And the spontaneous combustion of the universe means that everything that is here had to have been somewhere before it was here, because energy can not be created or destroyed.
Not quite, if equal and opposite amounts of matter and antimatter were created, the total energy still adds up to zero, and no law is violated.
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before the universe, because there is no before the universe. Time is not something which governs a universe. Time is of necessity a function of the universe. Hence Time only affects those things which exist in the universe. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of existence. We are all in essence part of the universe, just as the rest of the universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can only work within the physical laws of the universe. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Thus we see that the word "God" as used in the original post is simply a place holder and is logically equivalent to the word "universe" in this version.
The simple fact is that we don't know what existed before the universe. And any discussion about that topic is pure speculation.
I find this topic quite interesting. But I have no trouble sleeping not knowing the answer. Some people have a difficult time with this, and the concept of God serves an emotional need for them. I am not one of these people, and the concept of God as prime mover to me seems content free.
I saw the Nova episode last night. The guy in question, I forget his name, claimed that he was able to transmit information at superluminal speeds via quantum tunneling.
The microwaves were not being sent thru a different medium but were being blocked. Yet because of tunneling, a signal was observed on the blocked path prior to the signal being observed on the unblocked path.
His results are, as you might imagine, somewhat controversial.
Bad software just means bad QA, not malicious intent to sell patches.
I manage a QA department and have worked in QA for over ten years. There are methods to prevent bad code from getting out. It takes effort to do so, and most suits don't understand why processes and procedures are important, to say nothing of testing. I don't know many times I was told that even though the code got to QA x months late, the QA deadline is still the same.
Any company that does this is intentionally selling bad software, and should be held accountable.
First off, I completely agree that two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think that was the point. I think the authors were attempting, in a humorous fashsion, to point out that the government is guilty of these same things, and at a much more serious level.
Thus they weren't saying to the kids it's ok to do this stuff, the target audience of the web page will probably never see this piece. No, they were telling the DOJ to practice what they preach.
However, it is naive to think that biologists today have all the answers. Of they don't. If we did have all the answers, we wouldn't need biologists!
but it is mistaken to believe that Evolution has anything to say about the ORIGINS of Life on Earth. You are correct again, but again not for the reason you think. Evolution isn't about the orgin of life. It is about what happens after life originates.
Stanley Miller's experiment proved nothing, and most people in the biology community realize this. And your point is? And the biologists and other scientists working on the origin of life don't use his results as the basis of their theories.
Actaully, Miller's experiments showed that if you have the conditions he recreated then you get amino acids out.
Erm, science is far from the ideal community you suggest - there's plenty of examples of the scientific othodoxy prevailing and not allowing stuff which breaks the mould and changes established theories to come through. For example: we've accepted his work now, but Gregor Mendel, the guy who theorised about genes, was rubbished at first because it was a huge shift in view and so people wouldn't believe it. Sure, that was some time ago, but the same thing happens elsewhere. And we now _know_ he was right.
EXACTLY!!!! We do now understand that Mendel was right! And that is science in action. You do bring out a good point, that it is humans doing the science, and whenever you involve humans, you get all their foibles and failings. Science idealized progresses smoothly from one discovery to the next. Science in the real world is messy and full of human egos and jealousies. But it works.
When did the chemicals swimming around suddenly form life? Current evidence shows that life existed on earth about 3.5 billion years ago. And maybe even as far back as 3.8 billion years.
When did the Amoeba decide that the cells which had split would stick to each other, rather than make two differnt organisms? Well it wasn't amoebas, and it wasn't any decision on the part of the evolving creature, but the first multicell creatures appeared about 600 million years ago.
And when did the ball of cells develop recognisable, identifibale features? I don't quite understand the question, but as soon as you had single cell life, you had identifiable features. The cell wall for example.
If we all started living in the sea, were we breathing as fish, mammals, amphibians? Well,... the fish breathed like fish, the mammals breathed like mammals, and the anphibians like both! But mammals didn't start living in the sea. Life is thought to have begun in the sea, but mammals, birds, and reptiles evolved on land.
