Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:August:10 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2005/8/10-11 [Science/Space] UID:39077 Activity:nil
8/9     Martian Crater w/ a block of ice in it:
        http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html
        \_ Looks like a sand dollar.
2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39078 Activity:low
8/10    For those who don't trust http://worldnetdaily.com, here's cnet's account of
        Google blackballing cnet.  So does that make Google about the same as
        as Putin?
        http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet
        \_ No
           \_ Well, with respect to the media at least they are.  "We don't
              like what you print, so we're not talking to you anymore."
              \_ So Google is arresting its critics and having them
                 tortured? Cool, can I work there...?
           \_ there's nothing that says they have to talk to everyone.  I've
              always wondered about why people talk to 60 minutes... do they
              think it's going to be all rosy and peachy?  If they were
              blocking cnet stories on http://news.google.com I'd be more worried.
        \_ no, Putin is more open than google.
2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39079 Activity:nil
8/10    FYI, Iran broke IAEA seals on equipment that's used in the first half
        of the fuel cycle today.  Earlier this week they had resumed work
        without breaking seals.
        Can you say:  EU3 and U.S. bluff called?
        \_ In other news, I'm now getting propaganda spam about this.
           \_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/nuclear_spam_trojan
              \_ Aiyahhh. Thank you.
2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39080 Activity:moderate
8/10    Stories from a wounded Army soldier
        http://csua.org/u/czk (Wash Post)
        http://freerepublic.com comments on the end of the story
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460559/posts
        \_ Freepers' version of respect for veterans "Wonder if this moron is
           gay..sounds like what a queer would do."  Why do freepers hate
           America?
           \_ "There is only room for one party in America and you liberals
               better get used to it."
               \_ So, is that an actual quote, or are you just making them
                  up again?
                  \_ http://csua.com/?entry=38572
                     \_ Oh, you're quoting liberal pretending to be a
                        conservative.  That's so much better.
                        \_ Says you.  That post was in earnest.
                           \_ Oh, come ON.
                              \_ Do you have evidence of who posted it?
                                 Anyway, I could find you similar quotes
                                 on any given conservative comment board
                                 in two minutes.
                                 \_ I don't require evidence of who posted
                                    a troll to know it's a troll.
                                    Especially one that blatant.  I don't
                                    Especially one that blantant.  I don't
                                    doubt that you could find something
                                    similar on freerepublic or something.
                                    I can find plenty of wacky left-wing
                                    I can find pleanty of wacky left-wing
                                    quotes on left-leaning boards too.
                                    Anyway, please find one, at least then
                                    you'd be using a real quote from a
                                    real wing-nut, and not just someone
                                    pretending to be a wing-nut.
                                    \_ I am pretty sure it was jblack. He
                                       posted a bunch of similar stuff that
                                       day, then deleted anyone who disagreed
                                       with him, then posted that. But it is
                                       the motd, so there is no proof.
                                       \_ Well, yeah.  In this case, I
                                          don't think it was jblack.
                                          However, I can't say with
                                          complete confidence that jblack
                                          wouldn't post something like
                                          that.
        \_ This is egregious even for FR standards--the comments make me sick.
           I wonder how many of the posters there are/were in the army.  -John
2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39081 Activity:kinda low
8/10    Pentagon to organize huge march and Clint Black concert to celebrate
        9/11.  What the fuck?
        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/335938p-286948c.html
        \_ I admit that this is odd, but calling it a celebration is
           completely disingenuous.
           \_ Can I have Clint Black sing at my funeral?  I'm goin'
              for _somber_.
              fer _somber_.
           \_ Okay, I should have put "celebration" in scare quotes.  I'm
              sure that's not their intention, but it sure smells like it.
              Hence my "what the fuck."  --op
              \_ It's definitely weird, but I guess the Pentagon has some
                 sort of "right" because it was after all attacked on 9/11
                 with some 300-400 odd people dying (counting the ones on the
                 plane). Personally I find the concert in somewhat bad taste,
                 as I think a moment of silence or a reading of the names of
                 the dead is much more appropriate.
                 \_ It is called "waving the bloody shirt" and is an old
                    tried and true propaganda technique.
        \_ http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-he-fucking-kidding.html
2005/8/10 [Computer/SW/Graphics, Finance/Investment] UID:39082 Activity:insanely high
8/10    In the http://www.yahoo.com page there is this picture in the ad for "The
        Skeleton Key":
        http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/java/promotions/universal/050810/w1.jpg
        Is that her left nipple exposed near the bottom of the picture?
