I am fully aware that no OS is immune to stupid users. If a user is dumb enough to type in his or her OS's equivalent to "sudo rm -rf/" then they deserve what they get. This is not the point I am trying to make.
You seem to be continuing to ignore my point. The point is, in 1998, Microsoft had numerous malware problems, especially with viruses and worms (which would infect and spread with little or no user interaction). There were literally thousands of viruses, worms, and trojans for Windows (and, for a point of comparison, that is opposed to Apple's 7 or so). The post I replied to said that Apple is *now* where Microsoft was in 1998.
So, please address the original point. If this statement is true, then where are the thousands of viruses, worms, and trojans for OS X? Because to date, there have been ZERO OS X viruses and worms in the wild (and only a couple of concept ones in the lab), and only a handful of trojans (the ones I can think of off the top of my head are the pirated iWork trojan and the fake video codec trojan).
Therefore, Apple right *now* is NOT like Microsoft in 1998. Q.E.D.
Well, that explains every Mac virus, trojan, adware, and any other malware you can think of I have ever been infected by in the 20 years I have been using Macintosh computer. All ZERO of them. And the last anti-virus or any other anti-malware software I used was Disinfectant, which was discontinued in May 1998. I've never even had to clean infected files off of a disk (versus the Windows side where my system has been infected once, disks and external drives have had to be cleaned many times from coming in contact with other people's machines, and I've earned a lot of free beer and dinners for cleaning up other people's infected computers).
Aside from that, how does your response relate at all to reply to the GGPP who was saying that Apple now is like Microsoft in 1998? Where are the thousands of pieces of malware for MacOS X now to rival the thousands that were around for Windows in 1998?
Apple is now at the point where Microsoft was in 1998.
In 1998, there were tens of thousands of Windows viruses (I remember reading a number like over 40,000, but I can't find a source), while at the same time, MacOS 8 had 7 or so, all of which were protected from freely by the anti-virus program Disinfectant. While I can't find a direct source for my Windows numbers, here's an article that makes it look like 1998 was not a very good year for Windows viruses. Even if my memories are off by an order of magnitude or two, it still wasn't a good time for Windows and viruses.
Are you honestly saying that Apple is at that point right now? We have yet to see an actual MacOS X virus in the wild, and there have been how many Trojans in the wild so far? 4?
Are you honestly arguing that a culture is not defined by the actions of its people?
Too bad for your point, the thing is that in the USA you have tens of millions of people in poverty, many of which join gangs, do all sorts of crimes and get addicted to drugs.
All of which are parts of American culture.
it's not cultural
If how people live and act is "not cultural", then what the fuck is culture?
Take a look at the Assault, Rape, and Murder statistics.
But, no, let's go with what passes for entertainment in those countries. Because that is much more representative of culture than, you know, how people actually act.
Hmmm... now I have to figure what incredibly peaceful and safe country I was living in between 2001 and 2006. Or, maybe I can just assume that you've never been there and have NO idea what you are talking about, and are probably basing your impressions of a country on the content of its cartoons.
I didn't say it was necessary. Life did have to arise somewhere after all. I just think it's arrogant to think that we were the special First One without proof.
By "we", I assume you mean life on Earth. I don't think anyone has posited that we are the "special First One". For all we know, the universe is teeming with life, and life that could be much older than ours. Who knows? Since there has been no observation of that yet, the question cannot be approached scientifically.
As a fan of Occam's razor, I tend to not introduce extra variables without evidence. Right now, the evidence suggests that it is very possible for life on Earth to have originated on Earth. Everyday through new experiments and through uncovering fossil and geological evidence (as well as biological evidence), we find that it is more and more possible for it to have happened that way. So far we have zero evidence of life off of Earth. NO, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it does mean that, until there is evidence (which we can then use as a basis of comparison), there is no reason to add that extra, so far imaginary variable to our hypotheses.
It's not arrogance to think that. It's choosing the simplest explanation that fits all of the available facts and sticking with that explanation until new facts come along that refute the explanation. It's science.
First, the first age of life on this planet is known to be prior to your statement.
I provided a reference to my statement that life on Earth is about 3.8Gyr old. Please provide a reference for your statement that there is evidence that life existed (as free living single-celled organisms bound by membranes, not as biochemistry happening in the pores of rocks) before that, or I will be inclined to not believe you, but rather to believe the biologists and geologists who actually research this stuff, such as those who wrote the paper I linked and those who wrote the papers referenced by the paper I linked.
Or, in the common parlance of our times, with regards to your statement, "[CITATION NEEDED]".:p
There is a lot of fun exploration in Halo 1, and even some in Halo 2. In the second level of Halo 1, there are numerous places you can get to using the Warthog, the easiest of which is the plateau between the central valley and the valley where the UNSC men are hiding under ground. It is also possible to get up the sides of the valley with the first pulse generator, though it can be difficult, because the action freezes in most situations when the pulse generator fires. Also, using co-op and some clever grenade work, you can get yourself and a Warthog on TOP of a pulse generator. Finally, in that level, it is pretty easy to get to the bottom of the underground cave where the light-bridge is.
