If what is not English? In practice, in these studies you try to do across many varied documents so outliers don't throw you off. If you are testing a bunch of files that were found in random storage devices in the US, it's safe to assume that English is the majority language. For a different country, a different language. As far as I know, frequency analysis works well with many alphabetical languages.
Honestly, reverse engineering ACII plain text files would be trivial. Not to the average person, but to somebody with a bit of background:
A) We have software that can use something called frequency analysis to decipher something encoded that has a 1-1 correspondence so something we know (ie the english alphabet).
B) Ignoring software, frequency analysis is something that could be (and before the days of computers, was) done by hand. Hell, some things could be picked out by eye. For one, all files would have a particular byte character that appears near the end of every (well formed) text file, as well as often appearing periodically through the average file. A key indicator of being a newline/carriage return. Also in the bulk of most documents the new line is followed by a particular other character that also appears in a periodic manner. Being the period. And then another character appearing often every so often (on average around 5-6 characters), a good candidate for the space character. I and A also being somewhat easy to pick out (the whole upper/lower case making it a bit harder, but still doable). With a bit more dedication, you can start guessing common words, such as a common letter followed by a less common letter followed by a very common letter ('the' sounds like a good candidate). And then to figure the rest out, compare the average frequencies of characters across many documents to the average frequencies of letters and punctuation in documents we already know. A decent undergrad senior in computer science could write a program to do this. Hell, I took a sophomore level math class that went over this.
Man, fuck the future (that's right you historians-not-yet-born). They have all the flying cars and meal-in-a-pill's and immortality clinics and shit. The hell have they done for us to deserve our sympathy? If that means we can make them have to work that much harder to see how life was now, I say do it.
Now back to my zombie virus work. Anybody got a decent time capsule for me to use?
I assume because it's on such a tiny scale; the fusion reaction is probably microscopic and not practical. As in you pump in a huge amount of energy and resources and barely get a detectable signal out. Not to downplay making and running such a contraption; that takes some serious talent to pull off.
My apologies, I was talking in general; not about your specific project or your ego tied to it. Most projects I have seen have presented no significant barrier if the repository doesn't host the final download directly. Worst comes to worst, most folk just google the project they want to see if they are looking for it. Not a big deal.
Loser? I'm not the one dumb enough to to figure out how to post basic instructions through the *various* ways on the internet telling folks to download from a link.
That's because most users are unfamiliar with how the replacement technology works. Something like there's some short string of text, and it links to some other thing, like a page, connected together in a . . . in a . . . kind of web thing. And this other page belongs to this place, like a location or site, that can host the binary files for the original source code. I'm sure our best scientists will figure out a way for this system to be implemented on github.
Basic to somebody who has more experience than a high schooler. What's that motif from that well know basic education cartoon (the one about a certain 'arcane' school bus)? Get dirty, make mistakes?
First off, I am a math guy, not a science guy. I have never pursued a grant for anything evolution related, so don't complain at me about it. Don't whine at a fireman for making a mediocre cop. And pay bloody attention to what you reply to, my post was about the issue (whether or not junk DNA being useless) also appearing in computer science.
Second, major logic fallacy and incorrect use of basic terms right off the bat
What's with the "junk" theorizing about "junk" being "not necessarily junk" for evolution
That is not a theory, not even close. Burden of proof by default lies on a positive claim (the post I replied to), and what I wrote is a negation of that, and an acceptable statement.
And the "junk" assumption that the "junk" need be explained in terms of evolutionary dependence on "junk"
Again, why complain at me about this? I neither wrote nor implied any such thing.
Technically speaking, my line of work was with linear genetic programming as opposed to vanilla GAs, but disallowing or penalizing fitness scores based on having non-functional code can easily slow convergence. I'm focused more on the math/statistics side than coding side, but for our cases our calculated expected value of beneficial point mutations was higher when non-functional operands were permitted. Negative, but still better than for equivalent individuals with removed junk.
Junk for an individual. Not necessarily junk for the evolution of a species. This issue comes up in computer science too with genetic algorithms, pushing pressure to keep the encoding as compact as possible 'may' lead to the side effect of increasing the probability of being stuck on a local optima. There's a lot of math 'n stuff involved that can better be explained by experts, but here's the short version: let's say that a genetic algorithm engine has an individual settled for a local optimum with all the bits just right. But there's a possible mutation that could lead to finding a slope leading to a better optimum. Obviously there's the issue that the mutation is going to compromise something important, and you end up with a mutant with good potential but a weaker fitness score, so the mutation is more likely to be discarded. However, if there's non-functional bits in the individual, there's a higher chance that the mutant can score better by compromising something that wasn't in use to being with, hence non-functional coding genes having some use in the long run. Now this is a huge simplification on a complex matter, but this does come up.
The earth and moon orbit around the combined center of mass (barycenter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#Astronomy). Moving the moon moves that center of mass. Though it's not a necessarily efficient method to move the earth; the assumption is that the earth-moon system is in a stable orbit. Move one hard enough in the wrong way, and it may destabilize to where the model doesn't work. Also, destabilizing the moon's orbit could be a potential hazard.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't even mention Cobol to me. :P
Who enforces environmental law, consumer rights, and worker safety more in this relationship?
If what is not English? In practice, in these studies you try to do across many varied documents so outliers don't throw you off. If you are testing a bunch of files that were found in random storage devices in the US, it's safe to assume that English is the majority language. For a different country, a different language. As far as I know, frequency analysis works well with many alphabetical languages.
