err..... How many slashdoters are aware of the fact that aggressive antibiotic treatments are often followed by the consumption of "pro-biotics" to restore the natural fauna in our bodies? We kill the good bugs as well as the bad bugs then we colonize ourselves with the good bugs again. Doctors and health professionals don't like to admit it, but much of modern medicine is the blind brandishing of a blunt weapon that all too often accumulates significant collateral damage.
Biofilm formation is an inherently un-symbiotic behavior. The polysaccharide matrix making up the biofilm essentially forms a barrier that inhibits both beneficial as well as harmful interactions. More often than not, biofilms are secreted by aggressive parasites to make it harder for their hosts to remove or kill them.
One of the best examples I know if is infestations of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Due to a genetically inherited defective protein pump in the cells of CF sufferers, the bacteria can thrive in the unbalanced environment of their lungs. They form biofilms so that our own immune system can't get to them and take them out. The biofilm, consequently is also an effective barrier against antibiotics and other drugs often used to treat infections.
If these guys at MIT can work up a viable version of this that is medically safe, it will prevent a lot of headaches for doctors trying to treat various diseases.
Your 2 cents are much appreciated. Thank you for fleshing out a point I tried to (but was too impatient to properly) make in my concluding comment. I framed my diatribe mostly along the lines of "bad information or vague miss-information is more damaging to a knowledge seeker than difficult or lack of comprehension". I wanted to end on the notion that throwing in everything along with the kitchen sink in an effort to appeal to the novice who want everything at their finger tips was a bad idea, being a serious dis-service to those looking for the topic of interest rather than supporting knowledge. As you so noted, the modularity of Wikis makes this an easy problem to solve. In fact, I think that happens to be one of the most attractive features of resources like wikipedia as it allows one to build a mental web of relationships, maping out how different ideas relate and interact with one another.
But remember, the context of the original complaint against wikipedia pertained to science articles. And in your own words: "As Wikipedia is more a reference than a textbook, it doesn't make sense for it to try to teach....." Those who come to wikipedia for enlightenment should not necesarily expect to use it as a tool for becoming a really proficient expert in any particular technical field. You might not have liked to decipher the math symbols you encountered in the course of your earlier investigation, but you're fully capable of looking it up, right? At wikipedia, those who know what they're looking for can pick and choose, those who don't know have the option of digging deeper or widening their investigation. That is what a reference like wikipedia ought to offer. I think it should *never* convey to a knowledge seeker notions resembling "well, essentially, this is *ALL* it really is...."
As an engineer communicating your ideas to other, you probably have the luxury of engaging in exchanges and feedback. You likely have a chance to probe your audience's background to determine the best approach in explaining something. That is an advantage wikipedia does not have. The one-size-fits-all requirement being demanded of wikipedia unfortunately can not be met with so many different types of users. I just feel it is a better compromise to let the non-expert/novice reach a little higher and work a little harder than to intentionally throttle the potential of a good reference source.
Well, to be fair, science is hard. It may not be a bad thing that getting the most out of wikipedia requires a "layperson" to put a bit more effort into it. Language use can certainly be tweeked for better readability in a few wiki articles, so I agree, to some extent, with the points raised by the blogger.
But sometimes the goal of disseminating good information runs counter to the goal of convincing the public. Just yesterday, we had an armchair scientist wannabe ranting and raving about ideas as if he's an expert here on/. when in reality he is complete clueless. The guy was so completely bewitched by a slick british documentary on global warming (of the "alien autopsy"/"moon landing hoax" variety) that a full day of arguing with those who know better only succeeded in showing everyone how stubborn he can be.
I may be treading on a tangent with the direction I'm taking with this comment, but I think it is important to distinguish writing laymen style for understanding versus writing laymen style for pursuasion. I think it is critically important for resources like wikipedia to maintain scientific discipline and accuracy at whatever the cost and not pander to political or ideological motives. This includes simplifying dificult ideas to fit a non-expert's conceptual grasp. If resources like wikipedia become too diluted, people will get the dangerous idea that real science as done by scientists is somthing of trivial complexity or arbitrary objectivity. Nutjobs and crackpots would be able to use Wikipedia in ways completely counter to it's purpose. The best thing that Wikipedia can do for the layperson is act as a conduit for anyone sufficiently motivated to really learn the material by link hopping or following the references cited by contributors. Other wise, a simple "authoritive" exposition might just end up missleading or missinforming the intended audience.
