| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/8/9 [Uncategorized] UID:39059 Activity:nil |
8/9 Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf |
| 2005/8/9 [Uncategorized] UID:39060 Activity:nil |
8/9 DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
\_ The political tone of this is obvious, so I went to see who these
guys represent -- apparently private doctors. Amusing. The wages
of socialism in a given professional sphere is radicalization of
skilled professionals. -- ilyas
\_ I think radicalization can occur for either liburalz or
consurvatives.
\- At a global level the DDT story is really a sad one, and not
just of academic interest. It goes from that hack Rachel
Carson and US Govt to the UN who starts pressuring developing
countries with endemic malaria problems not to use it. What
is appropriate for large scale argicultural use and "tactical"
application in domiciles is wildly different. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Science/Biology] UID:39061 Activity:kinda low |
8/9 Some news on evolution:
"Convergent Evolution in Poison Frogs"
http://csua.org/u/cyz (Yahoo! News)
\_ That evolution crap is just a "theory". In fact, God made
the world in 7 days, just like it says in Genesis. And I
challenge anyone to prove to me different. (I'll just deny
all the evidence you present.)
\_ actually, bible says he laid it to waste and remade it
in 6 days and 1 day of rest
\_ My book is holy! Yours isn't! And only I am qualified
to interpret my Holy Book!
\_ I read this article, but what it does not make clear is how it is
known that the frogs are not related. Geography doesn't tell the
story. Could they have evolved from the same frog ancestor?
\_ The article did not say the frogs are not related. In fact the
article calls the two frog species in the two continents
"cousins".
\_ Then, excuse this question from a non-bio guy, how is it
known to be a case of convergent evolution?
\_ Then there are three possibilities that it is not a case of
convergent evolution. #1: they did not evolve, ie. God
\_ Then there are two possibilities that it is not a case of
convergent evolution. #1: they did not not evolve, ie. God
is involved; #2: they did not evolve in separate
ecosystems, ie. they evolved in the same ecosystem, and
ecosystems, ie. they evolved in the same ecosystems, and
one species somehow traveled or were transported across the
Atlantic Ocean to the other continent and settled down.
#3: they did not evolve in separate ecosystems, ie. they
evolved in the same ecosystem, and the continents of Africa
and America separated only relatively recently instead of
millions (or whatever) of years ago as found by geologists.
Atlantic ocean to the other continent and settled down.
Take your pick.
\_ I am asking why they think that it *is*. I can think of
reasons why it might not be.
\_ Their reasons are that they think none of the
possible alternatives are true: #1 is not true
because species do evolve and God did not create them
in their present forms. (This is debatable.) #2
is not true because they think poison frogs and ants
can't swim across the Atlantic and nobody
transported huge population of poison frogs and ants
across the Atlantic recently. (I think this is
accepted.) #3 is not true because geologists says
so. (I think this is accepted.) So, what remains
on thir table is their original claim that "these are
two instances of convergent evolution". What remains
on our table is their claim and alternative #1.
millions (or whatever) of years ago as found by geological
scientists. Take your pick.
because species do evolve as other evidences suggest,
and God did not create them in their present forms.
(This is debated.) #2 is not true because they think
poison frogs and ants can't swim across the Atlantic
and nobody transported huge population of poison
frogs and ants across the Atlantic recently. (I
think this is accepted.) #3 is not true because
geologists says so. (This is accepted.) So, what
remains on their table is their original claim that
"these are two instances of convergent evolution".
What remains on our table is their claim and
alternative #1.
\_ Who said that the continents had to separate
recently? How do they know this adaptation is
recent? There are also lots of cases of animals
(especially frogs) being deposited in other
places by storms.
\_ There is a very easy method to determine
speciation, one only has to examine the
DNA, either mDNA or nuclear. One can
simply pick certain markers, something as
simple as a a RFLP, and determine how closely
a species is related. There is no need
to conjecture on the macroscopic since
we have had modern techniques to explore
evolution for well over fifty years now
in vitro.
\_ If they are related then I say it's not
convergent evolution.
\_ Convergent evolution, as stated in the
article, is "the process in which
organisms not closely related ......".
So the two poison frog species can be
related, and so are the two ant species.
They just need to not be closely related.
\_ Who defines how close? I mean,
they are both frogs so of course
they are related in some way.