        \_ I think it's her hand or something moving blurring by.
        \_ No: link:csua.org/u/czn
           \_ I see.  Never mind.
2005/8/10-11 [Uncategorized] UID:39083 Activity:nil
8/10    Does anyone know of a free statechart drawing tool on Windoze or *nix
        that's good?  Thanks.
2005/8/10-13 [Computer/HW] UID:39084 Activity:kinda low
8/10    The thread below has digressed into wikipedia ramblings, so I'll ask
        here.  I read the essay "Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative
        to Evolution"
        (found here: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm
        this weekend trying to figure out what ID proponents are actually
        saying.  From reading this I found that the authors were making
        strawman arguments against evolution and didn't appear to understand
        physical science or probability.  Have you read this essay?  Do any ID
        proponents ever address the weak anthropic principle?  Is the 10^-150
        probability the number they use in general to show something as
        unreasonably improbable? -emarkp
        \_ Math is hard. Big numbers are scary. Someone must have done it.
        \_ I don't understand what the weak anthropic principle is supposed to
           explain.  I think 'cosmological constant tuning' needs an answer.
           On a somewhat related note, I read an article somewhere that some
           experimental data shows that possibly some constants aren't really
           constant, and change somewhat as time passes.  -- ilyas
           \_ In that essay I mentioned (in the section "The Fine Tuning of the
              Universe") the authors say: "The force of gravity, the mass of
              the electron, the charge of the proton, etc. are specific, real
              values. Were they even slightly different from what they are, not
              only would life not exist, nothing (of any significance) would
              exist."  They argue that this specifically suggests design.  But
              the weak anthropic principle is that if the universe weren't
              tuned to life, then we wouldn't be here to observe it.  This
              directly contradicts their assertion--they should at least
              address it.  The fact that they don't even mention it is
              suspicious at best. -emarkp
              \_ It is a counterfactual assertion that does not render the
                 current state of affairs any less puzzling.  Sure, if constants
                 were different nobody would be there to comment.  But someone
                 IS there to comment, and constants ARE the way they are.
                   -- ilyas
                 current state of affairs any less puzzling.  Sure, if
                 constants were different nobody would be there to comment.
                 But someone IS there to comment, and constants ARE the way
                 they are. -- ilyas
                 \_ The point is there is a selecting event (i.e. our
                    existence) which makes those constants unremarkable.  If
                    we were to observe a universe at random and the constants
                    were amenable to life, that might be something.  But our
                    universe isn't a random one.  It had to have those
                    constants. -emarkp
                    \_ What you said is exactly right.  Our universe doesn't
                       seem to be a random one.
                    \_ Let's imagine a lottery winner pondering what events
                       lead to his winning ticket.  He might say: 'well given
                       that I _did_ win, the particles in the Universe must
                       have danced just right so I had to have won.  So the
                       fact that I won (at odds of millions to one) is wholly
                       unremarkable.'  Really, the real reason it's not
                       remarkable is because millions of people played, so
                       someone had to have won.  In other words, lots of
                       Universes makes our constant unremarkable.  Our
                       existence does not. -- ilyas
                               \_ But should the lottery winner conclude that
                                  someone chose him to be the winner? -emarkp
                                  \_ He shouldn't he if knows lots of people
                                     played (parallel Universes).  Except in
                                     our case, it's unclear whether it's
                                     cheaper to assume lots of players or
                                     a benign lottery agency.  I think this
                                     is best taken 'offline.' -- ilyas
                                     \_ Then your analogy falls on its face.
                                        An unlikely event occurs (Bob wins the
                                        lottery).  It doesn't follow that Bob
                                        was chosen by a designer. -emarkp
                                        \_ No, it doesn't follow.  I wasn't
                                           saying it does.  As I said,
                                           Bob knows lots of people play the
                                           lottery.  We don't know whether
                                           lots of people play or whether
                                           someone just decided to give us
                                           the ticket.  Not only do we not
                                           know, we don't even know whether
                                           it's more _likely_ lots of people
                                           play, or whether someone gave us
                                           a winning ticket.  That's the point,
                                           we have less information than Bob
                                           about our situation.  But, just as
                                           in Bob's situation, the anthropic
                                           principle doesn't explain anything,
                                           something else does.  My point is,
                                           despite the fact our state of
                                           knowledge is different from Bob's
                                           the two situations are exactly the
                                           same, and in Bob's situation, nobody
                                           invokes the anthropic principle.