And how did the first creature to leave the sea then breathe in air? Poorly no doubt! But well enough to survive.
Also, I'm told that there's several diferent jaw designs out there. Who told you? It's supposed to be a secret.
If they all have a common ancestor, this implies there's a common original design which they've all mutated from. Simple mechanics shows (again, as I'm told) that intermediate steps wouldn't have been mobile. Hmmm, simple mechanics? Curious. In Stephen Jay Gould's book, Eight Little Piggies there is an excellent explanation of the evolution of jaws. It is essay number six, An Earful of Jaw.
Fundamentally though, where are the Missing Link fossils? We've been searching for them for ages, so why have NONE turned up? None? We have wonderful fossil sequences for whales, horses, and humans just to name three. Here are some of the "missing links" in the human family tree (mya = million years ago):
Ardipithicus ramidas, 4.4 mya; Australopithicus anamensis, 4.2 to 3.9 mya; A. afarensis, 3.6 to 2.9 mya; A. Africanus, 3 to 2.3 mya; A. aethiopicus, 2.8 to 2.3 mya; A. garhi, 2.5 mya; A. boisei, 2.3 to 1.4 mya; A. robustus, 1.9 to 1.5 mya; Homo rudolfensis, 2.4 to 1.8 mya; H. habilis, 1.9 to 1.6 mya; H. ergaster, 1.7 to 1.5 mya; H. erectus, 1.7 to.25 mya; H. antecessor,.8 mya; H. heidelberginsis,.6 mya; H. neanderthalensis,.2 to.03 mya; H. sapiens,.1 mya to today
Plenty of links, no waiting! It should be mentioned that not all of these are on the direct line to H. sapiens. But they are all cousins.
The point that some people seem not to realise is that pure Darwinian evolution is just a theory, and frankly a rather shanky one. It's not impossible, but much of the evidence could simply be taken as natural selection rather than genetic mutation from a common origin. A rather confused statement.
First off, Darwin's theory is that evolution occured because of natural selection. So whatever evidence you are referring to, is then evidence for Darwin's theory.
And where is your evidence that Darwin's theory is "rather shakey"? Natural selection is still thought to be the main driver in evolution by almost all workers in the field. There are plenty of "non-Darwinians" among non-evolutionary biologists, but try reading the books and scientific journals on evolutionary theory. You'll find that natural selection is still key.
It's not provable either as it can't be observed, so teaching it as scientific fact is crazy. Teach it as a likely theory by all means, but teaching it as fact is plain wrong. More confusion. There is a distinction between what is observed in the world, and how we explain it. For instance, if you pick up an object, say a book, and let it go, it will fall. We call this gravity. Now a chap named Newton was the first to come up with a workable theory of gravity. (Note that he didn't come up with the first theory of gravity, just the first one that worked.) But his theory was incorrect. That Einstien fellow showed that with his theory of general relativity. But regardless of the theory, the book still falls.
Darwin wasn't the first to propose a theory of evolution. But he was the first one to propose a theory that explains what we see in the world. Fossil evidence, evidence from molecular biology, evidence from biology. Darwin's theory provides a framework that unites all biology. It may be that his theory, just like Newton's is imcomplete. But the fact of evolution still remains.
And by the way, evolution has been observed. The reason antibiotics aren't as effective as they once were is that the organisms we use them against have evolved resistance to them.
Equally, basing everything on radio-carbon decay dating and rock dating is a little odd to say the least, as both of them are untestable theories which (I'm told) can be argued just as conclusively against as for. Say what? Dating using radioactive isotopes is based on quantum mechanics. Far from being untestable, quantum mechanics is the most exact theory ever devised. I'd check you sources if I were you.
Using radioactive decay for dating gives exact dates, with a margin of error. (That is, we can say x years ago +/- y years. We can't say July 4, 500 million bc.) "Rock dating" gives relative dates. That is, if one strata is below another, it is older. Combining the two methods gives us a powerful method to date things.
