| 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? |
| 5/17 |