                                           So we shouldn't invoke it in our
                                           case either, because our state of
                                           belief shouldn't matter as far as
                                           explanations are concerned. -- ilyas
                                           \_ (1) It's "an"thropic.
                                              (2) It's not invoked to explain
                                              anything.  It's invoked to show
                                              that the reasoning that
                                              Life=>special is specious.
                                              -emarkp
                                              \_ Anyways, what is your answer
                                                 to the following:
                                                 P(C=true,L=true) is low, yet
                                                 C=true and L=true.  Are you
                                                 claiming the above probability
                                                 isn't low?  If so, why?  I
                                                 claim it is low on
                                                 'maximum entropy' grounds.
                                                 Notice how the anthropic
                                                 principle cannot be used to
                                                 answer this question, although
                                                 it is essentially the same:
                                                 life + constants -> special.
                                                   -- ilyas
                                                 \_ I know I'm going to regret
                                                    getting back into this,
                                                    but if P(C) is the
                                                    probability that the
                                                    laws of physics create
                                                    a universe conducive to
                                                    the rise of intelligent
                                                    life, C=>L.  -tom
                                                    \_ No, P(C) is the
                                                       probability the constants
                                                       assume the values they do
                                                       in our Universe. -- ilyas
                                                       probability the
                                                       constants assume the
                                                       values they do in our
                                                       Universe. -- ilyas
                                                       \_ Same conclusion:
                                                          C=>L. -tom
                                                          \_ I mean what you say
                                                             is true, but I
                                                             don't see how this
                                                             observation helps.
                                                             You can conclude
                                                             that P(C) <= P(L),
                                                             but how does this
                                                             address the
                                                             question about
                                                             P(C,L)? -- ilyas
                                                          \_ I mean what you
                                                             say is true,
                                                             but I don't see
                                                             how this
                                                             observation
                                                             helps. You can
                                                             conclude that
                                                             P(C) <= P(L),
                                                             but how does
                                                             this address
                                                             the question
                                                             about P(C,L)?
                                                             -- ilyas
                                                             \_ The question
                                                                about P(C,L)
                                                                is not
                                                                meaningful,
                                                                since life will
                                                                arise if the
                                                                conditions
                                                                exist for it.
                                                                The only
                                                                relevant
                                                                part is
                                                                P(C).  -tom
                                        _______________________/
                                        Just because C implies L does not mean
                                        P(C) fully determines P(C,L).  For that
                                        to happen you would need C iff L.
                                        I don't understand why event implication
                                        means questions about the joint
                                        distribution are not 'meaningful.'
                                        They seem perfectly meaningful (and
                                        puzzling) to me. -- ilyas

                                        to happen you would need C iff L. I
                                        don't understand why event
                                        implication means questions about
                                        the joint distribution are not
                                        'meaningful.' They seem perfectly
                                        meaningful (and puzzling) to me.
                                        -- ilyas
                                        \_ I was right; I regret getting back
                                           into it.  -tom
                                           \_ Go pee somewhere else then.
                       \_ Non sequitur.  We know precisely nothing about any
                          other universes.  If you can point to another
                          universe that we can observe that has the same (or
                          similar) constants, that would say something.  Since
                          we can't (yet? ever?) observe other universes, we
                          can't evaluate how random this one is. -emarkp
                          \_ Let L be an event 'life exists.'  Let C be an
                             an event 'cosmological constants have the values
                             they hold in our Universe.'  Your claim: P(C|L)
                             is high.  My claim: P(C) is low.  That P(C|L) is
                             high does not explain why C is true, though P(C)
                             is low.  P(C|L) is high just because of the way
                             conditional probability works.  To put it another
                             way, you have to explain why L is true, even
                             though P(C,L=true) is low.  Or if you like, you
                             can marginalize out C, and reasonably claim
                             P(L=true) is also low.  Or to put it yet another
                             way, you are offering features of the distribution
                             P as an explanation for why we have P and not
                             some other distribution P*.  Naturally, that
                             kind of argument doesn't make sense. -- ilyas
                             P(L=true) is also low.  That's an entirely
                             symmetric question, and an entirely symmetric
                             argument would be 'life exists because our
                             cosmological constants are the way they are.'