It is also possible to get on top of the island in Silent Cartographer and roam around, and if you are tricky, you can also get a warthog up there. Also, though I've never managed it, it is possible to get down to the bottom of the deep shaft in the Silent Cartographer. You can surf the Pelican and jump off a the right time to land on top of the cliff on the level 343 Guilty Spark as well. From there you can walk all the way around the beginning of the level, and you will come across a non-responsive Pvt. Jenkins up there as well.
You can do quite a bit of exploration in Assault on the Control room, especially if you can steal an early Banshee. A fun thing about this is that you can use the Banshee to get to places without activating the enemy spawning, and then you can move things like vehicles around and use all of this to help set up one of the most amazing mega-battles of the game. Also, if you can manage to get a Banshee in the final part of the level and fly up above the control room to one of the ledges of the upper structure, you can find a nice Easter Egg: you can hear the music of "The Siege of Madrigal" from Myth. Finally, it is possible to get outside on various places of the Pillar of Autumn in the final level of the game.
There wasn't a lot of exploration possible in Halo 2 because there were several insta-kill zones, but sometimes, if you could manage to stay off the ground (either using a ghost or a banshee, you could do some exploration). The most notable exploration is in the level Delta Halo. If you nab a Ghost and then head about halfway back towards the first area, there is a place where you can ride the Ghost up the cliff and explore the top of the level.
Sadly, I haven't played Halo 3, so I don't know what, if any, opportunities it has for exploration.
It seems likely given how soon life arose after the planet was cool enough to accept it.
The earth is 4.5-4.6Gyr. The first oceans finally condensed by about 4.4Gyr, and the earliest indicators of free living chemoautotrophic life are around 3.8Gyr. I wouldn't exactly call 600 million years "soon". (citation provided).
A good part of those 600 million years was geochemistry and basic biochemistry laying the groundwork of organic molecules to support life on a planetary scale. Unless you want to argue that the Earth did most of the work making the basics and then the planet was seeded like a petri dish, I would posit that it's rather unlikely that the Earth was seeded from an external source. (read the paper I just linked: it is one of the most comprehensive and logical summaries of the origin of life on Earth that I have ever read, providing well-founded explanations to a great many of the various problems of abiogenesis. While it doesn't refute the idea of outside seeding, it certainly refutes the necessity of it).
Where to? Face it, you're stuck on this rock. Make the best of it while you have time.
I'd be happy with Mars. I want to stand at the top of a 6km cliff at the base of the solar system's largest mountain and watch the sun rise.
On the upside, it's a beautiful rock. And 4.5 billion years is not a bad effort, for any species.
No species has survived that long. The first free living cells were about 3.8Gyr, and I'd be very surprised if there remain any cells that even closely resemble those original archaebacteria and eubacteria. Humans have been around for around 100,000 to 2,000,000 years, depending on how exactly you define human. That's not much.
If we don't want to go the same way as the incredibly large number of species that came before us, some of which also only lasted a few million years, then we need to get off this rock. Else, we risk falling to the same kinds of planetary catastrophes that lead to the earlier mass extinctions.
I volunteer the politicians who put us in this budget mess to begin with.
Screw that! Why should they get the privilege? Let them rot in their piles of play money with their cronies, and send ME!
I'm actually serious about that. If there were an opportunity for a one-way suicide trip to Mars, then I would absolutely take it, if given the chance. A single person on Mars with some equipment and ingenuity could do more science in a few days than the Mars rovers have done in all off their years of service (and this is not to belittle them; they are brilliant feats of engineering).
One of my biggest dreams, that will most likely be unfulfilled, is to watch the sun rise from the top of the 6km high cliff along the southeastern base of Olympus Mons. And I would certainly NOT complain if that were to be the last thing I ever saw.
Biding their time, and building their resources, they will ultimately take over the earth. All in the guise of cute little rodents.
Well, you really can't fault the mice for taking over the Earth. They did pay a rather large sum to the Magratheans for its construction, and how they use their purchase is entirely within their rights. Don't worry, though. It's just another way they have of tweaking the programming as everything comes down to the endgame.
Such subtlety and finesse in running the program is admirable.
Thanks for that. They must have just implemented that very recently, because for awhile it wasn't there. Thanks for pointing it out. Still usefull since one quiz will seem to make the rounds with a lot of my friends.
Er, why not just stop using Facebook, as I have? Facebook is a total mess. You've pretty much denounced all that Facebook has come to be about.
Because I use Facebook for many other things: keeping up to date on friends and family around the world, keeping up to date on local events like concerts, good DJs, parties, other gatherings, etc., knowing automatically when and where my favorite bands will be touring, seeing photos of friends and family, keeping in touch with my former students, and generally wasting time in other ways. All in one convenient place, rather than spread out across email addresses, mailing lists, multiple websites, etc.
There is a lot more to FaceBook than all of the annoying applications, and I don't not use any applications. There are a few that I use and like, however, a.) I wasn't invited to them, I found them when looking for a certain functionality, and therefore felt that their use outweighed any issues with accessing my info, and b.) I didn't invite any of my friends to them, because I know how annoying that is.