I think your advocacy of doing away with length requirement is a noble attempt at the solution to this problem. However, with many complex ideas, voluminous information often ends up being convoluted and confusing. Think about it: in an article on modern file systems or database design, do you *really* want to delve into the finer aspects of sorting algorithms?
....then turn around and claim that everyone else is trying to be civil, when the person you're thanking used the words "I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds"
Because it is the only reasonable response to your crazy beligerant rants. Seriously, what choice do you give us? The two of us are not the only ones who think you're nuts. You've given EVERYONE on this thread reason to think so. Maybe you're just a bad communicator or maybe you just broke up with your girlfriend or maybe you have some other good reason for being an absolute ass to everyone who disagrees with you. But in the end, it is your actions and attitude that makes it hard to discuss the science involved here.
And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote....
NeutronCowboy and I did the same check and came to the same conclusion. I don't think you understand what it means to cite your source. Other than these two instances where others can examine the same things you're talking about to judge for themselves how to interperate the information provided, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY CHECKED. I gave a list of tools and methods you mentioned that you claim provide information to support your claims. To be fair, you've made the same assertions to others elsewhere in this post. But you have NEGLECTED TO PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL DATA from any studies using these methods that support your position. Saying doesn't make it so. You can tell us repeatedly there is data that shows you're right until you're blue in the face. But unless we can check the same data, you have demonstrated nothing. Maybe you actually do believe you've cited 11 sources, but you have not done it in any way that allows anyone else to follow up on them. Maybe you actually do believe the poorly thought out conclusions from your myopic understanding of the issues. I've read through some of your response to the data cited by other folks. I'd urge you to take a closer look at their responses which easily debunks your claims. Pay attention to them - they're trying to educate you.
You say you keep repeating yourself and no one listens. Have you stopped to consider that there might be something wrong with what you're say? Or perhaps something wrong with they way you're trying to communicate your ideas? If you're going to insult anyone who tells you that you have not gotten your own ideas straight, what incentive do other have to pay any attention to you? You don't make me angry, you make me sad. Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate. But the way you've gone about on this thread discredits the whole legitimacy of being curious about the other side. Who in their right mind would be willing to explore an idea advocated by an abrasive nut who is insulting everyone trying to talk to him? You start of by calling the scientific consensus a hoax, with nothing to back up this outrageous claim other than a single documentary riddled with breaches of good journalistic ethics. Your assertion that no one has challanged the science in the program is just not true: According to Houghton(former co-chair of IPCC) the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming".
I suggest you take the time to seriously examine the ideas and opinions presented here in oposition to yours. enlightening yourself would *not* be time wasted. And I believe I speak for all of slashdot when I say that *my*(our) time has not been wasted if I(we) have succeeded in teaching you something and compelled you to think critically and scientifically about the issue of global warming.
Hmmm.... do you think the borg can assimilate superhuman abilities? What would be the machine version of super abilities? (The ability to fly and super strength relative to animal life forms are pretty mundane for a machine to achieve.)
But I suppose you're right. What I'm having a hard time wraping my head around is trying to judge as a creature of flesh and blood what the most desirable qualities are for a machine life form that doesn't have any basis in reality yet. Am I supposed ask "If I were a machine...."? But then again, If I were a machine, I'd probably wonder about all the things we biological creatures take for granted that are not a part of machine life.
There is a problem with comparing things from the realm of thought and speculation to things from the realm of reality. It really is like deciding which is better: Florida oranges or the golden apples of Greek mythology. In the power example, we can measure or calculate the calories consumed by biological lifeforms with good accuracy, but does it really make sense to compare that against the power requirements of a PC which can't even do the basic machine equivalent of some of the life functions of the simplest bacteria? Since we don't have anything remotely aproaching the sophistication of a machine intelligence, I think it is a cop out to assume that the energy requirements of any such entity with the associated processing power would be naturaly less than that of a biologic life form.
