This time it's aggregating questions about two previous posts, the video iPod, and DRM...
Hey drunkenbatman, it looks like everything you said in 1,2,3,4 -- I Declare IM War came true, except you said there'd be three, but the agreement is just with Yahoo. Where's AOL?
Patience. While I caveated that info, I did give it a 9 out of 10 on the solidity scale, and that hasn't changed.
When it comes to AOL... well, management at AOL is having spasms at the moment, like a cart with horses tied to each side all trying to pull in different directions, so it may be on hold or -- more likely -- is being held as leverage during negotiations of a larger agreement. Combine this with a brain drain akin to Apple's in the 90s and a marketing department given more reign than they should, and you end up with force-fed "AIMBots" and Netscape releases that make one cry like the baby jebus.
Anywho, in addition to what's in that post, I'd only add to keep your ears pointed towards the mobile phone carriers. I've heard rumbles from several directions that they may be chafing a bit under the IM hegemony, and taking a renewed interest in multi-protocol technologies. Fun.
Hey drunkenbatman, you were right in The Content Squeeze in saying the video store was just a bit away, but you were wrong in calling it a "movie store" when it is actually TV and music videos.
Yep, I was. While the music videos weren't, the television thing was a complete surprise. Every rumble I'd picked up said the major holdup was the licensing, and the way television is licensed six ways to Sunday to get a show on the air is positively byzantine even compared to movies. I haven't really looked into it, but would be interested in knowing how that worked out, but not interested enough to put in any real effort.
Although if I was looking into it, I'd start with why the particular shows that are available were chosen, and what separated them out from the general population in terms of companies involved and rights involved. Since Nightstalker is in there, it wasn't about high ratings, as the plug has (thankfully) already been pulled on the series.
Hey drunkenbatman, Apple released a video iPod and you didn't talk about it.
Swap out the name and specifics in This one goes to Eleven and you'll have most of my thoughts on it, except there are cases where I might actually use it sometimes. If it costs the same as the previous model, no harm having it in, but it's not a great mobile video player due to the size and resolution of the screen.
I've played around with one, and I wouldn't watch a movie on it, and I wouldn't even want to watch Lost on it, let alone Doctor Who or Myth Busters or Rome or even something like Iron Chef, as there are portable players in the same space with much better (and larger) screens, but those aren't the best for music.
I would watch things like The Daily Show or Meet the Press or Charlie Rose on it, because you really just need "expression impressions" to enjoy them and it isn't about atmosphere and detail, so that's cool.
Hey drunkenbatman, Sony just tried to take over the world with freakshow DRM, and you haven't said a word about it. What the hell, man?
I think about digital rights management every day, and have a conversation related to it every few days. If you've been around over the last few months, trying to raise awareness of DRM being an issue worthy of discussion has kinda been on my front burner. I haven't talked about the Sony thing because truth be told, I'm not really worried about it -- It was a freakshow, and it's going to play out how these things play out.
I'm much more worried about what comes after, and is embraced with the phrase "It's not as bad as what Sony was..." These types of issues play out on a sliding scale, and like Intelligent Design proponents, even having them at the table runs the danger of skewing things to the point where what might be tolerable will eventually encroach into territory most people don't want to end up in.
Up until 6 months or so ago, I was still on the fence about DRM -- as I noted in Yin & Yang and its redux almost two years ago, I think there are interesting aspects to some of the technology involved in implementing it, and I try to avoid knee-jerking. I'll talk to someone from say, a Secure Linux project who, after enough beers, will agree there is interesting tech -- assuming the individual holds the keys. However, I believe public companies play within a predefined rule-set, and given the chance, every single one of them will fall into the same patterns.
What you may consider reasonable now may most likely become unreasonable given the chance. This isn't an Apple thing, or a Microsoft thing, or a Sony thing, it's a future thing. Sony's insanity was too-much-too-sexy, and gave people a whiff of the aroma of a future many don't want to end up in, where personal computer becomes synonymous with leased appliance for digital distribution. They all want those dollars, and no matter which you're a fan of, you'll end up having to make apologies for them eventually.
The problem is, a lot of geeks who read the site use things like the iTunes Music Store, basically because the future hasn't really been a factor in their decision, or it has, but the short-term convenience outweighed it because they didn't think that hard. You can reach those people with intelligent arguments about the implications, because geeks care about the future of technology and the individual's role in it.
