Slashdot Mirror

Extinction and recovery of benthic foraminifera across the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum at the Alamedilla section (Southern Spain)

Try reading the European constitution, it is the perfect example of it. http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm. It runs about 400 pages in a normal printed book, has fundamental rights, policies, annexes, and more. It's a public policy document written by lawyers, for politicians, and with the public being an afterthought.

Obigitory - "didn't look very hard before spouting off did ya."

You might want to give a read here.

Ohhh and maybe heretoo.

Or here.

These two guys are formidable minds, so ya just might want to think before you blast your mouth off.

Ah. Appeal to authority, the refuge of the science fanboi.

I know Harold Morowitz from our visits to the Santa Fe Institute and from George Mason (my daughter studies there). I quote him here regularly, especially his "Energy Flow In Biology". I've also quoted his story about being the first to try to sell fairy shrimp. It was a miserable failure. If he can tell you he can be wrong, so can I.

I don't know Knight, but I was right -- he's an engineer, not a biologist. And it was his statements I took issue with. Identical strands do not necessarily produce the same result. They are sensitive to environment to an extraordinary degree. An example is the different amounts of coverage and symmetry of coat colors in dogs due to the minute differences in pH from being between litter mates vs. being at the end of the line while in the womb.

If I were the sort to repay appeal to authority with the same, I'd have made a bigger deal about "our" trips to Santa Fe (not he and I together, but more than one each) as well as a few other salient points. But I don't, because I've had some object lessons on that. Such as:

Basil Hiley also has an exceptional mind. He was the physics partner of David Bohm. He'd come to Karl Pribram's lab to work on an update to the latter's book that provided evidence that Gabor's maths describing holography, specifically having to do with 'logons', could be used to describe the interaction of the dynamic electrical fields around neural dendrites, and their possible communication without direct connections. Basil needed to access his email. We had Macs with Netscape in the lab. He wasn't familiar with them and asked me to configure things for him. I did so. He thanked me and added "I could never have done it. I'm just a mathematical physicist." And he was serious.

In any case, I was right, and the non-biologist Knight overstated. I wouldn't have expected many to believe it, and my having been modded down by those who didn't understand what I was talking about bears that out. Why they don't just give us a '-1 Wrong' mod to use, I don't know -- people use other mod keys for that anyway.

In another case I was wrong. I asked Karl and Basil (and Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue) why they didn't use tensor calculus to describe the fields. Basil finally said it could work but would take more effort than using Gabor's functions. But it took the mathematical physicist an hour of thinking about it before answering. So consider carefully that while you might be able to provide reference to work by parties not present, you can never be sure in a forum such as this when you'll run across someone who'd feel quite comfortable in their company for some obvious reasons. Then you can kiss my exceptional mind. And same for the guy below who also got modded down for daring to make the point that one should question authority, especially when it's presented by someone other than that authority. Kiss his too.

Obigitory - "didn't look very hard before spouting off did ya."

You might want to give a read here.

Ohhh and maybe heretoo.

Or here.

These two guys are formidable minds, so ya just might want to think before you blast your mouth off.

You said "physics depends on psychology".

Actually, I didn't, Doctor Harold J Morowitz, Robinson Professor in Biology and Natural Philosophy, George Mason University said it, although I happen to think he's right.

That's the absurdity I refer to, which basically means that what you think makes things happen. Funny how you retract the obvious meaning of your words when called out on their meaning.

Funny how you change your accusations. "What you think makes things happen" is nothing like what I wrote means (try reading Morowitz's "Rediscovering the Mind") but at least this time you're accusing me of a far less contentious statement. What we think (probably -- I'm not an occasionalist, epipenomenonalist or material eliminationist) does make things happen -- I think I'll press this key on my keyboard, and (indirectly, through a whole pile of physical process) it makes me press this key. What I think makes (a limited range of) things happen.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your message because it was clearly directed at somebody other than me, because I have never made the claims you attack. (Although I confess I couldn't resist reading far enough to see you giving me a grade-school lecture about stuff I got my degree in and which I in no way dispute -- you only think I do because you can't see past your blinkers to what I'm actually writing)

Protons moving? Do you have a citation for this? I don't see any reason for protons to move more freely in ice than anything else.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a citation. Somewhat.