Regarding regenerative abilities, it's easy to conjucture up the idea of self-replication/self-repairing Von Neumann Probes, but again, in the absence of a viable concrete example it makes little sense to say that one is superior to another. From a conceptual perspective (based purely on the essential principles of each type of life forms) hearts can be transplanted (though this is currently still an imperfect reality, it is nonetheless a reality rather than a conjecture.) There is every reason to anticipate that complete replacement with a regenerated heart is possible in the future. Likewise, severed limbs can be reattached and possibly also completely regrown in the future. (Didn't some woman in Europe get a face transplant recently?) These are all medical interventions, no different from a user physically replacing a malfunctioning computer part. There is no reason to assume that further human evolution biologically (be it artificial or natural) can not approach the same level of advancement that you anticipate for a machine life form.
I will conclude by addressing your last point:
"I work with reliably designed equipment every day. It's my job. Look at this from a logical point of view: If you're a robot lifeform, are you REALLY going to design yourself to the same terrible tollerances that humans design their throwaway society?"
If the economic trade-offs work out in favor of producing low tolerance products for throwaway applications, why not? Human society is not inefficient - as a whole, we have motivations that currently place such types of efficiency at a lower priority. It isn't that we can't do it, we have simply chosen not to. It isn't something I'm too thrilled about either. As a child, I grew up in a different society that is a *lot* less consumer oriented and very frugal about everyday resources.
But you know, in the end, it is ALL a moot point. As long as we are talking about science fiction. Why not just dispense with physical existance all together? Why not just choose to be beings of pure energy like the ascended Ancients of Stargate SG-1?
Well, now your post makes sense. But I still think you're misguided. machine life. robotic intelligence. Show me? If we're going to consider this from the realm of fantasy or speculative fiction, I can conjure up equally amazing notions but with super-intelligent pink dragons. Perhaps you've thought a lot about the perfect machine life. And that's fine - I admire imaginative people. But what is to say that your conception represents the peak of existential perfection? I suppose you can think whatever you want. I don't mean this as a flame, please don't think I'm intentionally trying to piss you off or disrespect your opinion. But I think life as we have it, right now, the biological variety, is infinitely more awesome than any science fiction idea of machines conceived by man. Dear lord, man! We are still trying to figure out exactly how most of it works!:-)
[update: Damn you, NeutronCowboy, for beating me to the punch. But really, thank you. You have been a lot more elequent than I in this thread.]
You do *not* get to have the last word. Everyone here is mostly trying to have a civil discussion with you. But so far, all you've done is insult and intimidate your critics. You say I don't provide any references or resources. I need to cite only one:
Oreskes has sampled almost a thousand seperate scholastic studies across multiple disciplines. and there was *NO* direct dissent. This is a far cry from the "gobal warming hoax" you claim. These researchers are serious scientists. They only responsibility they have is to their own designated area of research.
What have you done? Aside from providing a link to that god-awful documentary and a reference to "the global carbon cycle" at the Umich website cited by one of your critics, you have produced absolutely squat. I have gone through all your comments and as of 2 PM PDT, everything you've expressed so far in reply to those in this discussion thread has been a whole bunch of hand waving, groundless assertions, or evasive facts. You're quick to dismiss the references provided by others but other than just those two citations, I can't find any other sources despite your repeated assertion that you have indeed provided references. In reply to my earier comment, you mention:
ice record CO2 sedimentation weather balloons atmospheric temperature gradient oceanic outgassing measurements the CO2/temperature correlation (basic common sense)
saying doesn't make it so. where is the reference to back up your position? Where are the figures and charts from studies that use these methods to disagree with the conclusions of our current understanding of global warming? I think your engaged in this exchange just for the sake of arguing without any genuine intention to enlighten or be enlightened. Some of what you say just makes absolutely no sense. "realistic data that predates animal life"????? "wholesale rape of baby seals."??????