Honestly, reverse engineering ACII plain text files would be trivial. Not to the average person, but to somebody with a bit of background:
A) We have software that can use something called frequency analysis to decipher something encoded that has a 1-1 correspondence so something we know (ie the english alphabet).
B) Ignoring software, frequency analysis is something that could be (and before the days of computers, was) done by hand. Hell, some things could be picked out by eye. For one, all files would have a particular byte character that appears near the end of every (well formed) text file, as well as often appearing periodically through the average file. A key indicator of being a newline/carriage return. Also in the bulk of most documents the new line is followed by a particular other character that also appears in a periodic manner. Being the period. And then another character appearing often every so often (on average around 5-6 characters), a good candidate for the space character. I and A also being somewhat easy to pick out (the whole upper/lower case making it a bit harder, but still doable). With a bit more dedication, you can start guessing common words, such as a common letter followed by a less common letter followed by a very common letter ('the' sounds like a good candidate). And then to figure the rest out, compare the average frequencies of characters across many documents to the average frequencies of letters and punctuation in documents we already know. A decent undergrad senior in computer science could write a program to do this. Hell, I took a sophomore level math class that went over this.
Luckily for them, no.
Man, fuck the future (that's right you historians-not-yet-born). They have all the flying cars and meal-in-a-pill's and immortality clinics and shit. The hell have they done for us to deserve our sympathy? If that means we can make them have to work that much harder to see how life was now, I say do it.
Now back to my zombie virus work. Anybody got a decent time capsule for me to use?
You know, my BS meter is starting to get attuned to go off anytime I see 'Big ' used as a proper noun.
Do what Starbucks does. Use portals to other dimensions. Why do you think they're all over the place?
Because learning and inspiring is a waste of power. Got it.
I assume because it's on such a tiny scale; the fusion reaction is probably microscopic and not practical. As in you pump in a huge amount of energy and resources and barely get a detectable signal out. Not to downplay making and running such a contraption; that takes some serious talent to pull off.
I admit, I'd be jealous. More power to you if you can pull it off.
Now the Chinese government too can sink untold amounts of money on ultra-expensive gear? :P
My apologies, I was talking in general; not about your specific project or your ego tied to it. Most projects I have seen have presented no significant barrier if the repository doesn't host the final download directly. Worst comes to worst, most folk just google the project they want to see if they are looking for it. Not a big deal.
Loser? I'm not the one dumb enough to to figure out how to post basic instructions through the *various* ways on the internet telling folks to download from a link.
That's because most users are unfamiliar with how the replacement technology works. Something like there's some short string of text, and it links to some other thing, like a page, connected together in a . . . in a . . . kind of web thing. And this other page belongs to this place, like a location or site, that can host the binary files for the original source code. I'm sure our best scientists will figure out a way for this system to be implemented on github.
Basic to somebody who has more experience than a high schooler. What's that motif from that well know basic education cartoon (the one about a certain 'arcane' school bus)? Get dirty, make mistakes?
Some people are bald, you insensitive clod.
Or just file a bug report online.
Get a bigger 'get off my lawn' sign?
It's also against our state law that twin primes cannot cohabitate unless they're the same sex.
First off, I am a math guy, not a science guy. I have never pursued a grant for anything evolution related, so don't complain at me about it. Don't whine at a fireman for making a mediocre cop. And pay bloody attention to what you reply to, my post was about the issue (whether or not junk DNA being useless) also appearing in computer science.
Second, major logic fallacy and incorrect use of basic terms right off the bat
What's with the "junk" theorizing about "junk" being "not necessarily junk" for evolution
That is not a theory, not even close. Burden of proof by default lies on a positive claim (the post I replied to), and what I wrote is a negation of that, and an acceptable statement.
And the "junk" assumption that the "junk" need be explained in terms of evolutionary dependence on "junk"
Again, why complain at me about this? I neither wrote nor implied any such thing.
Technically speaking, my line of work was with linear genetic programming as opposed to vanilla GAs, but disallowing or penalizing fitness scores based on having non-functional code can easily slow convergence. I'm focused more on the math/statistics side than coding side, but for our cases our calculated expected value of beneficial point mutations was higher when non-functional operands were permitted. Negative, but still better than for equivalent individuals with removed junk.
Junk for an individual. Not necessarily junk for the evolution of a species. This issue comes up in computer science too with genetic algorithms, pushing pressure to keep the encoding as compact as possible 'may' lead to the side effect of increasing the probability of being stuck on a local optima. There's a lot of math 'n stuff involved that can better be explained by experts, but here's the short version: let's say that a genetic algorithm engine has an individual settled for a local optimum with all the bits just right. But there's a possible mutation that could lead to finding a slope leading to a better optimum. Obviously there's the issue that the mutation is going to compromise something important, and you end up with a mutant with good potential but a weaker fitness score, so the mutation is more likely to be discarded. However, if there's non-functional bits in the individual, there's a higher chance that the mutant can score better by compromising something that wasn't in use to being with, hence non-functional coding genes having some use in the long run. Now this is a huge simplification on a complex matter, but this does come up.
And goes faster if painted red.
The earth and moon orbit around the combined center of mass (barycenter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#Astronomy). Moving the moon moves that center of mass. Though it's not a necessarily efficient method to move the earth; the assumption is that the earth-moon system is in a stable orbit. Move one hard enough in the wrong way, and it may destabilize to where the model doesn't work. Also, destabilizing the moon's orbit could be a potential hazard.