It does guarantee that you'll win, eventually. Unfortunately, for all the time you spend waiting for the win to come through, you only make back one unit of betting, and this is provided the table has no betting limit...
For more info, see Martingale
We know that the Egyptians were really good at keepin records. Like "small family of farmers came in to Egypt to get some grain" kind of good records. And yet, there is no mention of 1000's of Hebrew slaves existing in Egypt, let along escaping, let alone the plagues that were supposedly brought upon the pharaoh, let alone the parting of the sea and murder of 100's (or maybe 1000's) of soldiers when the sea collapsed.
And then there's the lack of archaeological evidence of a large group of people "wandering" the deserts for 40 years.
There is a lecture series that was filmed in the 80s/90s (one of the questions asked was "do you know how to use a computer?") which featured Richard Dawkins explaining the process of evolution. If it helps you to pretend that it's someone else, do that, because it is definately worth watching on youtube, he even addresses the Bombardier beetle "problem".
The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction is another complex subject, but you can read about it at the link above. I beleive that the advantage of sexual reproduction was that when you swap genes, you can adapt faster (more possiblity for a bad transfer, more combinations of genes etc). The first sexual reproducers were probably hermaphrodites like flowers, fertilising each other with the wind (before insects). And that eventually developed into male and female genders. The other things that you mention are all explainable in a plausible way (see argument from personal incredulity).
This is not entirely true, E. Coli is known to be able to metabolise glucose. The bacteria were "grown" in a solution that included glucose as it's main component. There were also many populations of the bacteria that were being evolved seperately (they NEVER mixed). Suddenly, in one population, a bacteria emerged that could metabolise citrate. This gave that bacteria a massive advantage, because it could now consume two types of food and it had no competition for the citrate (unlike glucose, which all the other bacteria could consume as well).
This also allowed the total population in that group to explode (there's now more food in total, glucose + citrate).
Another cool thing is that this smashes the "Irreducible Complexity" argument. The ability to metabolise citrate is developed by two separate mutations, which, on their own achieve nothing. Some of the populations developed the first mutation and some developed the second one, but none of them had previously developed both. This shows that the "preliminary" mutations were not harmful to the bacteria, so they just "hung around" until one of them was lucky enough to get the second mutation too.
Anyway, look up Lenski's work, I'm sure his papers (and those of his students/colleagues) are better at explaining it all than me...
an external population with which to mediate the process.
Mediate how exactly? They still can't contribute to the "gene pool" since there is no pool. Asexual reproduction involves no transferral of genes within a generation, only from parent to child.
would the group go through a smaller or greater number of mutations?
On average, for the same number of generations, they would go through the same number of mutations. (This is of course disregarding things that would directly damage DNA ("free radicals")). The only effect that having them "inbred" (you really need to see this), in a lab is that the researchers can monitor and control the whole process.
The reason Starcraft currently sucks with a track pad is because you're using a single-touch interface, and even if you aren't, Starcraft is limited to only recognise one point of mouse input. If the "pinch" (for zoom), "drag" (for pan and rotate) and other (eg, tilt camera, see this TED video (you can skip to the "flying across a map" section)) gestures were available, as well as the larger input surface as shown in the video, I think that this input would be easier than using a mouse!
As is also shown in the video, you still have a keyboard (look near the end), so shortcuts are still available. I wouldn't mind betting that most of those 300+ actions are performed via shortcut keys.
There is probably a reason that plants (or more specifically, their ancestor) gave up asexual reproduction a long time ago. From memory, the currently accepted reason was that it allowed for more variety in the gene pool and therefore could allow for more agile adaptation to changing environmental factors that are impacting an organism's survival.
For plants that we're trying to domesticate (see: Artificial Selection), faster evolution is probably better.
Easy, use direct messages, you can only direct message people who are following you, so just make @my_house follow you and the others who you want to have access.
Yep and if you do an even more elaborate experiment, where you put detectors at each slit, but then wire the detectors up to the same output (ie, the electron is detected, but you don't know which one detected it), the wave function doesn't collapse until it hits the screen!
I guess it all depends on what you accept for evidence.
Of course. If you take a thousands of years old, massively inconsistent and largely edited book to be a 100% true version of events, then so be it. For the majority of the scientific world, you'll find that it takes a lot more.
they are predicated on the observable natural law.
Of course they are, not only is there no evidence for anything existing outside of the observable natural world, is it the consistency of the universe that allows us to survive. This comes back to why planes stay in the air. If the universe's laws for physics were variable, we'd have no way of building planes. Today they work, tomorrow airfoils have to be reversed to match the changing rules. Today the petrol in your car is just flammable enough to run the engine, tomorrow your engine explodes and the day after, petrol is as reactive as water.
why is it that you cannot put your faith in an infallible, eternal God
This question assumes that a god exists. Since there is no evidence for a god, why would I believe in one?