Your average "tech-enthusiast" jumping on whatever is new is a different story, but doable, as you just have to make DRM uncool. Your average fanboy is a lost a cause, because they care more about Apple or BrandX than they do about the technology itself, because they have psychologically aligned themselves to the brand, not the tech.
The fanboys are slightly sad, because they actually end up becoming an active part of bringing on the future no one really wants, and they don't really want, by attacking those trying to make it a discussion on ideological grounds -- if something can hurt their brand, it's dangerous. You shall know them by statements akin to: "There is no evidence this is what they are intending to do, so yeah, it's possible, but..." Add in some ulterior motives because polarization helps page hits, sprinkle with vilification, and you have the usual pattern that plays out.
Per capita, they're much more common on the Mac side of things than other platforms, which is all the more dangerous because Apple just happens to be pushing some of the most currently convenient DRM.
There's little point in trying with them, because explaining that it's not about their Favorite Brand, but rather the technology, just doesn't really compute -- the messenger is as important to them as the message to them, and getting past their shields is more effort than it's really worth. Many will be posting in forums about the evils of Sony CDs while buying iTMS gift cards for Christmas, so you can't even factor them in.
This leaves Joe Public, and unfortunately, Joe Public doesn't live and breathe technology, and as such lacks the context to understand why the brave new world may not have their interests at heart in the long term, even if it makes some things convenient in the short term.
Unfortunately, explaining to them why accepting DRM as a given is so dangerous is like plucking someone off the street and explaining why things like the Patriot Act are so dangerous. They're missing the volumes of context you have in your head leading you there, and without having the history in their heads, they're weighing your what-ifs versus "If you're not a pirate or doing xyz, you have nothing to worry about and xyz to gain..." being slipped into their other ear.
For those you'd ask to fight, I've learned people prefer to cheer instead of fight, and for those who do want to fight the future, they quickly learn that context doesn't fit into a sound bite. Propaganda does, but this can often be the easiest way to becoming that which you are fighting against. In my mind, the dangers of the DMCA were easier to explain to someone without the context than DRM, yet we saw how that is playing out, and the future of the individual's rights in technology looks pretty bleak.
Try to forgive the iTMS users, for they know not what they do.
Comments (41)
Posted by: gizo at November 23, 2005 11:03 PM
sweet potato biscuits? sounds like vegan food, ya freak.... ;)
Posted by: cameron aka desk003 at November 23, 2005 11:39 PM
I agree with you, db. DRM is evil. I know it's evil. I know I shouldn't be buying from iTMS. I've told myself that. However, I don't wanna wait 4 days for the CD to arrive in my mailbox, then rip it. I want my music now. Which sucks. Sucks that AllOfMP3 is not legal. They rocked. Hard.
Posted by: sundoggy at November 24, 2005 12:23 AM
Ahh, I can live with iTMS DRM if it doesn't get any more restrictive (or change technically and start getty really evil). I'm more interested in seeing the quality go up. But I have yet to see any of the restrictions actually stop me from doing something that I want to do (well I'm not a pirate either) and I do a lot of different things with my tunes. I have what I think are bigger concerns--like better access to my purchases like other software I'm licensed to use. I back everything up, but I still think Apple should enable multiple downloads to any of the 5 authorized machines at any time, after any amount of time (or at least set a period). Right now, if you lose your digital file, you're screwed (and I have a lot, fuck it's too convenient). This is the part i don't like.
Posted by: Dustin Sacks at November 24, 2005 01:08 AM
I vote for Ocelot.
Posted by: Malte at November 24, 2005 01:32 AM
Hallelujah, let's begin out prayer.. :-)
Posted by: MattJ at November 24, 2005 02:48 AM
I don't think it's fair to insinuate that iTunesStore-users are lumpheads (they may be, but your reasoning is flawed).
iTunes shows that DRM can be acceptable. No-one would say that Sony was in the right unless they had an agenda. And sure, while Mac heads may say that iTunes is okay because of their own Mac specific pro-Mac-and-slaughter-the-unbelievers agenda, it's not just Mac-heads who are promoting iTunes. There's the PC heads (remember there's 30 million iPods out there) and also the other half of the market who are buying Windows-DRM-laden tunes. Apple set the standard for acceptable DRM.