Some of us actually do find FaceBook to be useful.
If you use Facebook, then this option should be your best friend. Use it with impunity. I use this for every Application invitation I receive, and the amount has dropped dramatically as I cull the available option.
Because, no, I don't want to join your vampire army, zombie army, mob, poker game, I don't care if you are interested in me or now, and I really don't care what kind of sandwich, beer, flower, country, actor, power tool, car, coffee, breakfast cereal, of language I am. And, no, I don't want every lame-ass developer to have access to any and all information I put up on Facebook.
I just wish you could block people's newsfeed posts on a per application basis, rather than only per user.
Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.
Both of these things are only evidence of themselves. Nothing more. You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else. The current body of evidence points only to its own existence.
If you want to posit the existence of God, based on the evidence provided by the universe, then you need direct evidence of God (well, you also need a clear, falsifiable definition of God). Otherwise, Occam's Razor gives us the more likely conclusion. Given the same body of evidence, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct explanation, unless more evidence appears to show otherwise.
In this case, the body of evidence: The universe.
- H0.) The universe just exists.
- H1.) The universe exists because God created it. God just exists.
Given the same body of evidence, H0 is the more likely explanation, and there is no REASON to assume H1 without further evidence.
While you cannot prove a negative, in science, lack of evidence for H1 is provisional evidence for H0. Also, any scientist knows that you can NEVER prove anything based on observation. You can only disprove it OR decrease the likelihood of its falseness.
NB: Most of the "you" in this post is the general "you" not a specific "you" to the parent post.
Don't they have their own exotic diseases to worry about?
And this has an effect on the spread of this particular disease because...?
islamic countries
Less likely than China. Personal contact is already kept at a minimum.
No offense intended, but what the fuck are you talking about? In my experience, people in Muslim countries are more hands on than most western countries: greetings involve long handshakes, several kisses on the cheeks, hugs, and so on. Men are much less self-conscious about hugging, holding hands, or putting their arms over each other's shoulders (all out of friendship, so spare us the "OMG THEY ALL HAVE TEH GAY" comments). All in all, you will probably find much more interpersonal contact. I can only assume that the reason you see it as less is because of the extreme gender divide that exists in those countries.
Not to defend Mr. Coward's idiotic comments, but yours are equally uniformed.
Paddling is drag-based propulsion (i.e. the animal uses the drag from moving a paddle in the opposite direction to produce thrust in the direction they are moving). Paddling is not very efficient because it requires a recovery phase to reset the paddle. This is how most quadrupeds, such as muskrats, polar bears, even humans, swim.
Penguins use lift-based propulsion from pectoral oscillation, or literally flapping their wings, just like the birds that they are. They generate thrust from the forward component of the lift produced by their wings depending on the angle of attack. This is much more efficient, as there is no recovery phase and so thrust can be produced almost constantly. This is how penguins (both real and the robots) and sea lions swim. Seals, whales, and dolphins use the same type of propulsion, but use their flukes or rear flippers instead of their pectoral flippers.
Just to be pedantic, but for some reason, the idea of penguins paddling bothers me.:-/
Fair enough, and I agree with you on pretty much every point. And I do enjoy both 'hard' and 'soft' science-fiction. I like the hard stuff (Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc) because the nearness to reality gives me a more visceral experience. I'll probably never actually make it into orbit and almost certainly never step foot on Mars, but, because of the 'hard science fiction' I've read, I feel I have a pretty good idea of what it would be like (I have a rather active imagination).
On the other hand, I like the 'soft' stuff because it blows my mind quite often.
Basically, good writing is good writing and good stories are good stories. If "truly weird" takes away from the story or distracts me from the story, I tend not to like it. Same with bad science or science that is just so out there that it makes me stop reading the story and say, "now, hang on a minute!".
The lines between genres are blurred anyway, so as long as the story is told well and the elements being used add to the story, rather than detract, then it's all good. However, bad writers often seem to use "truly weird" to cover up their inadequacies in story telling. Though, to be fair a lot of equally bad writers use raw facts and hard science in the same way.;)
As Stephen King often stresses, "Story, dammit! It's all about story.":)
So you are the type of guy that all those unimaginative books and series are made for? Where every goddamn alien looks like a human with some patch on his nose and an unusual haircut, and you can see stranger things on underwater nature tv shows. Where they are in the future and/or in space, and do the same boring shit that they could do in a historic novel. And where you just think: "My god, this is all the futuristic stuff you can come up with?"
Wow. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from what the GPP said. Personally, I don't read science fiction for the "truly weird" stuff. I read it for the imaginative science, and to me, what science does is take the weird and bizarre and make it reasonable and understandable.
There is so much crap science fiction out there, full of weirdness for weirdness sake: aliens with "weird" numbers of eyes, limbs, methods of communication, etc., most of which are weird simply to be different. It is amazing how rarely anyone gives any explanations for why an alien life form evolved the way it did. They just make them weird to be different, usually to the point that they become creatures of fantasy rather than science fiction.