And you can't use Charles Lyall's uniformitarianism either, as rock layering isn't one layer per year. Mount St. Helens erupting showed that very conclusively, laying down many distinct layers in very short periods of time. And your point is? Rock layers aren't like tree rings, and nobody treats them this way (except maybe your sources?).
If you are really interested in understanding evolutionary theory, and making an informed decision, I recommend visiting the library and looking for works by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Both write very well for the intelligent laymen,and are a great place to start. And you might be surprised to learn that they don't always agree with each other. But only if you don't realize that their disagreements are an example of scienc at work.
Q. Can I use a PC notebook in an AirPort network? A. Yes. Because AirPort is based on the IEEE 802.11 DSSS standard, there are a number of companies with products that allow a PC to be used in an AirPort network.
I don't think it actually detects a toy. It seems to just detect motion, which is quite trivial.
In June I visited the MIT AI Lab and had a chance to talk with Ms. Breazeal and Brian Scassellati, another doctoral student working on Kismet and Cog.
Kismet detects both faces and motion, and reacts differently to each. Thus waving a toy with a face, a teddy bear, will cause a different reaction then waving something without a face, say a slinky.
I wonder if they have implemented a 'familiarity' algorithm in the robot,...
I visited the MIT AI Lab in early June (I took a one week course -- it was fun). I asked Cynthia this question, and the answer is no, the robot does not remember. It identifies facial features and reacts according.
The only emulators worth existing or having are for platforms that are no longer availiable.
Hmmm...
Once upon a time I needed to run an PC application. I had a Mac. So I could buy a PC or I could get an emulator. I got the emulator (SoftAT from Insignia Solutions). I was able to run the application and get the job done.
Would not the manufacture of the copy be the illegal act? Since the VGS was not made only to play illegal copies, I don't see how this could be grounds for a suit.
However, I am not a lawyer, nor do I expect the legal system to be logical.
I have plenty of mac-using friends who... have now just downloaded VGS...
Where did they get it?
Sony's "groundless" suit is about the disruption of their software distribution...
What laws protect software distribution in this sense? If Connectix did not infringe on Sony's intellectual property, then it is irrelavent if one can play imported or pirated games.
... the Connectix emulator actually makes it easier to play pirated and imported games...
While I have no problem with Sony going after software pirates, I do have a problem with the idea of geographical zones for software or DVDs. I think that it is absurd that if while I am in Japan I buy a game or movie that I can't play on a machine I bought in the states. I'm sure glad I can play imported music CDs. The only reason for this is greed, and if Connectix helps destroy that distribution model I say more power to them.
There are terminal emulators that allow PCs to connect to AS/400s. And there have been since the AS/400 was released. The current version shipped with OS/400 is called Client Access. It used to be called PC Support.
This was not a case of exchanging hardware for software, it was a case of IBM meeting the needs of their AS/400 clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, there is room for interpretation based on definitions.
However, you certainly do not need two intelligent beings. Animals communicate all the time. Ants have very sophisticated communications systems.
Steve M
...but I would guess that morse code was the very first digital communications system.
I guess it would depend on your definitions, but one could make the argument that DNA got there first.
Steve M
And the spontaneous combustion of the universe means that everything that is here had to have been somewhere before it was here, because energy can not be created or destroyed.
Not quite, if equal and opposite amounts of matter and antimatter were created, the total energy still adds up to zero, and no law is violated.
Steve M
By changing a few words we get ...
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before the universe, because there is no before the universe. Time is not something which governs a universe. Time is of necessity a function of the universe. Hence Time only affects those things which exist in the universe. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of existence. We are all in essence part of the universe, just as the rest of the universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can only work within the physical laws of the universe. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Thus we see that the word "God" as used in the original post is simply a place holder and is logically equivalent to the word "universe" in this version.
The simple fact is that we don't know what existed before the universe. And any discussion about that topic is pure speculation.