I don't have a problem with iTunes DRM. I don't really have a problem with DRM at all from the point of view of "Well, haven't we got enough to worry about?". It's not about the rights of individuals because individuals don't have a right to buy the latest J'Lo track. It's about the rights of artists to get fair compensation (which, while there is rampant piracy, they probably never will) and the rights of the recording industry to protect their content (and face it, the artist signed their rights away in return for fame, coke and groupies).
Don't fret about the future. The future will be just fine.
Posted by: Phil at November 24, 2005 02:57 AM
Unfortunately, people would rather cheer instead of fight?
What world do you live in? This post was complete trash. There's no facts here. Where is the explation of this "context" you talk about.
Posted by: at November 24, 2005 03:00 AM
By the way I also wanted to mention, what is the difference between this post and someone writing a post about " "If you're not a pirate or doing xyz, you have nothing to worry about and xyz to gain...""
They're both just dribble. it's the same ast he preacher preaching fire and brimstone. Show us the facts.
Posted by: Carl at November 24, 2005 03:29 AM
DRM wouldn't be a big deal, if the DCMA didn't exist. I wouldn't mind them using CSS on DVDs, as long as I'm allowed to DeCSS it. Currently, I use iTMS, because I live in Japan, and ¥3,000 is too damn much for a CD, and I don't think the DRM is very ornery. I have all my music burnt out to CDs, so in the worst case scenario, I can rerip (possibly resulting in lower quality unless lossless catches on someday), it to whatever format the future brings.
Posted by: Newcastle-HUCH at November 24, 2005 03:57 AM
Ahh, I can live with iTMS DRM if it doesn't get any more restrictive (or change technically and start getty really evil). I'm more interested in seeing the quality go up.
Same for me, I've been slowly building my iTMS collection ($70) here in Sy. The only problem I have had is streaming when Apple changed iTunes one time. Not bad. If it wasn't available for Windows I might think different, as I like to have the choice to use either platform.
I am curious about it changing. At the end of the Evening at Adler movie I finished a few days ago DB mentioned this but didn't give many examples. It is concerning if the restrictions could change in the future to keep the labels happy.
Posted by: Phil at November 24, 2005 04:14 AM
I can't get over what an asshole you are. Good job, to piss off your readership base (WE are the Mac users you casually trash) and anyone who is not an athiest. Some of us believe something higher played a role in our existence because of the science, and if you do insulting us is not necessary. Intelligent Design is a theory, just like darwinism and evolution. Also I buy from the music store because it is cheaper and convenient, and it helps Apple keep afloat to create more cool things. Between them and Sony, guess who I trust??? Consider yourself unsubscribed from NetNewsWire, and I am sure more will follow.
Posted by: Mike at November 24, 2005 04:21 AM
You may think that "it's all just DRM" and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, or ill-informed, or (delightfully snooty) "lacks context". But at the end of the day that's just your opinion. And of course it *will* all seem the same to you if you discount any specific difference anyone points to as non-relevant. That way you've got the cards stacked before you play.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of any DRM. But the "Sony rootkit" saga is *not* merely about that, and is objectionable in a way that the iTMS, for example, is not. (Disclaimer: I have never purchased at the iTMS.)
Everything is always relevant in life. It is very much to the point that XCP was intrusive; that it went in kernel level and was hidden and destablized machines; that it would break the Vista beta "spectacularly"; and so on and so forth.
This article, by contrast -
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/370
- is good inasmuch as it doesn't say the story is "really about" one thing or another and ignore any aspects the writer hasn't got a particular hang-up about. It doesn't lose focus on the many different questions.
Posted by: mikeash at November 24, 2005 04:29 AM
Consider yourself unsubscribed from NetNewsWire, and I am sure more will follow.
Good for you, way to go! Another blow is struck for the little guy!
Posted by: Patrick Lemmens at November 24, 2005 05:33 AM
Did you mean: the AOL cart with horses are chafing at the bit!
Posted by: Matt B at November 24, 2005 05:42 AM
I'm sorry to depart from the thread, but the comments about ID piss me off.
Intelligent Design is a theory, but not a testable one, which is what separates it from being actual science.
I have a theory that everyone who gets easily offended by comments against Intelligent Design does not believe that their religious texts can stand criticism. Is this science? No (even though it's provable using previous postings). Neither is reglious design.