In light of such bizarre comments, I am left with no alternative but to urge you to stop bothering the nice folks at slashdot and don't skip out on your medications.
Mutually corroborating data makes for a convincing argument. When multiple investigative conclusions all point to the same thing, it's hard to say the conclusion should be dismissed based in inaccuracy. The ice core itself may or may not be accurate enough (what is enough?) But when considered along with everything else, it is spot on. Suppose we indulge you for a moment. 10 years? The industrial revolution has been going on a lot longer than that. Even with a margin of 10 years, the general trend is *not* due to statistical sampling or measurement errors. The "source" that you cite is nothing more than the polished product of a video production outfit. Professionally speaking, they're no different from "alien autopsy", "moon landing hoax", and other similar embarrassments. Real data, like the type that comes from peer reviewed journals, you seem to be unwilling to produce at the moment. Go ahead - we'll wait.
And you base that on what, exactly? Humanity has less than 30 years of atmospheric data, so I'm rather skeptical. Don't waste my time by bringing up ice core samples; there is no correlation of ice core samples to global temperature which is accurate to less than ten years, and if you actually bother looking at the ice core record, you'll notice that the correlation that we've seen for more than ten million years is actually holding exactly where we would expect for it to.
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.
I am not familiar with this perspective as a part of mainstream scientific thought. To my knowledge, Ice core records correlate pretty well with tree ring records and other geologic evidence. Pretty much all of it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?
On a more serious note, the notion of cold-related deaths, especially the flu and other infectious diseases, is very misleading. The cold isn't directly responsible for most of the cause of death. It is the circumstances created by it. When studying emerging infectious diseases a few semesters ago, our professor explained that the cold drives people indoors where large numbers of both the infected and potential victims congregate in crowded places (like apartments, dorms etc). Combined with reduced air circulation to conserve heat and general lack of mobility, people are put at much higher risks of exposure and illnesses can spread with ease. One can easily deduce that hot weather is capable of doing very much the same thing.
I was just goofing off when I posted that lame borg joke. However, I think you're suffering from a severe lack of perspective. No machine yet created by humans have as of yet approached the elegence, efficiency, or versitility of what evolution has shaped over more than a billion years. Almost every living thing is capable of some degree of self-repair. For how much of our modern hardware can you say the same? Man has been designing tools and machines since our cavemen ancestors began forming abstract thoughts. But mother nature has been doing the same with Earth's entire biosphere when the sun was still a teenager.
When your praise of machines are extend to computer hardware, the comparision to biological systems is almost laughable.
Biological material requires huge amounts of energy to maintain, doesn't function as efficiently or as cleanly as a well designed machine,...
Do you know how much waste heat your computer puts out? Or are you simply deaf to the noise of that case fan cooling the inside of your CPU? And also, with such a great design, how come each new generation of machines seems to sport their own form factor?
...has a pitiful effective lifetime, and failure of one component WILL destroy the rest of the unit.
Let me as you: what is the average life time of a typical computer (such as *yours*) between upgrades? Can *your* computer function without a keyboard? mouse? monitor? It ain't growing back like a gecko's tail.
...Machine material is effectively immortal, can run on as much or as little energy as is available, is effectively immortal...
I must disagree, as I've burned out two monitors, fried a Pentium, and suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure over less than 20 years since I've regularly used a computer. And if you've ever tried using a computer in places with low quality power, (such as parts of India, Africa, South America where outages, power spikes, and brown outs are common) you would know how fickled the hardware inside your box reall is. You want a reliable computer system, you need to invest a *lot* of effort to put together robust and well designed parts. You want a reliable lifeform, you go and pick up some pond scum from any dirty watering hole.
Will someone please explain this "tar" business??????
I don't know anything about superhero comics, but I'm beginning to get the idea that the writers at DC have become anti-smoking crusaders while I was busy not looking.
all the mutations are in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen
This is more or less correct. I think what most of the folks here are getting hung up on is some slight miss conceptions and a bit of confusion over your slightly odd use of terminology.