I find this topic quite interesting. But I have no trouble sleeping not knowing the answer. Some people have a difficult time with this, and the concept of God serves an emotional need for them. I am not one of these people, and the concept of God as prime mover to me seems content free.
Steve M
I saw the Nova episode last night. The guy in question, I forget his name, claimed that he was able to transmit information at superluminal speeds via quantum tunneling.
The microwaves were not being sent thru a different medium but were being blocked. Yet because of tunneling, a signal was observed on the blocked path prior to the signal being observed on the unblocked path.
His results are, as you might imagine, somewhat controversial.
Steve M
Bad software just means bad QA, not malicious intent to sell patches.
I manage a QA department and have worked in QA for over ten years. There are methods to prevent bad code from getting out. It takes effort to do so, and most suits don't understand why processes and procedures are important, to say nothing of testing. I don't know many times I was told that even though the code got to QA x months late, the QA deadline is still the same.
Any company that does this is intentionally selling bad software, and should be held accountable.
Steve M
First off, I completely agree that two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think that was the point. I think the authors were attempting, in a humorous fashsion, to point out that the government is guilty of these same things, and at a much more serious level.
Thus they weren't saying to the kids it's ok to do this stuff, the target audience of the web page will probably never see this piece. No, they were telling the DOJ to practice what they preach.
Steve M
It was revealed in Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 'trilogy' that mice already run earth.
Why else would we be working ot make mice smarter or develop gene therapy for balding mice?
Steve M
However, it is naive to think that biologists today have all the answers.
Of they don't. If we did have all the answers, we wouldn't need biologists!
but it is mistaken to believe that Evolution has anything to say about the ORIGINS of Life on Earth.
You are correct again, but again not for the reason you think. Evolution isn't about the orgin of life. It is about what happens after life originates.
Stanley Miller's experiment proved nothing, and most people in the biology community realize this.
And your point is? And the biologists and other scientists working on the origin of life don't use his results as the basis of their theories.
Actaully, Miller's experiments showed that if you have the conditions he recreated then you get amino acids out.
Now, where are the problems with evolution?
Steve M
Erm, science is far from the ideal community you suggest - there's plenty of examples of the scientific othodoxy prevailing and not allowing stuff which breaks the mould and changes established theories to come through. For example: we've accepted his work now, but Gregor Mendel, the guy who theorised about genes, was rubbished at first because it was a huge shift in view and so people wouldn't believe it. Sure, that was some time ago, but the same thing happens elsewhere. And we now _know_ he was right.
... the fish breathed like fish, the mammals breathed like mammals, and the anphibians like both! But mammals didn't start living in the sea. Life is thought to have begun in the sea, but mammals, birds, and reptiles evolved on land.
.25 mya; .8 mya; .6 mya; .2 to .03 mya; .1 mya to today
EXACTLY!!!! We do now understand that Mendel was right! And that is science in action. You do bring out a good point, that it is humans doing the science, and whenever you involve humans, you get all their foibles and failings. Science idealized progresses smoothly from one discovery to the next. Science in the real world is messy and full of human egos and jealousies. But it works.
When did the chemicals swimming around suddenly form life?
Current evidence shows that life existed on earth about 3.5 billion years ago. And maybe even as far back as 3.8 billion years.
When did the Amoeba decide that the cells which had split would stick to each other, rather than make two differnt organisms? Well it wasn't amoebas, and it wasn't any decision on the part of the evolving creature, but the first multicell creatures appeared about 600 million years ago.
And when did the ball of cells develop recognisable, identifibale features?
I don't quite understand the question, but as soon as you had single cell life, you had identifiable features. The cell wall for example.
If we all started living in the sea, were we breathing as fish, mammals, amphibians? Well,
And how did the first creature to leave the sea then breathe in air?
Poorly no doubt! But well enough to survive.
Also, I'm told that there's several diferent jaw designs out there.
Who told you? It's supposed to be a secret.