In fact, even the Vatican doesn't think that Intelligent Design is science. It's theology, pure and simple (see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/). Sadly, a sign the USA is plunging further towards becoming a scientific backwater, demonstrated by the lack of any backbone in the form of a corporate sponsor of the Darwin exhibition (see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/corporate_sponsors_darwin/). No one wants to incur the wrath of the faithful in the form of a boycott, so they're not willing to commit. Surely a business that relies entirely upon science could risk it? How about a pharma company? If you want to boycott our life saving product for religious or policitical reasons - go ahead - you can go and meet g-d that much quicker.
Yes, I get all my news from The Register and trust it completely. God told me to :-p
Posted by: camug at November 24, 2005 05:43 AM
Almost every comment has missed (what I believe to be) drunkenbatman's core point in his usual idiom. The license means the DRM can change once you have invested in your digital library and all companies have to maximize profit for shareholders so they have incentive to do it.
Right now Apple and others have "nice" DRM and are trying to gain share, but I do wonder what would happen if in 10 years 90% of content distribution is digital and Apple controls 90%. Would they buy labels to maximize profit so they dont have to pay it out? Then they would have label interests at heart. Would they start jacking prices cus there is no where else to buy? Would they change the DRM so you could only burn so many times?
Posted by: Ahruman at November 24, 2005 05:59 AM
"Good job, to piss off your readership base (WE are the Mac users you casually trash) and anyone who is not an athiest."
Of course you won’t read this on account of having unsubscribed, but I believe you’ll find the vast majority of even slightly educated people who hold theistic beliefs would be insulted at the implication that they must inherently support ID, if they weren’t so busy laughing at you.
Posted by: Matt B at November 24, 2005 08:16 AM
I believe that some DRM is a necessary evil so that artists and corporations can feel safe selling digital content. The trouble with digital content, from a producers point of view, is that it is trival to make a perfect copy from a single and redistribute it for free to the entire world. However, DRM-lite allows these same content producers to sell their movies, music, books, etc. and no worry so much about piracy. When Strong-DRM starts trampling over users rights and infecting their operating systems (cough-SONY-cough) the end users stop trusting the companies and revert back to illegal means.
If every piece of software, downloaded document, music file, etc. needed online authorisation I'd be buggered because for much of the time I am without net access with my powerbook. Reflecting back on EAA the Photoshop example filled me with dread at what could happen to Mac OS X if Apple ever copied the Microsoft example of online activation.
Posted by: MHC at November 24, 2005 12:26 PM
Interesting comment about Mac OS X and Windoze online activation. I have a feeling this is what we are probably going to be facing if the hack that enables Mac OS X to run on any PeeCee hardware gets out of hand.
That'll be a sad day. :^(
Posted by: Mood: Perplexed at November 24, 2005 01:02 PM
Phil, some factual errors in your post:
* Not all Mac users use the iTunes Store.
* Many devout Christians see IDers as frothing inbred anti-science imbeciles cramming magical fairy tales down the public's collective throat.
At least you're trolling elsewhere now. That solves one problem.
Posted by: Matt B at November 24, 2005 04:30 PM
One of the reasons we may face OS online activation is the increasing frequency of the Intel version of OS X being hacked to work with any x86 hardware as seen elsewhere online.
Apple will want to do everything they can to prevent people installing OS X on other machines. Along the way they'll come up with the idea of using serial numbers and product activation. This won't slow down the hackers/crackers/pirates for long. But, it will inconvience regular users. I hope that Apple resist the idea of using product activation, I really do. I don't mind serial numbers, some Pro Apps and things like iWork already require them.
What I do mind is having to contact someone to be allowed to use what you've already paid for. For example, if some company that uses one of these schemes e.g. Adobe or Microsoft, etc. goes out of business their software is useless for the rest of time if I ever need to reinstall it. This has actually happened to me at work with various programs from other companies and I *hate* it. Because it's not widely used software there's no crack or patch so an entire machine is useless for the purpose it's meant for and we're left with a lemon. Let's hope Apple will choose not to leave us with potential lemons as well. (yeah, I know Apple won't disappear tomorrow, but I still remember the *Pray* issue of Wired and was concerned as hell back then - it could happen again).