The same goes with a lot of the technologies that appear in bad science fiction. So many things seem to come out of a magic black box, never really explained, and just taken for granted in the universe of the particular story. Everything from normal everyday technologies to the "truly weird" ways of space travel and waging war. No explanations, just "magic" (yeah yeah yeah, sufficiently advanced technology, I know). Again, these things fall out of the realm of science fiction an into fantasy.
Anyway, point being, most of the best science fiction is firmly grounded in science, rather than taking fantasy and wrapping it in science-y words. And, by being grounded in science, it can't really be "truly weird", because science takes the weird and makes it natural.
That said, I must note that this is NOT a commentary of J.G. Ballard's work. I have not actually read any of his work, and therefore can make no comment.
Also note, I am not disparaging fantasy works, either. I enjoy them quite a lot when they have good stories. I also enjoy the overlap between science fiction and fantasy, as well as many other genres. I enjoy good stories with good writing. I merely am pointing out why at least one reader reads science fiction and prefers the good, hard stuff over the weird.
Now, to address the abiogenesis points from the page you linked to:
- The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
From the origin of the Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water to the first fossil evidence of biochemistry is a time span of a few hundred MILLION years, with an additional few hundred MILLION years to the first free living single celled organisms. After that, we have a couple BILLION years before we see more complex life forms. On those time scales, questions of probability seem moot, given the conditions on earth.
- The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
Given the right conditions and enough time, this seems probable. The paper I just linked to has a very compelling hypothesis for how to keep new biomolecules in high enough concentrations for biochemistry to begin.
- No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
- All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
Again, the paper I linked to has excellent, well-supported hypotheses about how the chiralities of biomolecules was selected.
- Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents. This hypothesis gives the best bet for a continuous energy source and influx of raw materials.
- There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
No one argues that these processes are random. They are well within the laws of physics and chemistry, and, in being constrained by those laws of the natural universe, are not random.
Hmmm... I could keep going, but I don't have the time right now. Basically, a lot of those supposed weaknesses have been addressed and addressed very well by biochemists and molecular biologists studying the idea of abiogenesis and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc. studying other aspects of biology. The theory of Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories mankind has come up with so far. The theory of abiogenesis is certainly gaining ground, and to date seems the most likely case (read the paper I linked for a lot of reasonable hypotheses as well as compelling evidence that supports them).
Actually, in biology, it IS. Adaptation is a subset of evolution. Adaptation (especially when using the word as concerned with the 7 characteristics that define "life" in biology) is defined as "traits passed from generation to generation that allow an organism to fit and survive in its ecosystem". I.e. adaptations are passed on.
Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time." That is it. That is all. In order for a population to be considered "evolving" it must not be at Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. H-W Equilibrium is the very definition of non-evolution.
The problem with "adapt" and "adaptation" is that most people colloquially use it to mean "acclimate" and "acclimation" as well (i.e. things an individual does in its lifetime to fit the surrounding environment). That leads to confusion. Because of this use, people often get more "Lamarckian" ideas about evolution, rather than realize that an organism that "adapts" to its environment (as in "acclimates") is able to do so because it already evolved that ability. And the problem with "evolution" is that everyone seems to think it has some goal and that every thing must lead to new functionality. "The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" dictates no such thing, though changing allele frequencies (either by selection of pre-existing alleles or by the formation of new alleles through mutation, it doesn't matter) can lead to such things.
The only REAL difference between evolution and adaptation is that adaptation is not necessary for evolution. Adaptation refers specifically to useful traits to help an organism survive in an environment against various selection pressures. Evolution has no such requirement. Unrelated and seemingly unused traits also get passed on, and if the frequencies of those traits change, then we still have evolution. Therefore, "adaptation" is a subset of "evolution", not a separate thing.
Obviously, the layman's definitions of these terms are often different and have extra things assigned to them. However, the biology definitions are rather simple and clear. Stop mixing them to promote confusion.
If you want to weep for humanity, weep for the fact that most biology teachers don't actually even have degrees in biology, nor do they keep up with the latest developments in the field to be able to pass newer, more accurate information to their students, so they end up confusing the kids with tripe, leading to posts like yours.
I think this biology teacher will have to revise his concepts.
Nope. In biology (i.e. the actual science, not the layman's terms), evolution is defined as "the change of allele frequencies in a population over time". Practically speaking, it is the opposite of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (which does not actually exist, but the mathematics are useful for studying evolution).
Either your biology teachers failed you in their teachings, or you didn't pay enough attention.;p
Are they using the term 'evolution' the wrong way?
Nope. It seems correct to this biology teacher. This is a clear case of directional selection. Keep eliminating the larger fish and the median size of fish in the population will be smaller. So, by taking the large ones, we are selecting against them and for smaller fish and juveniles. If, over time the frequencies of the alleles for large and small change in the population, then we have, by definition, evolution.
What makes you think this wouldn't be an example of evolution?
Slashdot Mirror
So don't pretend that it isn't.
Ummm... Don't put words in my mouth?
I am fully aware that no OS is immune to stupid users. If a user is dumb enough to type in his or her OS's equivalent to "sudo rm -rf /" then they deserve what they get. This is not the point I am trying to make.