If they all have a common ancestor, this implies there's a common original design which they've all mutated from. Simple mechanics shows (again, as I'm told) that intermediate steps wouldn't have been mobile.
Hmmm, simple mechanics? Curious. In Stephen Jay Gould's book, Eight Little Piggies there is an excellent explanation of the evolution of jaws. It is essay number six, An Earful of Jaw.
Fundamentally though, where are the Missing Link fossils? We've been searching for them for ages, so why have NONE turned up?
None? We have wonderful fossil sequences for whales, horses, and humans just to name three. Here are some of the "missing links" in the human family tree (mya = million years ago):
Ardipithicus ramidas, 4.4 mya;
Australopithicus anamensis, 4.2 to 3.9 mya;
A. afarensis, 3.6 to 2.9 mya;
A. Africanus, 3 to 2.3 mya;
A. aethiopicus, 2.8 to 2.3 mya;
A. garhi, 2.5 mya;
A. boisei, 2.3 to 1.4 mya;
A. robustus, 1.9 to 1.5 mya;
Homo rudolfensis, 2.4 to 1.8 mya;
H. habilis, 1.9 to 1.6 mya;
H. ergaster, 1.7 to 1.5 mya;
H. erectus, 1.7 to
H. antecessor,
H. heidelberginsis,
H. neanderthalensis,
H. sapiens,
Plenty of links, no waiting! It should be mentioned that not all of these are on the direct line to H. sapiens. But they are all cousins.
The point that some people seem not to realise is that pure Darwinian evolution is just a theory, and frankly a rather shanky one. It's not impossible, but much of the evidence could simply be taken as natural selection rather than genetic mutation from a common origin.
A rather confused statement.
First off, Darwin's theory is that evolution occured because of natural selection. So whatever evidence you are referring to, is then evidence for Darwin's theory.
And where is your evidence that Darwin's theory is "rather shakey"? Natural selection is still thought to be the main driver in evolution by almost all workers in the field. There are plenty of "non-Darwinians" among non-evolutionary biologists, but try reading the books and scientific journals on evolutionary theory. You'll find that natural selection is still key.
It's not provable either as it can't be observed, so teaching it as scientific fact is crazy. Teach it as a likely theory by all means, but teaching it as fact is plain wrong.
More confusion. There is a distinction between what is observed in the world, and how we explain it. For instance, if you pick up an object, say a book, and let it go, it will fall. We call this gravity. Now a chap named Newton was the first to come up with a workable theory of gravity. (Note that he didn't come up with the first theory of gravity, just the first one that worked.) But his theory was incorrect. That Einstien fellow showed that with his theory of general relativity. But regardless of the theory, the book still falls.
Darwin wasn't the first to propose a theory of evolution. But he was the first one to propose a theory that explains what we see in the world. Fossil evidence, evidence from molecular biology, evidence from biology. Darwin's theory provides a framework that unites all biology. It may be that his theory, just like Newton's is imcomplete. But the fact of evolution still remains.
And by the way, evolution has been observed. The reason antibiotics aren't as effective as they once were is that the organisms we use them against have evolved resistance to them.
Equally, basing everything on radio-carbon decay dating and rock dating is a little odd to say the least, as both of them are untestable theories which (I'm told) can be argued just as conclusively against as for.
Say what? Dating using radioactive isotopes is based on quantum mechanics. Far from being untestable, quantum mechanics is the most exact theory ever devised. I'd check you sources if I were you.
Using radioactive decay for dating gives exact dates, with a margin of error. (That is, we can say x years ago +/- y years. We can't say July 4, 500 million bc.) "Rock dating" gives relative dates. That is, if one strata is below another, it is older. Combining the two methods gives us a powerful method to date things.
And you can't use Charles Lyall's uniformitarianism either, as rock layering isn't one layer per year. Mount St. Helens erupting showed that very conclusively, laying down many distinct layers in very short periods of time.
And your point is? Rock layers aren't like tree rings, and nobody treats them this way (except maybe your sources?).