Posted by: Tarous Zars at November 25, 2005 02:39 PM
"I believe that some DRM is a necessary evil so that artists and corporations can feel safe selling digital content."
I felt like that once. Not any more though. I don't know where I rank be it high or low, but I have $200+ dollars of iTMS music. I found it very convenient, and love to be able to buy just 1 song if I want to.
Then I changed from Windows to Linux. Luckily I used jHymn on all of my music, and can listen to it on Linux. I broke the law to do it, but that's an issue for another day. The only problem is jHymn currently doesn't currently support iTunes 6. So if I do buy more music, it will only work on my Mac, and not on my Linux box.
And that my friends is the trouble with DRM. I can't do what I want with my music. Sure I could burn then rip but I'm losing quality from files that aren't great as it is. So what do I do now? I don't use the iTMS. I buy my music from AudioLunchbox.com or get it on CD. No DRM.
"If you're not a pirate or doing xyz, you have nothing to worry about and xyz to gain..."
I'm not a pirate, but I guess I'm doing xyz. No DRM for me please.
Posted by: matonmacs at November 25, 2005 06:49 PM
I seriously doubt most of you actually know what ID is--most just assume, with characteristic laziness, that it's the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism. No serious thinkers believe YEC. What so many people seem unable to understand is that there is a distinction to be drawn between Natural Selection and materialist physicalism (one is a scientific claim about a mechanism for increasing genetic complexity, the other is a metaphysical claim, not different in form from the metaphysical claims made by orthodox Christians). ID makes a relatively simple (and scientifically testable) claim--that there are irreducibly complex structures whose etiology cannot be accounted for by Natural Selection because these structures depend on multiple inter-related and interdependent parts which cannot be plausibly accounted for by small scale genetic mutation and Natural Selection. The ID proponents generally do not believe in the absence of Natural Selection, but rather that it is an incomplete explanation.
db, I really like your site and will continue to read it, but I was offenedes by several things in the post that seem utterly gratutious (e.g. the blasphemy). There doesn't seem to be any reason for it other than laziness and hoping for an easy laugh. Since it's clear that you're not lazy, I have to say I'm disappointed in you. Obviously you can say what you please and how you please, but since you do seem to care what your readership thinks, I offer this for your consideration.
Posted by: Wes McGee at November 25, 2005 07:50 PM
ID makes a relatively simple (and scientifically testable) claim--that there are irreducibly complex structures whose etiology cannot be accounted for by Natural Selection because these structures depend on multiple inter-related and interdependent parts which cannot be plausibly accounted for by small scale genetic mutation and Natural Selection. The ID proponents generally do not believe in the absence of Natural Selection, but rather that it is an incomplete explanation.
And in many places, the conclusion came out against intellegent design. Much of the push for intellegent design comes from one group, the Discovery Institute. Pretty much, its entire rationale for existing is to place Creationism in school.
And actually, the what is quoted above is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. It's at best a criticism of evolution, not a replacement theory. Intellegent Design is to Evolution as Einstein simply saying "Stars don't move the way Newton says they do," and elaborating no further. If Einstein left it at that, he'd have died an unknown patent clerk. Einstein came up with an full alternative theory, that was testable (through observation of space). Intellegent design lays out no testable hypothesis against evolution. There's no "If we find that 'A' causes 'C' rather than 'B' then B is wrong." As it is, all it says is "I found something, I can't explain it, it must be Gaia! No further investigation!"
Posted by: David at November 26, 2005 12:55 AM
Speaking of DRM, there is a major SciFi book publisher that offers electronic versions of all their new releases monthly. Absolutley no DRM, they even offer the books in RTF, HTML and other formats. By some of their latest hardbacks and they included hundreds of books, in DRM free format, on a CD attached inside the back cover. Oh yeah, the CD is FREELY distributable. The publisher I'm talking about is Baen at http://www.baen.com/. They've even encouraged several of their authors to post entirely FREE versions of their books in a free library hosted at Baen. They really feel no real threat from casual piracy. I think the music and movie industry could learn from this, but I really don't have much hope.