                             At this point, the argument becomes circular, and
                             I can ask a question about the joint event:
                             i.e. why is C=true and L=true, though
                             P(C=true,L=true) is low.  Saying 'it's true
                             because it happened' isn't answering anything.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ No, I don't "have to explain why L is true".
                                ID says P(C) is low, thus we were designed.
                                But that doesn't follow.  All we know is that
                                P(C|L) is nonzero, and that P(~C|L) = 0.
                                Also, we don't actually know that P(C) is low
                                in the first place.  -emarkp
                                \_ So you are saying that the joint probability
                                   of the constants being what they are, and
                                   life existing is high?  How do you figure
                                   that? -- ilyas
                                   \_ No, I'm saying that P(~C|L) appears to be
                                      low (I think my statement that it =0 may
                                      too strong) and that P(C|L) is nonzero.
                                      Everything else is being pulled out of
                                      someone's rear end. -emarkp
                                      \_ Well, you are right that I am making
                                         an assumption that P(C,L) is
                                         reasonably uniform, but this is a
                                         common assumption in science
                                         (see 'maximum entropy').  The anthropic
                                         principle doesn't answer the 'joint
                                         event question.'  If you make the
                                         argument that P(C,L) isn't low then
                                         you have to explain why maximum
                                         entropy isn't an appropriate assumption
                                         to make. -- ilyas
                                         (see 'maximum entropy').  The
                                         anthropic principle doesn't answer
                                         the 'joint event question.'  If you
                                         make the argument that P(C,L) isn't
                                         low then you have to explain why
                                         maximum entropy isn't an
                                         appropriate assumption to make.
                                         -- ilyas
                                         \_ Dear lord...I actually find this
                                            conversation interesting.  I
                                            think I'd better lie down until
                                            it goes away.    -mice
                                \_ (1) Do we know that P(~C|L) = 0? If either
                                                       \_ I already retracted
                                                          the claim. -emarkp
                                                          \_ sorry, just
                                                             saw that.
                                       the fundamental constants change over
                                       time (some evid that they might) or
                                       changes in one could be offset by
                                       changes in another (perhaps yet
                                       unknown constant - there is still
                                       that pesky problem of dark matter and
                                       dark energy) then P(~C|L) may not
                                       be zero weaking the case for design.
                                   (2) What exactly is L? Do we really know?
                                       We have only one data point to look
                                       at. Perhaps other arrangements can
                                       give rise to L.
                                   (3) Why is it less probable that ID is
                                       the answer than say some natural
                                       process that produces an infinite
                                       number of universes? If you have
                                       an infinite number of universes
                                       then you will have an infinite
                                       number of universes EXACTLY like
                                       our own.
                       \_ I find ilyas arguing FOR intelligent design AGAINST
                          a Mormon to be highly amusing.
                          \_ Yeah, because people must always argue from an
                             agenda, and not just follow where the argument
                             might lead.  Grow up. -- ilyas
                             \_ ilyas, you always have an agenda.
                                \_ Grow up anonymous troll. -emarkp
                                \_ My agenda is to legislate Jesus into
                                   your heart. -- ilyas
                                   \_ You're hurting me.   -mice
           \_ Width of universe compared to age of universe compared to speed
              of light taught me that.
           \_ http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-05-04.html
              "contrary to previous claims, no evidence exist for assuming a
              time variation of this fundamental constant [fine structure
              constant]"
              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050418204410.htm
2005/8/10-11 [Recreation/Dating] UID:39085 Activity:nil
8/10    Any of you > 25 years old living at home?
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/10/HOGVHE3B3J1.DTL
        \_ Nicki is busty.
        \_ Yes
2005/8/10-11 [Uncategorized] UID:39086 Activity:nil
8/10    Are you burnt out or cynical?
        \_ Not yet. I just keep finding absurdities to keep me going.
2005/8/10-13 [Reference/Military] UID:39087 Activity:low
8/10    "A 7-day waiting period for a gun?  That's stupid!  No one can
        stay mad that long."
        http://csua.org/u/d06
        Emo Philips performing in SF Thursday through Saturday
        \_ Think about this next time there is a riot.
           \_ Should have bought a gun way before a riot breaks out.  I'm
              serious.  Otherwise, it's like trying to fix a barn after....
              What's more annoying to me is the fact that even if I own a
              gun (or many guns), it still takes 7 days (or 30 days for
              handguns) to get another one.
              \_ you both officially have no sense of humor.  Good job.