You seem to be continuing to ignore my point. The point is, in 1998, Microsoft had numerous malware problems, especially with viruses and worms (which would infect and spread with little or no user interaction). There were literally thousands of viruses, worms, and trojans for Windows (and, for a point of comparison, that is opposed to Apple's 7 or so). The post I replied to said that Apple is *now* where Microsoft was in 1998.
So, please address the original point. If this statement is true, then where are the thousands of viruses, worms, and trojans for OS X? Because to date, there have been ZERO OS X viruses and worms in the wild (and only a couple of concept ones in the lab), and only a handful of trojans (the ones I can think of off the top of my head are the pirated iWork trojan and the fake video codec trojan).
Therefore, Apple right *now* is NOT like Microsoft in 1998. Q.E.D.
That is no protection at all.
Well, that explains every Mac virus, trojan, adware, and any other malware you can think of I have ever been infected by in the 20 years I have been using Macintosh computer. All ZERO of them. And the last anti-virus or any other anti-malware software I used was Disinfectant, which was discontinued in May 1998. I've never even had to clean infected files off of a disk (versus the Windows side where my system has been infected once, disks and external drives have had to be cleaned many times from coming in contact with other people's machines, and I've earned a lot of free beer and dinners for cleaning up other people's infected computers).
Aside from that, how does your response relate at all to reply to the GGPP who was saying that Apple now is like Microsoft in 1998? Where are the thousands of pieces of malware for MacOS X now to rival the thousands that were around for Windows in 1998?
Apple is now at the point where Microsoft was in 1998.
In 1998, there were tens of thousands of Windows viruses (I remember reading a number like over 40,000, but I can't find a source), while at the same time, MacOS 8 had 7 or so, all of which were protected from freely by the anti-virus program Disinfectant. While I can't find a direct source for my Windows numbers, here's an article that makes it look like 1998 was not a very good year for Windows viruses. Even if my memories are off by an order of magnitude or two, it still wasn't a good time for Windows and viruses.
Are you honestly saying that Apple is at that point right now? We have yet to see an actual MacOS X virus in the wild, and there have been how many Trojans in the wild so far? 4?
Are you honestly arguing that a culture is not defined by the actions of its people?
Too bad for your point, the thing is that in the USA you have tens of millions of people in poverty, many of which join gangs, do all sorts of crimes and get addicted to drugs.
All of which are parts of American culture.
it's not cultural
If how people live and act is "not cultural", then what the fuck is culture?
By what objective metric can you say that the American culture is clearly more violent than Japanese culture?
Violent crime statistics?
Take a look at the Assault, Rape, and Murder statistics.
But, no, let's go with what passes for entertainment in those countries. Because that is much more representative of culture than, you know, how people actually act.
Japan isn't a first world country?
Japan is violent? Really??
Hmmm... now I have to figure what incredibly peaceful and safe country I was living in between 2001 and 2006. Or, maybe I can just assume that you've never been there and have NO idea what you are talking about, and are probably basing your impressions of a country on the content of its cartoons.
:-/
I didn't say it was necessary. Life did have to arise somewhere after all. I just think it's arrogant to think that we were the special First One without proof.
By "we", I assume you mean life on Earth. I don't think anyone has posited that we are the "special First One". For all we know, the universe is teeming with life, and life that could be much older than ours. Who knows? Since there has been no observation of that yet, the question cannot be approached scientifically.
As a fan of Occam's razor, I tend to not introduce extra variables without evidence. Right now, the evidence suggests that it is very possible for life on Earth to have originated on Earth. Everyday through new experiments and through uncovering fossil and geological evidence (as well as biological evidence), we find that it is more and more possible for it to have happened that way. So far we have zero evidence of life off of Earth. NO, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it does mean that, until there is evidence (which we can then use as a basis of comparison), there is no reason to add that extra, so far imaginary variable to our hypotheses.
It's not arrogance to think that. It's choosing the simplest explanation that fits all of the available facts and sticking with that explanation until new facts come along that refute the explanation. It's science.
First, the first age of life on this planet is known to be prior to your statement.
I provided a reference to my statement that life on Earth is about 3.8Gyr old. Please provide a reference for your statement that there is evidence that life existed (as free living single-celled organisms bound by membranes, not as biochemistry happening in the pores of rocks) before that, or I will be inclined to not believe you, but rather to believe the biologists and geologists who actually research this stuff, such as those who wrote the paper I linked and those who wrote the papers referenced by the paper I linked.
Or, in the common parlance of our times, with regards to your statement, "[CITATION NEEDED]". :p
There is a lot of fun exploration in Halo 1, and even some in Halo 2. In the second level of Halo 1, there are numerous places you can get to using the Warthog, the easiest of which is the plateau between the central valley and the valley where the UNSC men are hiding under ground. It is also possible to get up the sides of the valley with the first pulse generator, though it can be difficult, because the action freezes in most situations when the pulse generator fires. Also, using co-op and some clever grenade work, you can get yourself and a Warthog on TOP of a pulse generator. Finally, in that level, it is pretty easy to get to the bottom of the underground cave where the light-bridge is.