Posted by: matonmacs at November 26, 2005 10:05 AM
And actually, the what is quoted above is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. It's at best a criticism of evolution, not a replacement theory. Intellegent Design is to Evolution as Einstein simply saying "Stars don't move the way Newton says they do," and elaborating no further. If Einstein left it at that, he'd have died an unknown patent clerk. Einstein came up with an full alternative theory, that was testable (through observation of space). Intellegent design lays out no testable hypothesis against evolution. There's no "If we find that 'A' causes 'C' rather than 'B' then B is wrong." As it is, all it says is "I found something, I can't explain it, it must be Gaia! No further investigation!"
That's not true--the claim is testable insofar as the Darwinists ought to be able to provide some sort of account of how irreducibly complex structures come into existence. You're right that ID does not constitute a full explanation, but the point is, IF irreducibly complex structures exist, Darwinism doesn't provide such an explanation either. It's quite possible that some other explanation for irreducibly complex structures is possible (namely that they are not in fact irreducibly complex); it's not clear that random genetic mutation plus Natural Selection can provide such an explanation, but the burden of proof is on the advocates of Darwinism.
Your analogy is perhaps better than you realize. You're absolutely right that Einstein would have not been a great scientist if he hadn't posited an alternate, better explanation than Newtonian mechanics. But what you have going on now is what in fact did go on in the late 19th century--scientists were denying that the stars did in fact move in ways that Newtonian mechanics could not account for. So all kinds of crazy possibilities were suggested to attempt to reconcile observations with the overwhelminingly dominant theory. Darwinists do the same thing--they start with Darwinism and essentially deny anything that doesn't fit. There have always been and remain key observational deficiencies (e.g. the fossil gap) to the theory. That does not mean that it's necessarily wrong, but it does suggest that it is less secure than most of its proponents suggest.
All of that said, I don't think anyone has much doubt that random genetic mutation plus Natural Selection can and does occur and can account for some variation in genotype. It remains unclear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind, rather than from a strictly ideological standpoint, that Darwinism can be a complete explanation for the origin of species.
Posted by: Jon H at November 26, 2005 10:08 PM
"That's not true--the claim is testable insofar as the Darwinists ought to be able to provide some sort of account of how irreducibly complex structures come into existence"
The answer is "just wait, we'll figure it out later". That's how science works.
Whereas calling something irreducibly complex is really just an attempt to cloak your own ignorance. You can't figure it out, therefore, it must be God's work.
Are you uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do you freak out at the idea that we don't yet know how something works?
Posted by: Jon H at November 26, 2005 10:11 PM
" Some of us believe something higher played a role in our existence because of the science, and if you do insulting us is not necessary"
So why believe that he's some cosmic tinkerer, working by trial-and-error?
Why not go bigger? Why not accept a god who created the universe, knowing where it'd end up, billion of years later, who didn't need to fiddle with the controls.
A god like that is a lot more powerful than one who makes mistakes.
Posted by: Jon H at November 26, 2005 10:17 PM
David writes: "They really feel no real threat from casual piracy. I think the music and movie industry could learn from this, but I really don't have much hope."
The economics of SF publishing are quite different from the economics of the mainstream music business and vastly different from TV and movies.
Posted by: Jon H at November 26, 2005 10:22 PM
" You're right that ID does not constitute a full explanation, but the point is, IF irreducibly complex structures exist, Darwinism doesn't provide such an explanation either."
Yet.
Evolutionary biologists are not your monkeys.
Posted by: Nate at November 26, 2005 10:44 PM
Amazingly enough, some of us have "studied" ID and know exactly what it is. It isn't a scientific theory, it's just an overly elaborate God-of-the-Gaps argument. "We don't know what happened here, so that was God." "We don't know how this structure developed, so that was God."
That isn't science. It may be correct, but there is no way to prove scientifically whether or not a supernatural being intervened. Science is the study of nature, it has no capacity for dealing with supernatural beings. If you chose to believe in supernatural beings, more power to you. That's your right. But don't try to shoehorn supernatural explanations into science, they don't fit and you look like an idiot.
Posted by: Wes McGee at November 26, 2005 10:51 PM
A. DB, you're probably right that trackback is dying... one particularly nasty one just snuck through (no, not my blog -- the one below it!).