\_ Hmm, good point that the adaptation might not
be recent. Let's see what proof they have in
the full report in the upcoming issue of
Proceedings.
\_ it's stupid, one frog in 22 eats a cigarette some lame
scientist dropped and now they are evolving some new type
of nicotine defense mechanism?
\_ i agree. doesn't explain that ants eat plants..
ants eat insects, honeydew and fruits.. and leafcutter
ants cut leaves for storage (heating up their home)
but not food.. this article blows..
\_ Where in the article does it say anything about nicotine defense
mechanism? The mechanism in the article is about alkaloids.
\_ nicotine is an alkaloid
\_ Yes, but not all alkaloids are nicotine.
\_ can you read "However, this is some of the most
convincing evidence that plant-insect-frog toxin food
chains do exist"
\_ Yes I saw that, but please read the whole article. Ths
observation on nicotine, and its suggestion of
plant-insect-frog toxin food chains, are separate from
the obesrvation on alkaloid defense mechanism.
\_ but half the article is on this. and the
most direct quotes from the scientist are about
this and not the alkaloid defense mechanism..
\_ yeah, but it shows how stupid these scientists
are... "most convincing" evidence but no facts
or evidence to be found .. so they claim
it as fact.. a lot of this bs is pervasive
among evolutionary scientist who forget to use
the scientific method and keep making theories
into facts..
\_ Why did you say they found "most convincing"
evidence and then say they found no evidence? If
you meant no conclusive evidence, that's true and
the article never claims that there is conclusive
evidence. Also, you said the article claim the
toxin food chain as a fact. The article never
claims that either. It stated that "they are not
sure how the chemical enters the frog's system.",
and that they only have convincing evidence, not
conclusive evidence.
\_ i agree, isn't it better that animals would
prefer to eat the nicotine laden frogs because
they'll get addicted to nicotine? and get
a good buzz out of it.. .. ? hehe
\_ that's a lot of faith.. a plant that has no
nicotine to be found anywhere, yet they
use this as the "most convincing" evidence?
sounds like bad science and blind faith.
\_ This is not bad science, because they are only using it
as convincing evidence, not conclusive evidence, and
they are not drawing any conclusion out of it. Also,
they are not concluding whether there is or is not any
nicotine-producing plants, because "Our team has not
yet conducted a survey of possible nicotine containing
in the area where the nicotine-frog was found". |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:39062 Activity:nil |
8/9 Turns out Google is a corporate whiner:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45661
\_ Does jblack post the worldnetdaily links too?
\_ Why, do you have a problem with the content of the article?
\_ They forgot to mention the Swift Boat Veterans in
this article...
\_ Google is a Kool Aid factory like Apple. They have a nice search
engine (and Apple has nice products) but the zealots are
overbearing.
\_ Your analogy is tired and does not bear out, or else the
zealots you're so concerned about would have drunk poison
kool-aid by now. You would be better served to attempt to
compare them to Hare Krishnas or Moonies, if you're looking to
make a cult comparison. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:39063 Activity:nil |
8/9 Is there such a thing as a reliable water-proof laptop case? Who
makes/sells it? I'm looking for something that's as portable as
possible. Thanks.
\_ Waterproof as in "can get rained on" or waterproof as in "can be
dropped in a lake"?
\- there are expedition rafters who take laptops and satellite
comm equipment, so yes. i am not sure if they are special
purpose laptop cases or just a case adapted for laptop that
is nominally "for" camera gear. but you cal look at say pelican
cases. by now i assume there are thigns especially for laptops. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/HW/Memory] UID:39064 Activity:nil |
8/9 I had a motherboard die after like 90% of the capacitors leaked.
Appareantly this is a widespread problem (badcaps.net). I'm
wondering, (a) why I hadn't heard of this earlier, and (b) why
there hasn't been a big recall of defective components.
\_ (a) because you don't read /., http://theinquirer.net, .... Do you
read anything? Try to keep up a little, will ya? This is
over a year old stuff.
\_ I read /. almost everyday. When was it on /.?
\_ Years ago.
(b) Abit sort of recalled. Problem is too widespread to recall.
Trying to do so would probably take out a lot of companies.
\_ Not only that, you apparently don't read the MOTD or archives,
this was mentioned more than once here. The answer is to get
replacement caps (assuming your other components are intact)
and solder them on to the board. Also, MBs are under $100 US,
the cheapies can be found for sometimes less than fifty, so
it's such a cheapie item that a general recall would've killed
some of the MB companies because the margins are razor thin.
