This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

That's interesting, but also a bit maddening... by Kbyrnes

...since he never defines "entropy" as he understands it. There are plenty of spots where he says that entropy isn't something, but not one where he says just what it is. He comes close when he cites Clausius:

"Finally, in 1865, he coined the term 'entropy,' writing, 'I propose to call the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word τροπη, transformation.'"

It seems like the biggest problem is that the term "entropy," which was devised to express something about the state of a thermodynamic system, has come into use outside of thermodynamics. See link for another kind of discussion.

Some day I'll try to convince our younger daughter to write up her theory that we use the term "random" very loosely, and that even random number generators don't operate randomly. (The literature recognizes pseudo-random generation and "true" random generation, but her argument is that even the latter is random only because we can't predict the inputs, which would be predictable if we knew more about them.)