B. matonmacs...
Your analogy is perhaps better than you realize. You're absolutely right that Einstein would have not been a great scientist if he hadn't posited an alternate, better explanation than Newtonian mechanics. But what you have going on now is what in fact did go on in the late 19th century--scientists were denying that the stars did in fact move in ways that Newtonian mechanics could not account for. So all kinds of crazy possibilities were suggested to attempt to reconcile observations with the overwhelminingly dominant theory. Darwinists do the same thing--they start with Darwinism and essentially deny anything that doesn't fit. There have always been and remain key observational deficiencies (e.g. the fossil gap) to the theory. That does not mean that it's necessarily wrong, but it does suggest that it is less secure than most of its proponents suggest.
You're wrong here to suggest that Intelligent Design as a theory is even as close as the theories concocted by 19th century scientists to explain deficiencies in Newtonian physics as those theories tried to explain the motions of the stars in the universe with new formulas that were all inherently testable, and therefore falsifiable. ID doesn't even try to posit how an intelligent designer can fit into the mix. All that happens in ID is each time real scientists posit explanations for things that were used by IDers to disprove the theory of evolution, the IDers simply move the goalposts -- "Well, what about this? Huh, huh?" Either that, or continue to use for example issues that have been solved, in hopes that the general public and the politicians aren't completely read up on every scientific journal.
Like Jon H. noted, IDers aren't trying to solve for X, they just carp that "science ain't answer everything yet".
Posted by: matonmacs at November 27, 2005 12:10 AM
My point wasn't that ID is close to those theories; I agree that it isn't. My point was simply that orthodox Darwinist are committed to the theory in a similarly blinkered way--inclined to dismiss rather than engage serious deficiencies with the explanatory power of their theory. In fact, Darwinism is a much less observationally successful theory than Newtonian mechanics was until the late 19th century and than it's generally made out to be.
I disagree that the "goal posts" are continually changing. There are several classic examples that random genetic mutation plus Natural Selection have as yet not adequately accounted for. The convergent evolution of structurally similar eyes in unrelated species (indeed the evolution of the eye at all) and the fossil gap problem being most obvious. However, the most plausible support for the ID position to my mind comes from the irreducibly complex bio-molecular processes that Behe has described.
In the end, the ultimate grounds for accepting Darwinism is generally a commitment to philosophical materialism as a metaphysical view of the universe. This view is scientism, not science--it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Darwinism, strictly in empirical terms, faces difficulties in explaining observed phenomena, but rather than addressing those difficulties by developing a more sophisticated theory, its proponents merely denigrate those who point out the deficiencies. This is not good science, nor is it part of an authentic commitment to the truth.
Posted by: Nate at November 27, 2005 12:30 AM
inclined to dismiss rather than engage serious deficiencies with the explanatory power of their theory
I don't know what hole you've been hiding in, but I can't think of many aspects of evolutionary theory that haven't been changed significantly over the past 100 years. If there is a scientist out there claiming that evolutionary theory is "done", I haven't seen that claim.
What do you think scientists do all day, talk about how great it was back when there were still questions to be answered? Of course not, every scientist goes into work knowing that there are holes in every theory and trying to plug them up or (better yet!) change the whole theory and win a Nobel Prize.
The only folks who make these ridiculous claims about evolutionary theory are ID supporters. Real scientists are more than happy to point out all the unanswered questions and remaining flaws.
Posted by: Wes McGee at November 27, 2005 02:26 PM
The convergent evolution of structurally similar eyes in unrelated species (indeed the evolution of the eye at all) and the fossil gap problem being most obvious.
This is one of the best examples of what I meant when I said IDers trotting out old arguments where evolutionary solutions have been presented. You can evolve an eye from various simpler eye gathering cells and such. Here's a summary of a commonly believed way it could have formed.
A possible sequence of such changes begins with pigmented eye spots (as seen in flatworms), followed by an invagination of the skin to form a cup protecting the eyespot and allowing it to better localize the image (as in limpets), followed by a further narrowing of the cup's opening to produce an improved image (the nautilus), followed by the evolution of a protective transparent cover to protect the opening (ragworms), followed by coagulation of part of the fluid in the eyeball into a lens to help focus the light (abalones), followed by the co-opting of nearby muscles to move the lens and vary the focus (mammals). The evolution of a retina, an optic nerve, and so on would follow by natural selection. Each step of this transitional "series" confers increased adaptation on its possessor, because it enables the animal to gather more light or to form better images, both of which aid survival. And each step of this process is exemplified by the eye of a different living species. At the end of the sequence we have the camera eye, which seems irreducibly complex. But the complexity is reducible to a series of small, adaptive steps.