And yes, there is a sort-off coverup going on.
\_ I just had my thinkpad t41 crap out under warranty... does anyone
know if they had this problem too? It died slowly, e.g. showing
signs of going out of spec in the video memory first.
\_ Just about EVERY company was affected, including IBM. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Computer/HW/CPU] UID:39065 Activity:nil |
8/9 Can anyone recommend a vendor that sells Athlon 64 X2 (dual-core)
configurations for small businesses? Basically it looks like we're
buying Pentium D machines from Dell otherwise.
\_ You want a desktop (non-buffered memory, ECC not required, etc.)
or a workstation? I see HP has workstations using dual-core
Opterons. Look for xw9300. A bit pricy, but you get what you
pay for. Will see if there's something in the desktop domain.
pay for. Call them up and ask?
\_ Price/performance is much better for the Pentium D than the
dual-core Opterons. You can heat rooms better, too.
I'm looking for Athlon 64 X2, either the 4400+ at $630 per CPU
or 3800+ for $405 per CPU. Desktop. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39066 Activity:nil |
8/9 News media save lives of sailors on Russian mini-sub
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/russiamilitary
"When the worried family tried to find out from the navy what the
chances were of seeing their loved one again, a military psychologist
arrived. 'This is Russia -- pray!' he told Miloshevsky's wife Yelena"
\_ This is a very heartening story that illustrates the importance
of a free press. Thanks for sharing. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Uncategorized] UID:39067 Activity:nil |
8/9 Happy 40th Birthday Spore! May your history be as glorious as
that of Venice! |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39068 Activity:low |
8/9 "I worked in oil refineries for nearly a decade, and there's nothing
I enjoyed more than SUV owners complaining to me about gas prices.
I've been out of refineries for the past three years, and now that
prices have really taken off, I'm sure I've missed many more of
those wonderful discussions." - w00t!
The Oil Moat: http://csua.org/u/cz2
\_ "No new refineries have been built in the United States in more
than 20 years, and judging by the popularity refineries hold in
the public imagination, I'm pretty sure there won't be any new
plants added soon." Huh. I live very close to a refinery, and I
both like the way it looks and the way it smells. Apparently that
is a minority opinion.
\_ I like the cancer and other disease the best!
\_ Evidence?
\_ Uhm, Google?
\_ Although refinery capacity is running very tight now, many of the
refeneries have been expanding output continually for decades.
\_ An economy of scale would fix the problem:
http://csua.org/u/cz9 (SFGate.com, McCain Presidency) |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Transportation/Car] UID:39069 Activity:moderate |
8/9 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-080905shooting_lat,0,7165327.story An Ethiopian immigrant was in critical condition today ... Asmelash and his friends were stopped at a traffic light at Adams Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard when a dark Honda Accord pulled up alongside them about 12:30 a.m. ... The men in the Accord asked Asmelash and his three friends where they were from ... When someone in the car said, "Ethiopia," the driver of the Accord got out of the car, walked over and shot Asmelash once in the chest ... The gang members were Latino \_ I wonder what the Latinos thought the guy said. There's no way they know what/where ethiopia is. \_ Since all Latinos are illegals and are therefore criminals that rape and steal and murder (and are also dirty and uneducated). Thanks, freeperguy. \_ Obviously you don't understand how gangs work. \_ Clearly you do, sitting behind your computer screen motd'ing all day, and then gang banging by night. \_ Are you latino? Do you understand the effect gangs had on Los Angeles? \_ Right, since all Latinos are illegals and are therefore criminals that rape and steal and murder (and are also dirty and uneducated). \_ the ones that commit acts like this certainly are. \_ Uhm, yeah and I know plenty of college grads from the college of your choice that couldn't point to Ethiopia on a map. WTF does race or membership in a gang have to do with it? \_ I'm guessing the Latinos didn't really care what he answered or where he's from. They asked the question so that he wouldn't take off when they're walking over to shoot him. \_ I'm guessing the Latinos thought the black people weren't respecting them. The correct answer is: "Nowhere, man, nowhere" -long-time L.A. resident \_ Just out of curiosity, why is this the 'correct' answer? \_ well, do you have a better answer? !pp \_ Yes. It's "From your fuckin MOM's house, bitch" while you reach for the Pancor Jackhammer stashed behind your seat to teach the nasty little tacos some multicultural tolerance by turning them into road sashimi. -John \_ Why do I need a better answer to have the PP give an \_ well, do you have a better answer? !op \_ Why do I need a better answer to get have the PP give an explanation? I'm genuinely curious (hence the opening phrase 'Just out of curiousity'). \_ oops. first, I mean !pp (not !op). next, I wasn't being confrontational or belligerent, but rather just smart ass. I was just trying to imply that the "best" answer is the non-answer (i.e. "nowhere, man, nowhere"), the one that ends the conversation asap. \_ Yah -- I was just curious what 'nowhere' scans as in the minds of gang members. I'm assuming that it's basically saying that you're not from a neighborhood and hence have no gang affiliation (so you have nothing to declare, etc). \_ http://girlhealth.org/gangs/expertinterview.html http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/gangs/articles/dnp5_main.asp But yeah, the real answer is to run/drive away as fast as possible, and ideally, to not be in a situation where you're even asked that question. While you are running away, you can say, "I'm from nowhere, man!" \_ Heh -- thanks for the links! |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:39070 Activity:nil |
8/9 So I'm developing this java app which will produce a bunch of data we
need to analyze with statistics and graphs. I'd like a way to take
data from variables in a java program, write some semi-standard file,
and be able to generate stats and graphs automatically. One solution
it to write it to a CSV file and import it into Excel and then apply
Excel formulas and make graphs, but that will require a lot of manual
work because the size of the data sets will vary. Is there a better
way? We're not wedded to Excel or windows.
An example is in java having int[][] foo and float[][] bar and wanting
to make foo.size() charts of foo[i] vs. bar[i]
\_ Yes, this problem has been solved before. It's called gnuplot.
\_ I hate you.
\_ MATLAB, IDL, etc etc etc
\_ I prefer R, but it's got a bit of a learning curve. --darin |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Uncategorized] UID:39071 Activity:nil |
8/9 Worlds largest Tanzanite diamond discovred:
http://tinyurl.com/92gup (jckgroup.com)
\_ What the hell is a Tanzanite diamond?
\_ ^diamond^stone
\_ They're talking about cutting and polishing it. Why the heck
do that? You take something extraordinary--a freakishly big
Tanzanite crystal--and cut it into ordinary little pieces. Why
not just keep it intact as a freakish museum piece?
\_ cut it into the "Heart of the Mountain" stone
\_ A freakish Tanzanite crystal is not going to buy your way into a
mistress' pants. OTOH a polished one will.
\_ it might if your mistress is a geologist... |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Uncategorized] UID:39072 Activity:nil |
8/9 htop rules. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:39073 Activity:moderate |
8/9 110 MPG in a Prius:
<DEAD>www.post-gazette.com/pg/05220/550484.stm<DEAD>
\_ Doing this sort of thing with a fully charged battery is meaningless.
You should start with a flat battery.
\_ Uh... why? It's about pushing a limit, not about practical use
\_ Because MPG is a measurement of how much gas you use
traditionally. The battery is only full because you used gas
before the measurement started in order to charge it. Thus
you're not getting an accurate measurement. What if they only
drove 5 miles and did it all on battery. They got INFINITY
mpg! A new and unbeatable record!
\_ Er, the person below is right. They never talked about
initial battery state. And for a prius is flat battery
a reasonable initial state?
\_ I think the only fair test of MPG is to start and end
with the battery in the exact same state. Flat -> flat
or Full -> Full; it doesn't matter which.
\_ Then we'll have to find another report that gives
their start and end battery states.
\_ I think they should start at the top of a steep hill
to boot and just coast to the bottom.
\_ Proof positive that motd assholes will complain, nitpick, and
bitch about absolutely anything and everything.
\_ The claim is "110 MPG" and a link to the method this was
determined. Your "nitpicker" called bullshit on that claim.
\_ Where does it say the battery is fully charged?
\_ Whatever, it is still k3wl.
\_ whatever, its still a *GAS* car. Incremental improvements in gas
mileage are going to get overwhelmed by increasing numbers of
drivers. Further work on gas mileage is just bandaghing the
infected wound, not dealing with the real probelm.