              \_ "I dream of a world in which I can buy alcohol, tobacco,
                  and firearms at the same drive-in window, and use them
                  all before I get home from work." - Dogbert
                  \_ "I dream in a world where the government tells me what
                      I can and cannot do to myself." Oh wait.. it's reality
2005/8/10-13 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39088 Activity:low
8/10    What's the difference between P(A,B), P(A,B=true), P(A=true,B=true) and
        P(A|B)?  I'm trying to follow the ID thread below.  Thx.
        \_ P(A,B) is a table, with an entry for each possible value combinations
           of A and B.  The numbers in the table have to sum up to 1.  Each
           entry in the table corresponds to the probability of A and B
           attaining the indexing values.  P(A=true,B=true) is a number, the
           probability that both events happened.  P(A,B=true) is a table
           where each corresponds to some value of A, and means 'probability
           that A takes on that value and B is true.' P(A|B) = P(A,B)/P(B)
           where you divide consistent entries.  P(A|B) is a table with an
           entry for each possible combination of values of A and B, where the
           entry means 'the probability A attains the given indexing value
           given that the given indexing value of B was observed.'
           For now you can ignore what happens if A or B range over
           reals (or take some measure theory). -- ilyas
        \_ P(A,B) is a table, with an entry for each possible value
           combinations of A and B.  The numbers in the table have to sum up
           to 1.  Each entry in the table corresponds to the probability of
           A and B attaining the indexing values.  P(A=true,B=true) is a
           number, the probability that both events happened.  P(A,B=true)
           is a table where each corresponds to some value of A, and means
           'probability that A takes on that value and B is true.' P(A|B) =
           P(A,B)/P(B) where you divide consistent entries.  P(A|B) is a
           table with an entry for each possible combination of values of A
           and B, where the entry means 'the probability A attains the given
           indexing value given that the given indexing value of B was
           observed.'  For now you can ignore what happens if A or B range
           over reals (or take some measure theory). -- ilyas
           [ reformatted - 80x24 formatd ]
              \_ I was disappointed that the thread got stuck on the argument
                 over observational bias, but never questioned the underlying
                 assumption that an alteration in the universal constants
                 would have precluded life.  Life is a powerful phenominon,
                 and there are (at least) two independent instances of it on
                 Earth alone.  (e.g. The oxygen based life covering most of
                 the earth and oceans, plus the ferric/ferrous based life
                 found in the heat vents around Seven Mile Trench and
                 lots of mines and a river in Spain) -mel
                 \_ I was assuming life cannot arise without powerful energy
                    sources like stars which an alteration of constants would
                    likely not produce.   Why did I assume this?  Because
                    life is a 'low entropy' process, and such a process needs
                    a lot of energy coming down to maintain itself.
                    These 'two independent instances'
                    aren't really independent (they arose from a common
                    ancestor) they just use a different metabolic mechanism.
                    Many other metabolism types were used at various points
                    in Earth's life. -- ilyas
                    These 'two independent instances' aren't really
                    independent (they arose from a common ancestor) they
                    just use a different metabolic mechanism. Many other
                    metabolism types were used at various points in Earth's
                    life. -- ilyas
                    \_ My mistake in calling the ferrooxindans independent.
                       Obviously since they have DNA and a biological cell,
                       there is a common ancestor involved.  A better point I
                       should have made regarding them is that most people
                       would have trouble imagining life existing without
                       oxygen, but these bacteria do that just fine.  I
                       doubt that life in a more generic sense has all
                       that strict a set of requirements on what environmental
                       conditions under which SOMETHING will evolve. -mel
                       \_ Origins are a problem. -- ilyas
                 \_ URL?