--Quoted from a piece appearing in The New Republic.
Anything that looks irreductibly complex is probably not. Behe is pretty much wrong in his hypotheis in that biological systems are useless unless in the state we consider them now (aka "fully formed"). But the issue here is that unlike the IDers, the mainstream biologists are trying to solve these mysteries, whereas Behe and the Discovery Institute people are just using this to stop scientific inquiry and cry that Gaia is all knowing and unknowable.
Posted by: Wes McGee at November 27, 2005 02:40 PM
Ah, if you can look up a piece written by Sharon Begley for the Wall Street Journal in February 2004, you can see where evolutionary biologists found that many irreducibly complex biochemical actions aren't really irreducibly complex. As far as I know, the article isn't online for free reading, but Chris Mooney mentions it in his weblog.
Posted by: Pete West at November 27, 2005 04:34 PM
DRM assumes that the majority of people are criminals ... the majority of people aren't, though if you keep treating them like they are ...
Posted by: jim at November 28, 2005 09:01 AM
As something of an applefanboy and by no means a geek I'm a bit miffed about your slagging of iTMS, though as this is a bit of an applefanboysite take it in good spirit. The question is, does the danger you rightly perceive of iTMS making DRM publicly acceptable outweigh the benefit it has brought in having persuaded the music moguls to let go the tough DRM they were insisting on, and accept that DRM has to be weak to woo customers? As someone who hasn't an iPod and hasn't bought from the iTMS this is a bit academic, but the benefits its success has brought apple seem a good thing. I do buy CDs, and even though I rarely rip or copy them, am now consciously trying to avoid Sony group records: must try to find a list of all the labels they own. As a designer I like copyright and rather dislike patents, though I can appreciate the benefit patents had for example letting Dyson fend off Hoover etc. for long enough to get established. As you say, we need a tolerable balance that doesn't go where we don't want to end up: and no software patents, thanks.
Your gratuitous sideswipe at Intelligent Design proponents was grimly amusing, and of the responses "matonmacs" was perceptive in saying "In the end, the ultimate grounds for accepting Darwinism is generally a commitment to philosophical materialism as a metaphysical view of the universe. This view is scientism, not science--it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one."
The philosophical position of science is that natural explanations should be sought for natural phenomena: if it's not material it's immaterial and hence untestable. This neither assumes the existence nor the non-existence of the supernatural. ID begins by assuming the supernatural and sees its effects anywhere it can get away with, to implement a political strategy with the goal of overthrowing "materialist science" and replacing it with "theistic science." Shocking as it may seem, the gulf in thinking between ID and science is even greater than the gulf between designers and geeks!
Posted by: at November 28, 2005 05:57 PM
I think my problem with DRM is just that it doesn't work. Weak-DRM does create a threshold of entrance that most users won't cross over, but all it takes is one hacker to strip the DRM and post to a P2P site and it doesn't matter what kind of DRM you use, since anyone can now get it without DRM for free, and the spread of files in P2P is logistically fast. On that matter, I think the only major resulting consequence between weak-DRM and strong-DRM is the speed with which customers will boycott the product and switch to a P2P service. Personally, I don't buy from the iTMS because of the bitrate, but it annoys me that exactly one of my many CD's doesn't rip properly in itunes because of DRM, and then I have to find a way to work around it.
As far as ID goes, defaulting to an untestable position when a valid theory fails is not science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. I don't think any rational person on either side should have a problem with theology classes that teach ID (ala Kansas University), but it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms IMO.
matonmacs:
Attacking those who believe in evolution by making them out to be cultish followers of an incomplete theory isn't buying you any fans:
It's just as offensive as changing your quote by replacing Darwinist with Christian and Darwinism with Christianity and I think you see my point.
I don't think DB cares about losing readers either. He's probably happy that there's going to be less e-mail in his inbox. :)
Posted by: Hao at November 28, 2005 05:57 PM
sry, last quote was mine. previewed and returned and my name disappeared.








You've been co-opted ... an ad for a DRM product is running with your article. Hopefully the proceeds will let you buy a few more tracks from the iTunes store ;-).
(There, now, DRM isn't so bad, is it?)