\_ Yeah, see, generally (though I'll concede 'not always')
technology has this tendency to move forward in incremental
steps. I mean, seriously, do you honestly think it's better to
wait 20 years for a revolutionary step up while we get
"overwhelmed by increasing numbers of drivers" and still use
the same inefficient technologies? I guess I'm just not seeing
what alternatives there are that can be implemented _now_....
\_ It's a stopgap. When you perfect your high yield, cheap, easily
produced solar cell, call us.
\_ RIDE BIKE!
\_ What about drive hybrid diesel?
\_ Yes, it's an efficient gas car. As opposed to what? An
electric car? Fuel cell car? Both of those ultimately use
fossil fuels too. Or are you expecting a solar car or a
car powered by Mr. Fusion?
\_ A fuel cell car gets its energy from wherever you get the
energy to make the hydrogen, so it could be nuclear, oil,
solar, coal, gas, wind, hydro or a mixtures of all.
Before you start flaming me, please note that I am not the
OP, and I think hybrids are cool, I was just pointing out
the innacuracy in your statement about fuel cells.
\_ It might be a technical inaccuracy, but in practice, the
above poster is right.
\_ No. Depending on where you live, a majority of your
power could very well be from something other than
oil. Also, by switching to fuel cells, you are setting
up a system where any new energy that comes online
such as clean coal or some crazy fusion scheme or
whatever is instantly the power source for cars,
without the painfuly slow R&D process currently underway
to make fuel cells compete gas engines.
\_ Do you know what "in practice" means?
You're talking about splitting hydrogen from water.
This is much more inefficient still than splitting
from NG. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39074 Activity:low |
8/9 Conservative Christian group pickets military funerals:
http://csua.org/u/cz3
\_ They're not conservative Christians. They're nuts. These are the
"God hates fags" people. They protested on 9/18/2001 saying that
\_ They can be all 3.
not enough people died, and that if any rescue workers found anyone
alive they should be left to die. They're just plain nuts.
\_ Amazing. Your contortions remind me of the communists who
try to both justify Stalin and distance themselves from him
because they can't face the connection between their belief
system and pure evil. Are you going to claim that Jerry
Falwell is not a leader in the American Christian conservative
movement? Are you going to deny that the Bush whitehouse still
treats him as a friend after he came out in support of the
terrorists after 9/11? I'm not saying that all or even most
conservative christians are evil, but if you deny that there
are *some* among you who support terrorism and genocide you
are a liar and a hyporcrite.
\_ Is Jerry Falwell one of those TVangelists?
- conservative christian
\_ "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal
court system, throwing God out of the public square, out
of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some
burden or this because God will not be mocked. And when we
destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God
mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the
abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American
Way, all of them who have tried to secularize
America, I point the finger in their face and say
'you helped this happen.'" -Falwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
I don't care that he apologized later to cover his ass.
The man literally sided with the terrorists *right* after
9/11, and I've actually seen him on cspan as a VIP guest
at the Bush white house since then.
\_ You don't seem to understand this quote. He's not
"siding with the terrorists" here. He's saying
something which is a long tradition in Christianity,
which is that wickedness rejects the protection of God.
He didn't say the terrorism was God's will.
\_ "Don't you associate some of those above with liberals.
We don't want them on our team." -- ilyas
\_ Who are you quoting here, yourself?
\_ I am quoting Liberal Team Management. I guess it was
a little ambiguous.
\_ You do realize that was a very silly joke, right?
\_ There is this old jungle saying in Russia:
"In every joke there is a grain of a joke."
-- ilyas
\_ There is this old saying in America:
"We are here to help ilyas, because in every
russkie, there is an American trying to get
out." |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:39075 Activity:nil |
8/9 Housing market collapses in San Diego:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s8i8827
\_ The spoof isn't that funny IMO.