Okay, A summary of a few points to (hopefully) clear up some of this confusion:
It is important to distinguish between somatic cell mutations and germ line mutations. Based on what you've said already, it seems you understand this distinction, but does not trust the conclusion this distinction leads to. To be specific, a single ant of the sterile worker caste which develops a mutation would not be able to propagate that mutation. If the mutation arose some where between fertilization and full maturation of an embryo, however, there is a chance that this particular developing embryo would be stimulated by environmental factors (in the case of honey bees, being feed with royal jelly) and develop into a fertile queen. Provided this mutation is a germ line mutation that affects all developing ovaries, this queen is now capable of passing on the mutation to all her offsprings - including any that may be stimulated by environmental factors into developing into a new queen. Likewise, if the mutation happens to affect the germ line of the male drones, it would similarly propagate through ensuing generations.
It is important to distinguish between gene mutation and gene expression. Most routine steps and processes involved in the development and growth of a hive colony that is relevent to this particular discussion are regulated by gene expression that are controlled by a variety of factors, not gene mutation. Individual ants develop into separate castes not because of mutations but because they are directed by exposure to hormones and other environmental signals which switch certain genes on and off. The fate of any particulary embryo is not cast in stone (pardon the pun), but is rather directed in the way that is most beneficial to the colony. So in this sense, a queen ant does not grow a sac in it's abdomen for storing sweety goodness because the genes in its body is has turned it into an egg laying machine rather than a pantry - it has nothing to do with mutation.
It is important to recognize that evolution is not a directed process with any particular goal. As such, it often makes little sense to talk about what is ultimately useful or whatever anyone's particular judgement of "fitness" happens to be. Evolution is notorious for taking winding meandering paths that arrive at the most suprising of places. I work with microbiologist who study membrane bound protein pumps that allow a bacteria to get rid of drugs that doctors use to cure infections (yep, this is one aspect of the increasingly famous and dreaded buzzword "antibiotic resistance"). Guess what? Investigations of the molecular structure indicates it evolved from an ancestor structure which also has developed slightly differently and branched off to become the amazing and miraculous flagella that creationists are so fond of promoting as singularly unique. (On a side note, everyone needs to realize that if the creationists have their way, we throw away all the progress made in our understanding of the evolutionary basis of immunology and drug resistance. minor infections? Seasonal flu vaccines? forget it. People will die by the millions - all because we choose to be ignorant about the way mother nature works.) In an ant or a bee, a mutation that *you* would consider to be beneficial may not work out in the grand scheme of things. For example a mutation of a certain metabolic trait (the ability to better digest woody fiber) might benefit one individual (let's say a queen termite that is founding a new colony), but if that individual happens to be living in an environment where the opportunity to exploit that trait is not met (the colony is in praire or grassland with not
At the time, it fascinated me because it occured to me that you could have twins which share a maternal set of chromosomes but have one sex chromosome from the father be an X for one of the siblings and the other be a Y.
In other words, almost identical twin brother/sister pair! One wonders how much of gender is actually in our genes. Well, to have a pair of individuals share so much with the exception of the sex chromosomes - it becomes more reasonable to do an actual comparison. (I am aware there is still lots of room for genetic variation from the rest of the father's somatic set) I don't know how scientific it would be, but as a thought experiment, I wasn't to concerned about it at the time I posted it.
as opposed to IE...who is just simply slutty. We all look down at how easily it can behave promiscuously on the web. But at the same time some of us often face a desire or need to access resources that the slut so conveniently provides. Oh, what's a faithful man to do!
I think you have the right idea, but there is another angle that is perhaps a bit more salient. Like lots of folks here on slashdot, I was trained in technology of the hardware/software variety (BSEE). But I'm also in the process of completing a couple of certificates in Bio-technology. What I wasn't aware of before as purely an electrical engineer is the contrast in the amount of regulatory red-tape involved between bio-science and IT/electronic-science. Aside from the FCC, we hardware guys don't really have to answer to anyone. As far as I know, the software guys don't answer to anyone at all. However, in order to protect consumers against potentially dangerous products applied physically to the human body, drug manufacturers, foodstuff producers, and research biologists work under a HUGE magnifying glass with the FDA watching and approving of their every move. The criticality of documentation for the establishment of a paper trail of accountability is so thorough that to many slashdotters, it would border on rediculous. On tope of that, any research that uses animal test subjects are also watched over by the USDA to ensure proper treatment of the animals and uncompromised testing methods.