It is also possible to get on top of the island in Silent Cartographer and roam around, and if you are tricky, you can also get a warthog up there. Also, though I've never managed it, it is possible to get down to the bottom of the deep shaft in the Silent Cartographer. You can surf the Pelican and jump off a the right time to land on top of the cliff on the level 343 Guilty Spark as well. From there you can walk all the way around the beginning of the level, and you will come across a non-responsive Pvt. Jenkins up there as well.
You can do quite a bit of exploration in Assault on the Control room, especially if you can steal an early Banshee. A fun thing about this is that you can use the Banshee to get to places without activating the enemy spawning, and then you can move things like vehicles around and use all of this to help set up one of the most amazing mega-battles of the game. Also, if you can manage to get a Banshee in the final part of the level and fly up above the control room to one of the ledges of the upper structure, you can find a nice Easter Egg: you can hear the music of "The Siege of Madrigal" from Myth. Finally, it is possible to get outside on various places of the Pillar of Autumn in the final level of the game.
There wasn't a lot of exploration possible in Halo 2 because there were several insta-kill zones, but sometimes, if you could manage to stay off the ground (either using a ghost or a banshee, you could do some exploration). The most notable exploration is in the level Delta Halo. If you nab a Ghost and then head about halfway back towards the first area, there is a place where you can ride the Ghost up the cliff and explore the top of the level.
Sadly, I haven't played Halo 3, so I don't know what, if any, opportunities it has for exploration.
It seems likely given how soon life arose after the planet was cool enough to accept it.
The earth is 4.5-4.6Gyr. The first oceans finally condensed by about 4.4Gyr, and the earliest indicators of free living chemoautotrophic life are around 3.8Gyr. I wouldn't exactly call 600 million years "soon". (citation provided).
A good part of those 600 million years was geochemistry and basic biochemistry laying the groundwork of organic molecules to support life on a planetary scale. Unless you want to argue that the Earth did most of the work making the basics and then the planet was seeded like a petri dish, I would posit that it's rather unlikely that the Earth was seeded from an external source. (read the paper I just linked: it is one of the most comprehensive and logical summaries of the origin of life on Earth that I have ever read, providing well-founded explanations to a great many of the various problems of abiogenesis. While it doesn't refute the idea of outside seeding, it certainly refutes the necessity of it).
Where to? Face it, you're stuck on this rock. Make the best of it while you have time.
I'd be happy with Mars. I want to stand at the top of a 6km cliff at the base of the solar system's largest mountain and watch the sun rise.
On the upside, it's a beautiful rock. And 4.5 billion years is not a bad effort, for any species.
No species has survived that long. The first free living cells were about 3.8Gyr, and I'd be very surprised if there remain any cells that even closely resemble those original archaebacteria and eubacteria. Humans have been around for around 100,000 to 2,000,000 years, depending on how exactly you define human. That's not much.
If we don't want to go the same way as the incredibly large number of species that came before us, some of which also only lasted a few million years, then we need to get off this rock. Else, we risk falling to the same kinds of planetary catastrophes that lead to the earlier mass extinctions.
I volunteer the politicians who put us in this budget mess to begin with.
Screw that! Why should they get the privilege? Let them rot in their piles of play money with their cronies, and send ME!
I'm actually serious about that. If there were an opportunity for a one-way suicide trip to Mars, then I would absolutely take it, if given the chance. A single person on Mars with some equipment and ingenuity could do more science in a few days than the Mars rovers have done in all off their years of service (and this is not to belittle them; they are brilliant feats of engineering).
One of my biggest dreams, that will most likely be unfulfilled, is to watch the sun rise from the top of the 6km high cliff along the southeastern base of Olympus Mons. And I would certainly NOT complain if that were to be the last thing I ever saw.
Biding their time, and building their resources, they will ultimately take over the earth. All in the guise of cute little rodents.
Well, you really can't fault the mice for taking over the Earth. They did pay a rather large sum to the Magratheans for its construction, and how they use their purchase is entirely within their rights. Don't worry, though. It's just another way they have of tweaking the programming as everything comes down to the endgame.
Such subtlety and finesse in running the program is admirable.
Thanks for that. They must have just implemented that very recently, because for awhile it wasn't there. Thanks for pointing it out. Still usefull since one quiz will seem to make the rounds with a lot of my friends.
Someone mod parent +1 Informative. :)
Er, why not just stop using Facebook, as I have? Facebook is a total mess. You've pretty much denounced all that Facebook has come to be about.
Because I use Facebook for many other things: keeping up to date on friends and family around the world, keeping up to date on local events like concerts, good DJs, parties, other gatherings, etc., knowing automatically when and where my favorite bands will be touring, seeing photos of friends and family, keeping in touch with my former students, and generally wasting time in other ways. All in one convenient place, rather than spread out across email addresses, mailing lists, multiple websites, etc.
There is a lot more to FaceBook than all of the annoying applications, and I don't not use any applications. There are a few that I use and like, however, a.) I wasn't invited to them, I found them when looking for a certain functionality, and therefore felt that their use outweighed any issues with accessing my info, and b.) I didn't invite any of my friends to them, because I know how annoying that is.
