The thing with life is, once it has started its' complexity will rise with the next generations
This is a fallacy. There is no inherent trend towards complexity. Evolution progresses only towards adaptedness, even if it means that the next generation is simpler than the current one.
Why not pick the Wikipedia link for Intelligent Design, too, which describes in a pretty unbiased fashion what it generally is?
I am the submitter.
Even Wikipedia distinguishes between ID and the ID movement. Here's a link to the separate Wikipedia article on the movement: clicky. Note that the Wikipedia article on the ID movement says: "The ID movement's hub is the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank, and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC)."
That's why I linked ID to the Discovery Institute. M'kay?
What makes you think I have little concern for these facts? I thought my posting was accurate and reasonably even-handed. There's only so much one can say in a Slashdot MLP story.
-- Brian Berns
Re:how did we miss that before?
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 1
The difference here is that we're talking about what may be the ONLY LAKE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET.
You'd think that the people looking at the images captured by this multi-million dollar probe would have spent a few thousand dollars to develop a rigorous method (i.e. automated) of scanning the images for bright spots that could be water.
Otherwise, what's the point of taking the photos in the first place?
Or, put another way: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps this is more of a philosophical or metaphysical question, but I think it fits in well with the great scientific questions.
If you think about it, you'll realize that things would be alot simpler if nothing existed at all. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? It's a pretty overwhelming thought -- a good reminder that we still don't know much about the fundamental rules of nature. As Gardner said, "the night is large".
It might seem to be an easy one, but your answer doesn't explain most cooperation.
Cooperative behavior arises out of an evolutionary phenonemon known as kin selection. The basic idea is that if you are related to another organism, you know that you are likely to share some portion of your genes. Thus, it's in your interest to assist your relative in surving to reproduce so that your shared genes are passed down.
These days much of the professional interaction betwen people is through e-mail. When I get an e-mail from someone who can't be bothered to write correctly, I tend not to bother to read it with much interest. If they don't care about what they're saying, why should I?
(Obviously, I make exceptions for non-native writers, and for some kinds of informal communication.)
I'm particularly bothered by executives who have this problem. One CEO I used to work for was so busy and so important that he just didn't have time to make his messages coherent. Getting an e-mail from him was like receiving a prophesy from the Oracle of Delphi, or like trying to interpret the cryptic mumbling of Mao Tse-Tung.
Reading between the lines, the attidute here is: "I'm more important than you. I'd rather you waste an hour trying to figure out what I'm talking about than spend sixty seconds myself editing this e-mail."
I think you can imagine just how inspiring this guy was as a leader.
To fully comprehend something you must be greater than it
I agree that that it might be logically impossible for a mind to fully comprehend itself (and comprehend itself comprehending itself, and comprehend itself doing that, and...). The infinite regress could be a problem in that scenario.
But I don't think it's logically impossible for one person's mind to comprehend another person's mind (because they are not in the same "castle").
Also, I think it's logically possible for a mind to comprehend most of itself. The incomprehensible self-referential stuff probably isn't critical to meaningful self-understanding.
Bottom line; I think Godelian incompleteness probably isn't such a big deal in the real world.
We have no clue how the brain actually works. Sure, we know how individual neurons work, but no one can explain how a bunch of neurons creates a mind.
We look around our world and notice that computers are superficially similar to brains (e.g. they can both do math), so we hypothesize that they work similarly.
However, there's very little hard evidence supporting this hypothesis in the first place, so there's no "news" in this story.
Bottom line: The brain is not just a super-powerful computer.
This proposal talks about creating a "balance" between sun, clouds, and emissions, but is it reasonable to assume that the result would be stable?
It seems to me that any sudden, massive change in the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth could have very unpredictable effects on the ecosystem.
As thought experiment, this proposal may be interesting. But as a real experiment on the entire planet, it would be foolish.
To give credit where it's due, the original suggestion comes from another Slashdot post (too lazy to look it up now).
For the drama to work, you have to see 4 & 5 before you see 1-3. In 4, you have to find Ben mysterious. You have to think that Luke is just an average farmboy. In 5, you have to be surprised that the little green guy is the Jedi master. And most of all, you have to be surprised that Luke and Vader are related.
So 4 & 5 set up the drama. Then 1-3 give the backstory, which heightens the climax in 6 when Anakin/Vader chooses to (literally) overthrow the emperor for the love of his son.
Wheaton's current entry is all about how lousy he felt when he got sick. If that's what it takes to be a blogging A-lister, I think I'll stick to the rest of the Internet for awhile longer.
You do realize that the phrase "lowest common denominator" is senseless, right? The actual phrase is "greatest common denominator" but people don't like to say it that way because it sounds too positive.
you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane
I was watching the movie Fletch the other day. I remembered it as being pretty good from when I was a kid. It's still good, but it's pretty dated in places. Perhaps the most egregious example occurred at the end of the movie when Fletch takes two airplane tickets from the bad guy and uses them to fly with his girlfriend to an exotic vacation.
This was done so nonchalantly that I was forcefully reminded that things that we take for granted today may easily be gone tomorrow.
Your router also contains special diagnostic software that can help us trouble shoot and correct problems should you experience trouble with your Internet connection. You will need to use the Verizon provided routers with the Fios Internet service.
Why do I have to use their router? What exactly does this "special" software do?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing with life is, once it has started its' complexity will rise with the next generations
This is a fallacy. There is no inherent trend towards complexity. Evolution progresses only towards adaptedness, even if it means that the next generation is simpler than the current one.
Why not pick the Wikipedia link for Intelligent Design, too, which describes in a pretty unbiased fashion what it generally is?
I am the submitter.