Real article: http://csua.org/u/czc |
| 2005/8/9-13 [Science/Physics, Science/Biology] UID:39076 Activity:moderate |
8/9 http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=pub \_ this link doesn't work anymore I haven't been paying attention to the ID vs. Evolution discussion but I read this in the Merc and I was a bit surprised by the arguments made in favor of ID. Do the ID folks really think that the universe has more order now than at some point in the past when all the forces were unified (more entropy/disorder now right?) Also I'm confused by the assertion that the laws of nature imply ID. Isn't is equally plausible that the laws of nature are the result of (1) random chance or (2) the result of a natural process (such as collisions of branes in higher dimensional space) that creates an infinite number of universes so all possible laws of physics are expressed? \_ Well, I don't know about most of the arguments presented, but it is a little puzzling that the fundamental constants would arrange themselves randomly into an interesting looking universe that we have. If things were a little off, the universe would be it is a little puzzling that the fundamental constants would arrange themselves randomly into an interesting looking universe that we have. If things were a little off, the universe would be very boring indeed. -- ilyas \_ But there is a small but finite probability that the came about by random chance right? And by boring you mean boring to people right? Some other arrangement might give rise to a universe that is interesting to different form of "life". What I don't understand about ID is that there does not appear to be a way to show that ID is more likely than the theory that branes are/have been colliding in higher dimensional space for an infinite amt of time thus making possible every arrangement of the fundamental constants. How can one accept a theory which is by definition un- proveable? \_ By 'boring' I mean you can't have life as we understand it -- low entropy entities that use energy to maintain their state, or for that matter planets, stars and galaxies -- things needed to support life. -- ilyas \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle \_ The only way we can even talk about this is if we happen to have the conditions for life. So, just out luck that we happen to have these conditions, however small the chance. It really doesn't prove anything. \_ And this is called the "weak anthropic" principle. For some strange reason, I can't find anything in ID addressing it (which I'd think would be important). -emarkp \_ You don't understand. This isn't meant to be a proof of anything, but something requiring an explanation. -- ilyas \_ The point you're missing is that if there are an infinite number of universes, only in the ones where the physical laws are conducive to the rise of intelligent life will there ever be anyone to notice that the physical laws are conducive to the rise of intelligent life. -tom \_ And what if there isn't an infinite number of universes? Occam's razor says to assume the least. Why is it more 'expensive' to assume intelligent design than to assume infinitely many universes? -- ilyas \_ Because intelligent design still presupposes a creator, which just pushes the question up a level; who created the creator? It's a lot easier to assume an infinitude of universes than to assume that an intelligent being somehow sprang into existence before the universe did. -tom \_ So you would rather postulate an infinitude of worlds than suspend for a moment your intuitions borne of your linear perception of time? Seems like people suspend intuitions a lot when looking at fundamental things -- consider quantum mechanics. I should mention that 'created' is a causal notion, and causality is an illusion, a way our brain organizes information. There is no causality in physics. -- ilyas 'created' is a causal notion, and causality is an illusion, a way our brain organizes information. There is no causality in physics. -- ilyas \_ Wikipedia on "Causality (physics)": "special relativity has shown that it is not only impossible to influence the past" "Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories." \_ This is one of those cases where I know more about the subject matter than wikipedia. There is no causality in physics, only in physicists. The standing of causality in modern physics is so weak that even my advisor, a fairly influential causality guy, concedes that it's all likely an artifact of the human brain, and not an objective feature of reality. On a slightly unrelated note, I wish people would stop quoting wikipedia as an authoritative source. I read some of their 'contention' pages, and wasn't really impressed. You don't have to look far to find wikipedia blatantly being wrong -- in the general Causality article, Pearl and Spirtes are listed under 'Probabilistic Causality,' which is untrue, proponents of that area include Good, Cartwright, etc. Pearl/Spirtes are in 'Structural Causality.' Wikipedia is trash. -- ilyas the human brain, and not an objective feature of reality. On a slightly unrelated note, I wish people would stop quoting wikipedia as an authoritative source. I read some of their 'contention' pages, and wasn't really impressed. You don't have to look far to find wikipedia blatantly being wrong -- in the general Causality article, Pearl and Spirtes are listed under 'Probabilistic Causality,' which is untrue, proponents of that area include Good, Cartwright, etc. Pearl/Spirtes are in 'Structural Causality.' Wikipedia is trash. -- ilyas \_ I support quoting of Wikipedia as an authoritative source, with disagreements with Wikipedia well disagreements with Wikipedia documented on motd for any sodan to evaluate. -jctwu to evaluate. Wikipedia's usefulness significantly outweighs its negatives when used in this