Some of us actually do find FaceBook to be useful.
If you use Facebook, then this option should be your best friend. Use it with impunity. I use this for every Application invitation I receive, and the amount has dropped dramatically as I cull the available option.
Because, no, I don't want to join your vampire army, zombie army, mob, poker game, I don't care if you are interested in me or now, and I really don't care what kind of sandwich, beer, flower, country, actor, power tool, car, coffee, breakfast cereal, of language I am. And, no, I don't want every lame-ass developer to have access to any and all information I put up on Facebook.
I just wish you could block people's newsfeed posts on a per application basis, rather than only per user.
Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.
Both of these things are only evidence of themselves. Nothing more. You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else. The current body of evidence points only to its own existence.
If you want to posit the existence of God, based on the evidence provided by the universe, then you need direct evidence of God (well, you also need a clear, falsifiable definition of God). Otherwise, Occam's Razor gives us the more likely conclusion. Given the same body of evidence, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct explanation, unless more evidence appears to show otherwise.
In this case, the body of evidence: The universe.
- H0.) The universe just exists.
- H1.) The universe exists because God created it. God just exists.
Given the same body of evidence, H0 is the more likely explanation, and there is no REASON to assume H1 without further evidence.
While you cannot prove a negative, in science, lack of evidence for H1 is provisional evidence for H0. Also, any scientist knows that you can NEVER prove anything based on observation. You can only disprove it OR decrease the likelihood of its falseness.
NB: Most of the "you" in this post is the general "you" not a specific "you" to the parent post.
Don't they have their own exotic diseases to worry about?
And this has an effect on the spread of this particular disease because...?
islamic countries
Less likely than China. Personal contact is already kept at a minimum.
No offense intended, but what the fuck are you talking about? In my experience, people in Muslim countries are more hands on than most western countries: greetings involve long handshakes, several kisses on the cheeks, hugs, and so on. Men are much less self-conscious about hugging, holding hands, or putting their arms over each other's shoulders (all out of friendship, so spare us the "OMG THEY ALL HAVE TEH GAY" comments). All in all, you will probably find much more interpersonal contact. I can only assume that the reason you see it as less is because of the extreme gender divide that exists in those countries.
Not to defend Mr. Coward's idiotic comments, but yours are equally uniformed.
Paddling is drag-based propulsion (i.e. the animal uses the drag from moving a paddle in the opposite direction to produce thrust in the direction they are moving). Paddling is not very efficient because it requires a recovery phase to reset the paddle. This is how most quadrupeds, such as muskrats, polar bears, even humans, swim.
Penguins use lift-based propulsion from pectoral oscillation, or literally flapping their wings, just like the birds that they are. They generate thrust from the forward component of the lift produced by their wings depending on the angle of attack. This is much more efficient, as there is no recovery phase and so thrust can be produced almost constantly. This is how penguins (both real and the robots) and sea lions swim. Seals, whales, and dolphins use the same type of propulsion, but use their flukes or rear flippers instead of their pectoral flippers.
Just to be pedantic, but for some reason, the idea of penguins paddling bothers me. :-/
Fair enough, and I agree with you on pretty much every point. And I do enjoy both 'hard' and 'soft' science-fiction. I like the hard stuff (Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc) because the nearness to reality gives me a more visceral experience. I'll probably never actually make it into orbit and almost certainly never step foot on Mars, but, because of the 'hard science fiction' I've read, I feel I have a pretty good idea of what it would be like (I have a rather active imagination).
On the other hand, I like the 'soft' stuff because it blows my mind quite often.
Basically, good writing is good writing and good stories are good stories. If "truly weird" takes away from the story or distracts me from the story, I tend not to like it. Same with bad science or science that is just so out there that it makes me stop reading the story and say, "now, hang on a minute!".
The lines between genres are blurred anyway, so as long as the story is told well and the elements being used add to the story, rather than detract, then it's all good. However, bad writers often seem to use "truly weird" to cover up their inadequacies in story telling. Though, to be fair a lot of equally bad writers use raw facts and hard science in the same way. ;)
As Stephen King often stresses, "Story, dammit! It's all about story." :)
So you are the type of guy that all those unimaginative books and series are made for? Where every goddamn alien looks like a human with some patch on his nose and an unusual haircut, and you can see stranger things on underwater nature tv shows. Where they are in the future and/or in space, and do the same boring shit that they could do in a historic novel. And where you just think: "My god, this is all the futuristic stuff you can come up with?"
Wow. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from what the GPP said. Personally, I don't read science fiction for the "truly weird" stuff. I read it for the imaginative science, and to me, what science does is take the weird and bizarre and make it reasonable and understandable.
There is so much crap science fiction out there, full of weirdness for weirdness sake: aliens with "weird" numbers of eyes, limbs, methods of communication, etc., most of which are weird simply to be different. It is amazing how rarely anyone gives any explanations for why an alien life form evolved the way it did. They just make them weird to be different, usually to the point that they become creatures of fantasy rather than science fiction.