If there was evidence for a god, I'd believe. If god was performing miracles left right and center now (like the bible says he was thousands of years ago), I'd be more inclined to believe. This isn't a "god exists and people don't believe in him" game, this is a "god may or may not exist, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible" game.
Maybe you can tell me of another human ability OTHER than faith, that God could use to determine whether a person is acceptable or rejected
With no god, this point is moot, but perhaps we could look to other religions for your answer? Muslims need to uphold the 5 pillars, 4 of which are physical actions. In the case of Islam, faith alone is not enough to garner "acceptance" or "rejection".
You appear to be of the firm belief that man controls its own destiny
There are things that are out of man's control (such as meteorites, for now), but other than natural events, there is no reason to believe that man's "destiny" is controlled or even influenced by external factors. With this being the case, why would anyone trust in a source that says that man's "destiny" is controlled by supernatural factors? The reason is that they were raised to believe so, or were convinced by someone.
Who's we? How do I know YOU experience green the same as I do? Computers today are not advanced enough, but this article discussed advanced, conscious Artificial Intelligence. There is no evidence for a soul, and no reason that the physical events inside the human brain can not account for qualia and consciousness. If the brain is just electrical and chemical reactions on a hugely complex scale, why can't we simulate that in silicon or some other medium?
Just as well that the soul is a separate entity from the body then.
I'm at most what you could call agnostic.
These two statements are contradictory. If you assert that the soul is separate from the body, you assert that the "soul" exists, making you a believer in the supernatural. There isn't anything wrong with you being a believer, but as stated by GP:
You are on Slashdot, which is supposedly tech news, not some "imaginary entity" discussion website.
Asserting that souls exist and then claiming that the existence of souls is unknown are not compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
It does guarantee that you'll win, eventually. Unfortunately, for all the time you spend waiting for the win to come through, you only make back one unit of betting, and this is provided the table has no betting limit... For more info, see Martingale
In that case, I'll take that bet. This way I can't lose!
1.6mhz
Well there's your problem.
These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
How do you propose a data center can produce more power than it consumes (presumably while still performing it's function as a data center)?
i think you'd appreciate this.
You do realize that chimpanzees are genetically much closer to us than any aliens could possibly be, don't you?
Except by some amazing (read: impossible) fluke, you could substitute any known life form for "chimpanzees" in the above sentence.
There was no war...
I think you mean: "We have always been at war with East Asia"
The Exodus of Moses and the Jews from Egypt?
We know that the Egyptians were really good at keepin records. Like "small family of farmers came in to Egypt to get some grain" kind of good records. And yet, there is no mention of 1000's of Hebrew slaves existing in Egypt, let along escaping, let alone the plagues that were supposedly brought upon the pharaoh, let alone the parting of the sea and murder of 100's (or maybe 1000's) of soldiers when the sea collapsed.
And then there's the lack of archaeological evidence of a large group of people "wandering" the deserts for 40 years.
The way they do it at Paper IQ is by having an IR ink printed pattern on the paper, which the pen (mouse in your case) can pick up.
There is a lecture series that was filmed in the 80s/90s (one of the questions asked was "do you know how to use a computer?") which featured Richard Dawkins explaining the process of evolution. If it helps you to pretend that it's someone else, do that, because it is definately worth watching on youtube, he even addresses the Bombardier beetle "problem".
The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction is another complex subject, but you can read about it at the link above. I beleive that the advantage of sexual reproduction was that when you swap genes, you can adapt faster (more possiblity for a bad transfer, more combinations of genes etc). The first sexual reproducers were probably hermaphrodites like flowers, fertilising each other with the wind (before insects). And that eventually developed into male and female genders. The other things that you mention are all explainable in a plausible way (see argument from personal incredulity).
This is not entirely true, E. Coli is known to be able to metabolise glucose. The bacteria were "grown" in a solution that included glucose as it's main component. There were also many populations of the bacteria that were being evolved seperately (they NEVER mixed). Suddenly, in one population, a bacteria emerged that could metabolise citrate. This gave that bacteria a massive advantage, because it could now consume two types of food and it had no competition for the citrate (unlike glucose, which all the other bacteria could consume as well).
This also allowed the total population in that group to explode (there's now more food in total, glucose + citrate).
Another cool thing is that this smashes the "Irreducible Complexity" argument. The ability to metabolise citrate is developed by two separate mutations, which, on their own achieve nothing. Some of the populations developed the first mutation and some developed the second one, but none of them had previously developed both. This shows that the "preliminary" mutations were not harmful to the bacteria, so they just "hung around" until one of them was lucky enough to get the second mutation too.
Anyway, look up Lenski's work, I'm sure his papers (and those of his students/colleagues) are better at explaining it all than me...
an external population with which to mediate the process.