way. -jctwu \_ What usefulness? It's an encyclopedia and it's WRONG. A lot. Do you really want me to look through the causality article and list all things it got wrong? Wikipedia's 'usefulness' is misleading people into thinking they know something. -- ilyas \_ Then fix it man -- you're extremely lucid in your writing when you set your mind to it. That's one of the nice things about Wikipedia -- I assume that people with brains and enough confidence in their knowledge go in and remove blatant inaccuracies, so as time goes on, the overall quality of the information gets better. Don't get me wrong -- it's still a source of info which resides in the internet and therefore is deserving of a little skepticism, but it's still a damned handy reference. -mice \_ It's a Wiki-based encyclopedia, not a traditional encyclopedia. In your opinion, Wikipedia is trash; I already stated my opinion. You could also submit a change, but that's your prerogative whether you do or do not and why you wouldn't. I don't think we can get any farther than this. any farther on this. One more thing you can do: We can avoid the subjective question of whether Wikipedia is useful or not, and you can instead explain calmly and succinctly why there is no causality in physics, and/or post a URL which says so. Pretend you're Feynman lecturing to a freshman physics class. -jctwu \_ This logic appeals to me, but many find it deficient. Of course, if things weren't conducive to us being here, we wouldn't be here.... Those who have the most trouble with this usually cite the incredible odds against it. However, with possibly a trillion "trial" locations, over a span of billions of years, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that life would somewhere arise and ponder the unlikelyhood of it all.... But the pondering would 100% take place in those lucky, rare locations that "won". Like here. \-there is a good paper that assess the amount of "tolerance" we can have in various "free parameters" [i.e. the fundamental physical constants] in light of the anthropomorphic principle [the idea that we have to be here to to ask the questions] ... i can dig up the reference if there is interest. if you are interested in this you may want to review first review the list of free parameters ... some of them are pretty technical but you need some knowledge of what the are to see how things fit in terms of "dependencies". there are many good discussions of this. \_ Who says there are "trials" or they take any "time"? Why not "every possible existence that could be, is"? And maybe that means there are an infinite number of existences, and maybe that means there are a finite but greater than one number and maybe that means this is it and the only it. It's all just freshman lounge chat anyway since we can't ever know but this is better than a lot of the other motd/wall posts. \_ Hey ilyas, tell us about the stars. -aspo \_ Aspolito is a meme's way of making another meme. -- ilyas \_ ID is intellectual fraud. It presents strawman arguments about evolution and largely consists of handwaving. I can't distinguish between it and more sophisticated moon-hoaxers. -emarkp \_ Do other religious conservatives give you a lot of shit for being such a decent, rational person on science issues? I think it's fantastic to see someone who self identifies as a religious conservative speak out against these people. You can probably get a lot more traction stopping them from destroying American science than us liberal jewish athiest scientists. can probably get a lot more traction stopping them from destroying American science than us liberal jewish athiest scientists. \_ I've never been criticized for it. I point it out misrepresentations of science when I see them, and misrepresentations of religion when I see /them/. I'm particularly annoyed about ID because it is an attempt to misrepresent science to defend the author of physical law, and I just read a 30-page article this weekend from ID that read like an anti-religion tract but was basically anti-Evolution. -emarkp \_ ID isn't really about the universe and physical laws, but more about: Goddamn, can you believe a tiny sperm and a tiny egg can combine and grow into one new human being, without anything else going wrong? GAWD or ALIENS must have been involved! \- a fairly cool book on weird examples and corner cases in biology is THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE by EO WILSON. I found this quite readable and interesting and I have a fairly limited bio background. http://csua.org/u/czi \_ Cf. a good deal of Stephen Jay Gould's work on evolution. \- isnt SJG soft on ID? \_ No. Read Bully for Brontosaurus. \- Some comments: the ID vs Evolution debate is somewhat interesting for various reasons but it mainly has to do with politics when hitting a low [like BUSH weighing in about it] or philosophy of science [what is a theory vs a collection of fact, what are standards of proof, causality in an empirical or observational science]. if you are interested in actual debates on evolution, those dont really concern the teleological or "invisible hand" aspect of ID but other "legitimate" issues with the various competing evolution theories. dawkins and gould are the populerizers, but you can also look at wilson, mayr [died recently too], this fellow H. Orr, Stevene Pinker, matt ridley, and r lewontin [recently gave a talk at berkeley] and daniel dennet. a lot of these guys have secondary agendas and strong personalities so it makes for an interesting story/debate to follow. \_ The problems with ID are twofold: 1) It is not science, it is philosophy. Don't teach philosophy in science classes. And 2) As soon as you use the "The Wizard Did It" type of logic to explain the world then it's religion, not knowledge, and you can go to church to become indoctrinated in such a fashion. |
| 5/16 |