If you are really interested in understanding evolutionary theory, and making an informed decision, I recommend visiting the library and looking for works by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Both write very well for the intelligent laymen,and are a great place to start. And you might be surprised to learn that they don't always agree with each other. But only if you don't realize that their disagreements are an example of scienc at work.
Steve M
From the faq on the Apple site,
Q. Can I use a PC notebook in an AirPort network?
A. Yes. Because AirPort is based on the IEEE 802.11 DSSS standard, there are a number of companies with products that allow a PC to be used in an AirPort network.
SteveM
I don't think it actually detects a toy. It seems to just detect motion, which is quite trivial.
In June I visited the MIT AI Lab and had a chance to talk with Ms. Breazeal and Brian Scassellati, another doctoral student working on Kismet and Cog.
Kismet detects both faces and motion, and reacts differently to each. Thus waving a toy with a face, a teddy bear, will cause a different reaction then waving something without a face, say a slinky.
Steve M
I wonder if they have implemented a 'familiarity' algorithm in the robot,...
I visited the MIT AI Lab in early June (I took a one week course -- it was fun). I asked Cynthia this question, and the answer is no, the robot does not remember. It identifies facial features and reacts according.
I believe she said it was on the to do list.
Steve M
Did anyone else notice that the PIOS website hadn't been updated since May 1998? Are these guys still actively developing these systems?
Steve M
The was also a "prosecute Microsoft to the gills" petition. It was started after the "leave Microsoft alone" one, and has more signatures.
SteveM
Ken Thompson's paper is here
SteveM
While on the surface it does appear that technical creativity does peak in the 20s, I've never seen any definite research on the subject.
However, most CEOs are well past their twenties.
Note that Jobs is playing the role of CEO. I don't believe he does any coding.
SteveM
...and copying stuff isn't stealing just because the state calls it stealing.
Yes it is. That is what states do. They define the laws. So if the state says its stealing, then it is stealing.
Now, that doesn't mean that it is morally wrong, just legally wrong. And in some places, you can even change the laws.
SteveM
The only emulators worth existing or having are for platforms that are no longer availiable.
Hmmm...
Once upon a time I needed to run an PC application. I had a Mac. So I could buy a PC or I could get an emulator. I got the emulator (SoftAT from Insignia Solutions). I was able to run the application and get the job done.
A useful emulator, imagine that.
SteveM
VPC is a Pentium® MMX(TM) PC in software, not a Windows emulator. You can run any OS that runs on a Pentium on VPC.
SteveM
And you can order a copy here.
SteveM
And how would this in and of itself be illegal?
Would not the manufacture of the copy be the illegal act? Since the VGS was not made only to play illegal copies, I don't see how this could be grounds for a suit.
However, I am not a lawyer, nor do I expect the legal system to be logical.
SteveM
I have plenty of mac-using friends who ... have now just downloaded VGS ...
...
... the Connectix emulator actually makes it easier to play pirated and imported games...
Where did they get it?
Sony's "groundless" suit is about the disruption of their software distribution
What laws protect software distribution in this sense? If Connectix did not infringe on Sony's intellectual property, then it is irrelavent if one can play imported or pirated games.
While I have no problem with Sony going after software pirates, I do have a problem with the idea of geographical zones for software or DVDs. I think that it is absurd that if while I am in Japan I buy a game or movie that I can't play on a machine I bought in the states. I'm sure glad I can play imported music CDs. The only reason for this is greed, and if Connectix helps destroy that distribution model I say more power to them.
SteveM
There are no AS/400 emulators that run on PCs.
There are terminal emulators that allow PCs to connect to AS/400s. And there have been since the AS/400 was released. The current version shipped with OS/400 is called Client Access. It used to be called PC Support.
This was not a case of exchanging hardware for software, it was a case of IBM meeting the needs of their AS/400 clients.
SteveM
This page is entitled Quantum Algebra, so you might find it interesting.
I have not spent any time there. I found it as a link from here.
SteveM