Mediate how exactly? They still can't contribute to the "gene pool" since there is no pool. Asexual reproduction involves no transferral of genes within a generation, only from parent to child.
would the group go through a smaller or greater number of mutations?
On average, for the same number of generations, they would go through the same number of mutations. (This is of course disregarding things that would directly damage DNA ("free radicals")). The only effect that having them "inbred" (you really need to see this), in a lab is that the researchers can monitor and control the whole process.
There was also no theoretical reason for monopoles _to_ exist.
I think the point the GP was making was that there was no reason that they couldn't exist...
The reason Starcraft currently sucks with a track pad is because you're using a single-touch interface, and even if you aren't, Starcraft is limited to only recognise one point of mouse input. If the "pinch" (for zoom), "drag" (for pan and rotate) and other (eg, tilt camera, see this TED video (you can skip to the "flying across a map" section)) gestures were available, as well as the larger input surface as shown in the video, I think that this input would be easier than using a mouse!
As is also shown in the video, you still have a keyboard (look near the end), so shortcuts are still available. I wouldn't mind betting that most of those 300+ actions are performed via shortcut keys.
There is probably a reason that plants (or more specifically, their ancestor) gave up asexual reproduction a long time ago. From memory, the currently accepted reason was that it allowed for more variety in the gene pool and therefore could allow for more agile adaptation to changing environmental factors that are impacting an organism's survival.
For plants that we're trying to domesticate (see: Artificial Selection), faster evolution is probably better.
Easy, use direct messages, you can only direct message people who are following you, so just make @my_house follow you and the others who you want to have access.
I think the order would be more like:
1. Sell to customers who blindly trust in it.
4. PROFIT!!!
3. ???
2. Fail to detect anything on many an occasion because it most likely isn't perfect.
I'm pretty sure GP is talking about (radiative) wireless transmission...
no film has ever officially made a profit
How can the movie companies afford to continue to make them?
No no, Geology rocks, Biotech grows on you
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"?
Or does that just mean that their religion is wrong (like all the other ones on Earth)?
Yep and if you do an even more elaborate experiment, where you put detectors at each slit, but then wire the detectors up to the same output (ie, the electron is detected, but you don't know which one detected it), the wave function doesn't collapse until it hits the screen!
I did not say that meteorites are a myth
Actually, you did:
An asteroid hitting the Earth is a myth
I guess it all depends on what you accept for evidence.
Of course. If you take a thousands of years old, massively inconsistent and largely edited book to be a 100% true version of events, then so be it. For the majority of the scientific world, you'll find that it takes a lot more.
they are predicated on the observable natural law.
Of course they are, not only is there no evidence for anything existing outside of the observable natural world, is it the consistency of the universe that allows us to survive. This comes back to why planes stay in the air. If the universe's laws for physics were variable, we'd have no way of building planes. Today they work, tomorrow airfoils have to be reversed to match the changing rules. Today the petrol in your car is just flammable enough to run the engine, tomorrow your engine explodes and the day after, petrol is as reactive as water.
why is it that you cannot put your faith in an infallible, eternal God
This question assumes that a god exists. Since there is no evidence for a god, why would I believe in one?
If there was evidence for a god, I'd believe. If god was performing miracles left right and center now (like the bible says he was thousands of years ago), I'd be more inclined to believe. This isn't a "god exists and people don't believe in him" game, this is a "god may or may not exist, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible" game.
Maybe you can tell me of another human ability OTHER than faith, that God could use to determine whether a person is acceptable or rejected
With no god, this point is moot, but perhaps we could look to other religions for your answer? Muslims need to uphold the 5 pillars, 4 of which are physical actions. In the case of Islam, faith alone is not enough to garner "acceptance" or "rejection".
You appear to be of the firm belief that man controls its own destiny
There are things that are out of man's control (such as meteorites, for now), but other than natural events, there is no reason to believe that man's "destiny" is controlled or even influenced by external factors. With this being the case, why would anyone trust in a source that says that man's "destiny" is controlled by supernatural factors? The reason is that they were raised to believe so, or were convinced by someone.
experiencing the colour green the way we do
Who's we? How do I know YOU experience green the same as I do? Computers today are not advanced enough, but this article discussed advanced, conscious Artificial Intelligence. There is no evidence for a soul, and no reason that the physical events inside the human brain can not account for qualia and consciousness. If the brain is just electrical and chemical reactions on a hugely complex scale, why can't we simulate that in silicon or some other medium?
Just as well that the soul is a separate entity from the body then.
I'm at most what you could call agnostic.
These two statements are contradictory. If you assert that the soul is separate from the body, you assert that the "soul" exists, making you a believer in the supernatural. There isn't anything wrong with you being a believer, but as stated by GP:
You are on Slashdot, which is supposedly tech news, not some "imaginary entity" discussion website.
Asserting that souls exist and then claiming that the existence of souls is unknown are not compatible.