The same goes with a lot of the technologies that appear in bad science fiction. So many things seem to come out of a magic black box, never really explained, and just taken for granted in the universe of the particular story. Everything from normal everyday technologies to the "truly weird" ways of space travel and waging war. No explanations, just "magic" (yeah yeah yeah, sufficiently advanced technology, I know). Again, these things fall out of the realm of science fiction an into fantasy.
Anyway, point being, most of the best science fiction is firmly grounded in science, rather than taking fantasy and wrapping it in science-y words. And, by being grounded in science, it can't really be "truly weird", because science takes the weird and makes it natural.
That said, I must note that this is NOT a commentary of J.G. Ballard's work. I have not actually read any of his work, and therefore can make no comment.
Also note, I am not disparaging fantasy works, either. I enjoy them quite a lot when they have good stories. I also enjoy the overlap between science fiction and fantasy, as well as many other genres. I enjoy good stories with good writing. I merely am pointing out why at least one reader reads science fiction and prefers the good, hard stuff over the weird.
Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm
Hmmm... just looking at that page. I think they are a bit behind on the times. First, I will link to this paper:
On the Origins of Cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells by William Martin and Michael J Russell. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85 (PDF of the full textlink is on the right side of the page)
Now, to address the abiogenesis points from the page you linked to:
- The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
From the origin of the Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water to the first fossil evidence of biochemistry is a time span of a few hundred MILLION years, with an additional few hundred MILLION years to the first free living single celled organisms. After that, we have a couple BILLION years before we see more complex life forms. On those time scales, questions of probability seem moot, given the conditions on earth.
- The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
Given the right conditions and enough time, this seems probable. The paper I just linked to has a very compelling hypothesis for how to keep new biomolecules in high enough concentrations for biochemistry to begin.
- No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
- All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
Again, the paper I linked to has excellent, well-supported hypotheses about how the chiralities of biomolecules was selected.
- Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents. This hypothesis gives the best bet for a continuous energy source and influx of raw materials.
- There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
No one argues that these processes are random. They are well within the laws of physics and chemistry, and, in being constrained by those laws of the natural universe, are not random.
Hmmm... I could keep going, but I don't have the time right now. Basically, a lot of those supposed weaknesses have been addressed and addressed very well by biochemists and molecular biologists studying the idea of abiogenesis and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc. studying other aspects of biology. The theory of Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories mankind has come up with so far. The theory of abiogenesis is certainly gaining ground, and to date seems the most likely case (read the paper I linked for a lot of reasonable hypotheses as well as compelling evidence that supports them).
This is ADAPTATION, not evolution.
and
Adaptation is NOT evolution.
Actually, in biology, it IS. Adaptation is a subset of evolution. Adaptation (especially when using the word as concerned with the 7 characteristics that define "life" in biology) is defined as "traits passed from generation to generation that allow an organism to fit and survive in its ecosystem". I.e. adaptations are passed on.
Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time." That is it. That is all. In order for a population to be considered "evolving" it must not be at Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. H-W Equilibrium is the very definition of non-evolution.
The problem with "adapt" and "adaptation" is that most people colloquially use it to mean "acclimate" and "acclimation" as well (i.e. things an individual does in its lifetime to fit the surrounding environment). That leads to confusion. Because of this use, people often get more "Lamarckian" ideas about evolution, rather than realize that an organism that "adapts" to its environment (as in "acclimates") is able to do so because it already evolved that ability. And the problem with "evolution" is that everyone seems to think it has some goal and that every thing must lead to new functionality. "The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" dictates no such thing, though changing allele frequencies (either by selection of pre-existing alleles or by the formation of new alleles through mutation, it doesn't matter) can lead to such things.
The only REAL difference between evolution and adaptation is that adaptation is not necessary for evolution. Adaptation refers specifically to useful traits to help an organism survive in an environment against various selection pressures. Evolution has no such requirement. Unrelated and seemingly unused traits also get passed on, and if the frequencies of those traits change, then we still have evolution. Therefore, "adaptation" is a subset of "evolution", not a separate thing.
Obviously, the layman's definitions of these terms are often different and have extra things assigned to them. However, the biology definitions are rather simple and clear. Stop mixing them to promote confusion.
If you want to weep for humanity, weep for the fact that most biology teachers don't actually even have degrees in biology, nor do they keep up with the latest developments in the field to be able to pass newer, more accurate information to their students, so they end up confusing the kids with tripe, leading to posts like yours.
I think this biology teacher will have to revise his concepts.
Nope. In biology (i.e. the actual science, not the layman's terms), evolution is defined as "the change of allele frequencies in a population over time". Practically speaking, it is the opposite of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (which does not actually exist, but the mathematics are useful for studying evolution).
Either your biology teachers failed you in their teachings, or you didn't pay enough attention. ;p
Are they using the term 'evolution' the wrong way?
Nope. It seems correct to this biology teacher. This is a clear case of directional selection. Keep eliminating the larger fish and the median size of fish in the population will be smaller. So, by taking the large ones, we are selecting against them and for smaller fish and juveniles. If, over time the frequencies of the alleles for large and small change in the population, then we have, by definition, evolution.
What makes you think this wouldn't be an example of evolution?