                    \_ google "ferrooxidans" -mel
                    \- hello, it is true that is if you tweak certain numbers
                       you cannot have even matter [like without CP violation
                       you cannot explain why we dont have a lot of anti-
                       matter hanging around], while tweaking yet other
                       numbers would not allow nuclei to form, this would
                       would live in a soup of only elementary particles
                       (although possibly some rarely seen ones like the
                       OMEGA- made from SSS). However, there are some
                       free parameters which if tweaked slightly IN ISOLATION
                       we still could get a pretty similar universe in terms
                       of large structure. However it is possible something
                       like the water molecule would not exist. Water is not
                       important to cosmology but it is obviously important
                       to LIFE. If something like the FERMI CONSTANT were
                       different it would change the energy of the fundemantal
                       reactions in the stars which would in turn change their
                       geometry and power spectrum ... so again large con-
                       sequences for "life" and our solar system, but at
                       the large scale and with a "non-antropic eye" the
                       universe may not be too different [there is actually
                       more to the Fermi value, but that is beyond the scope
                       of this discussion]. One may also wish to explore
                       what is the fundamental cause of the PAULI EXCLUSION
                       PRINCIPLE of FERMIONS which allows for elements and
                       chemistry to exist via the AUFBAU PROCESS (I am not
                       very familar with this area of summersymmetry but if
                       the world were made out of the integral spin ss
                       cousins of the electron, photon etc, i believe the
                       universe would turn into one GIANT ATOM/BOSE CONDENSATE).
                       i believe speculating in terms of these free parameters
                       is about the only reasonably way to look at this.
                       you cant arbitrarily ask "what if there was no
                       conservation of mass-energy" ... you have to replace
                       it with something you can plug into equations. You
                       may wish to learn about the CKM MATRIX. ok tnx.
                       universe would turn into one GIANT ATOM/BOSE
                       CONDENSATE). i believe speculating in terms of these
                       free parameters is about the only reasonably way to
                       look at this. you cant arbitrarily ask "what if there
                       was no conservation of mass-energy" ... you have to
                       replace it with something you can plug into
                       equations. You may wish to learn about the CKM
                       MATRIX. ok tnx.
                       [ reformatted - 80x24 formatd ]
                       \_ Water is very important to life on Earth, but
                          in a universe where water didn't exist, there
                          is little reason to believe that no other
                          compound would supply a similar role as a
                          convenient solvent.  Removing basic rules like
                          Pauli Exclusion or Conservation of Energy is
                          outside the scope of what interests me.  As
                          for learning about the CKM Matrix, I still
                          recall the sequence up, down, strange, charm,
                          beauty and truth even a decade or two out of
                          my last Physics class.  The interestng question
                          to me is what the minimal set of requirements
                          are to generate an evolutionary system. -mel
                          \_ Did I say "up down" or "top bottom"?  Sigh.
                             This isn't my day for accuracy.  Time to go
                             to sleep  -mel
                             \- 1. top and bottom have won out over truth and
                                   beauty.
                                2. second, those 6 quarks dont form a sequence
                                    ... there are 3 (+2/3,-1/3) charge
                                   pairs falling into 3 mass generations.
                                   their masses are 1/3 of the free parameters
                                   in the std model.
                                3. speculations based on minor tweaks like
                                   if the earth were 10 percent larger or
                                   10% closer to the sun or had a greater
                                   tilt or weaker van allen belt etc may be
                                   perfectly interesting but those are not
                                   really cases of "the laws of physics being
                                   different" or "the nature of the universe
                                   being different" ... those are accidental
                                   details in a way things like the CKM matrix
                                   coefficients are not. when you are talking
                                   about something like the standard model,
                                   "emergent phenomena" is things like stars
                                   and elements and chemical phenomena ... it's
                                   still a long way from DNA.
                                4. "life" may have been able to overcome the
                                   consequnces of certain fundamental changes
                                   [like changing some masses would cause
                                   the list of stable isotopes to change, so
                                   "life" would have to pick some different
                                   chemical pathways, since the relative abun-
                                   dances would greatly shift], but there are
                                   other changes which are so massive, life
                                   obviously could not have evolved ... like
                                   if it were not possible to form stable
                                   nuclei -> no atoms -> no chemistry.
                                 5. my point was without some knowledge of
                                    "the standard model" you cant tell which
                                    "tweaks" are "surivivable" and which lead
                                    to a "boring universe" and which are some
                                    where in between.
                       chemistry to exist via the AUFBAU PROCESS. ok tnx.
2005/8/10-13 [Uncategorized] UID:39089 Activity:nil
8/10    OH-58D surveillance video from iraq of...people fucking in a car.
        Definitiely SFW if you use headphones.
        http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2675854
        \_ I click on "Watch Now!", and a window pops up and disappears right
           away.  No video.  Same in both Fx and IE.
           \_ Are you using another pop-up blocker? Try holding down Ctrl
              when you click on Watch Now!
2005/8/10 [Uncategorized] UID:39090 Activity:nil
8/10    Does anyone know if it's possible to get the show "Wonder Years"
        on DVD?
2017/09/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/25    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:August:10 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>