Even Wikipedia distinguishes between ID and the ID movement. Here's a link to the separate Wikipedia article on the movement: clicky. Note that the Wikipedia article on the ID movement says: "The ID movement's hub is the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank, and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC)."
That's why I linked ID to the Discovery Institute. M'kay?
I am the submitter.
If the discussion should not take place on Slashdot, where should it take place?
-- Brian Berns
What makes you think I have little concern for these facts? I thought my posting was accurate and reasonably even-handed. There's only so much one can say in a Slashdot MLP story.
-- Brian Berns
The difference here is that we're talking about what may be the ONLY LAKE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET.
You'd think that the people looking at the images captured by this multi-million dollar probe would have spent a few thousand dollars to develop a rigorous method (i.e. automated) of scanning the images for bright spots that could be water.
Otherwise, what's the point of taking the photos in the first place?
Inlines images in a Slashdot story? Wow! It's so... graphical. I can hardly believe it.
TFA says the offer is to orbit the moon, but not land on it. An important distinction, I think.
-- Brian Berns
Martin Gardner says that the superultimate question is: Why does the universe exist?
Or, put another way: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps this is more of a philosophical or metaphysical question, but I think it fits in well with the great scientific questions.
If you think about it, you'll realize that things would be alot simpler if nothing existed at all. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? It's a pretty overwhelming thought -- a good reminder that we still don't know much about the fundamental rules of nature. As Gardner said, "the night is large".
It might seem to be an easy one, but your answer doesn't explain most cooperation.
Cooperative behavior arises out of an evolutionary phenonemon known as kin selection. The basic idea is that if you are related to another organism, you know that you are likely to share some portion of your genes. Thus, it's in your interest to assist your relative in surving to reproduce so that your shared genes are passed down.
-- Brian Berns
These days much of the professional interaction betwen people is through e-mail. When I get an e-mail from someone who can't be bothered to write correctly, I tend not to bother to read it with much interest. If they don't care about what they're saying, why should I?
(Obviously, I make exceptions for non-native writers, and for some kinds of informal communication.)
I'm particularly bothered by executives who have this problem. One CEO I used to work for was so busy and so important that he just didn't have time to make his messages coherent. Getting an e-mail from him was like receiving a prophesy from the Oracle of Delphi, or like trying to interpret the cryptic mumbling of Mao Tse-Tung.
Reading between the lines, the attidute here is: "I'm more important than you. I'd rather you waste an hour trying to figure out what I'm talking about than spend sixty seconds myself editing this e-mail."
I think you can imagine just how inspiring this guy was as a leader.
-- Brian
To fully comprehend something you must be greater than it
I agree that that it might be logically impossible for a mind to fully comprehend itself (and comprehend itself comprehending itself, and comprehend itself doing that, and...). The infinite regress could be a problem in that scenario.
But I don't think it's logically impossible for one person's mind to comprehend another person's mind (because they are not in the same "castle").
Also, I think it's logically possible for a mind to comprehend most of itself. The incomprehensible self-referential stuff probably isn't critical to meaningful self-understanding.
Bottom line; I think Godelian incompleteness probably isn't such a big deal in the real world.
We have no clue how the brain actually works. Sure, we know how individual neurons work, but no one can explain how a bunch of neurons creates a mind.
We look around our world and notice that computers are superficially similar to brains (e.g. they can both do math), so we hypothesize that they work similarly.
However, there's very little hard evidence supporting this hypothesis in the first place, so there's no "news" in this story.
Bottom line: The brain is not just a super-powerful computer.
This proposal talks about creating a "balance" between sun, clouds, and emissions, but is it reasonable to assume that the result would be stable?
It seems to me that any sudden, massive change in the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth could have very unpredictable effects on the ecosystem.
As thought experiment, this proposal may be interesting. But as a real experiment on the entire planet, it would be foolish.
To give credit where it's due, the original suggestion comes from another Slashdot post (too lazy to look it up now).
For the drama to work, you have to see 4 & 5 before you see 1-3. In 4, you have to find Ben mysterious. You have to think that Luke is just an average farmboy. In 5, you have to be surprised that the little green guy is the Jedi master. And most of all, you have to be surprised that Luke and Vader are related.
So 4 & 5 set up the drama. Then 1-3 give the backstory, which heightens the climax in 6 when Anakin/Vader chooses to (literally) overthrow the emperor for the love of his son.
The correct viewing order is: 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6
No other order makes as much sense.
UID 19860 makes you an old geezer?
That one is at least semi-interesting, but it's also about being sick as a kid and, golly, the current scratchiness in his throat.
Does he discuss any other topics? Perhaps how the laundry is piling up? Or how he got stuck in traffic during rush hour?
Wheaton's current entry is all about how lousy he felt when he got sick. If that's what it takes to be a blogging A-lister, I think I'll stick to the rest of the Internet for awhile longer.
You do realize that the phrase "lowest common denominator" is senseless, right? The actual phrase is "greatest common denominator" but people don't like to say it that way because it sounds too positive.
you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane
I was watching the movie Fletch the other day. I remembered it as being pretty good from when I was a kid. It's still good, but it's pretty dated in places. Perhaps the most egregious example occurred at the end of the movie when Fletch takes two airplane tickets from the bad guy and uses them to fly with his girlfriend to an exotic vacation.
This was done so nonchalantly that I was forcefully reminded that things that we take for granted today may easily be gone tomorrow.
This is a reference to the end of the book Contact, for those who haven't read it. Great book, halfway decent movie.
Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So if I encrypt using GPG, does that mean all my e-mails are covered by the GPL? Yikes.
Doh! You are obviously correct. Thanks for the explanation.