Harold J. Morowitz
Bio with some pubs: http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Morowitz.html

It was in the intro paragraph to one of his essays. That essay appeared in one of his collections books, I believe either "Pizza" or "Mayonaisse". Sorry to be so vague; my Morowitz collection and I are a thousand miles apart, or I'd not only look it up, I'd quote it. Some of his short works include references themselves, but I don't recall whether this one did. It was only in the intro and wasn't the focus of the essay, so there was no technical discussion as to why this should be so. You can always write and ask him. He's at George Mason University.

He can (and does, in "Energy Flow In Biology") start from a few basic astronomical facts regarding the solar system (solar output, Earth's size distance, etc.) and the proportion of elements on the pre-biotic Earth, and using thermodynamics and physical chemistry, predict the evolution of chemical complexity from the most basic low energy compounds up through far more complex organic molecules than have been discovered extra-terrestrially or created any in experimental re-creations of energy + pre-biotic Earth atmosphere make up --> organic molecules. His entirely theoretical treatment uses easily verifiable facts and numbers and predicts the results already obtained as well as more than should be reasonably expected to be necessary to be accepted as supported by evidence. So I have no doubt he could fully answer the simpler question of voltage driven protonic flow in ice.

If he did provide it, could you evaluate it? Or was your "I don't see any reason" as vague as my reference? Not a criticism -- I'd really like to see his answer examined by someone able to check it.

Meanwhile, djvu and pnm tools have been compiled for the Librie Linux ARM kernel, add them to some bash scripting and using Marko's lbhook-hacked firmware is is possible to run a sort of djvu reader from the Memory Stick.

If people takes seriously the issue of acking into the Reader when it is available, they should be no problem to get native linux tools running there. The quest will be to open a way to the bash shell.

Notice that the nonlinear stability is much harder to prove than the linear stability analysis. In general, nonlinear stability implies linear stability but the converse is false. On the other hand, linear instability implies nonlinear instability.

http://gme.unizar.es/docum/arnoldGeom.pdf

Surely most important data can be read from other cheap sources, such as cosmic rays or nuclear data. But the devil is details, and detail is the thing you get from a particle accelerator.

I had made many TK-perl appz (on win XP) compiled with Visual Studio 7, and everything is running fine on *unix and mac.
(I had less pain in tk-perl then using html+dhtml to be compatible with the above 3 OS.)

Hey and most of it is FREE. - (So stop it blaming on module incompatiblitys)

• www.indigostar.com (perl 2 exe)
• dada.perl.it
• (Each Win32 APIs or third-party or even homegrown DLLs are usable with perl.)
• Oreilly Perl bookshelf
• containing six books.

Komodo activestate.com is in my opinion one of the best editors and debuggers in this world. (Beside the new web package manager is a little bit buggy, but everything else works fine... And be sure to take a look at the great regex evaluator.)

And of course dont miss Larry Wall "O'Reilly Perl Programming" or Programming Ansi C by Brian W.Kernighan and Dennis M.Ritchie

Eighter i think you couldn't be a good unix admin without the knowledge and the module section of pe(A)rl.

Celestia eclipse simulation screeshots

My University recently changed to your Webmail system, and I have to admit that is a great product.

You made a very good work. Congratulations.

I guess you missed the slashdot story a while back which claimed someone was able to compile the Linux kernel on some ungodly 32-way numa machine in under 8 seconds! That's right, 32-way! Linux is making _huge_ progress in the 2.5 developement series, such as the new O(1) scheduler, NUMA support, Block I/O, you can check out the 2.5 status page to see it all. Perhaps 2.4 can't scale like solaris can, but 2.5 will kick ass once it's ready. In the mean time, alot of the important patches are being backported to 2.4 (such as the new scheduler), I recommend the JAM patchset.