With all this oversight, it is very difficult, nearly impossible to emulate the kind of development that the X-prize seeks to stimulate. An ambitious entrepreneur with lots of dreams and great ideas is simply not going to be able to cut across all that bureaucratic red-tape no matter how much capital investment (s)he has. You need to have a different kind of resource, like for example relationships with established laboratories staffed with qualified (and interested) professionals who are willing and capable of doing the kind of research to bring your ideas to reality.
Ellen Kleist of Nuuk, Greenland and Harald Moi of Oslo, Norway,
for their cautionary medical report "Transmission of Gonorrhea
Through an Inflatable Doll." [Published in "Genitourinary
Medicine," vol. 69, no. 4, Aug. 1993, p. 322.]
There is an infectious threshold that a contagion needs to pass before it can spread through a population as an epidemic. If used properly, a drug that is 99% effective can nip it in the bud before the epidemic stage provides an opportunity for widspread replication and the chances for mutation.. If it doesn't reproduce much in the wild, it doesn't get a whole lot of opportunity to mutate into something dangerous. Used incorrectly, or abused in obviously stupid ways to serve other ends, be it political or otherwise, resistance *will* be a problem in the future.
The problem of non-human hosts (birds, obviously, but also swines), however, complicates the picture a bit. Using drugs to treat human cases goes a long way toward keeping an epidemic in check. This is especially true considering how mobile we are in this day and age. The agriculture industry has also had mixed success in keeping domestic livestock safe. But what worries a lot of experts are migratory wild birds. They are the one variable we have almost no control over.
On a slightly different note, the flu seems to be giving up a lot of its secrets. There is a timely article from reuters via Yahoo that highlights some new (?maybe old but uncirculated in the mainstream press?) information researchers have uncovered about the 1918 flu and the similarities to H5N1.
As such, maybe this drug, if developed and used properly, is enough to deal with the problem. Kill 99% with the drug. Let the immune system, unmolested and unprovoked, deal with the remaining 1%.
Heh, Why bother "happening" to be in the city at all? Point your Pringle yagi antenna - powered wireless connection west across the bay and be a proud San Franciscan from the comfort of your own home. If I needed to, I know I would. But seriously, I'm wondering 2 things:
How tamper proof are they actually going to make this thing? If the policy is libral/versatile/friendly enough, they probably won't face *too* much circumvention attempts. But there will inevitably be a few bad apples intent upon being a pain in the ass for the service providers and ruin it to varying degrees for the rest of us.
What does this mean for the community run free wireless groups already operating in SF? With the uniqueness and value of their efforts decreased, will they fold and cease to exist? Would that loss of diversity and choice be harmful? Have the leaders/organizers of the project(s) come out with public statements regarding the deployment?
No! No! No!
Any hacker with even an ounce of skill is more than capable of setting up shop on his own. What you gotta do is offer the guy something he would never EVER get legitimately. What these criminal types REALLY ought to do is come on slashdot here and promise they can arrange regular *private* meetings with our favorite adult performers from the pr0n we all download.
Slashdot Mirror
err.....
How many slashdoters are aware of the fact that aggressive antibiotic treatments are often followed by the consumption of "pro-biotics" to restore the natural fauna in our bodies? We kill the good bugs as well as the bad bugs then we colonize ourselves with the good bugs again. Doctors and health professionals don't like to admit it, but much of modern medicine is the blind brandishing of a blunt weapon that all too often accumulates significant collateral damage.
Biofilm formation is an inherently un-symbiotic behavior. The polysaccharide matrix making up the biofilm essentially forms a barrier that inhibits both beneficial as well as harmful interactions. More often than not, biofilms are secreted by aggressive parasites to make it harder for their hosts to remove or kill them.
One of the best examples I know if is infestations of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Due to a genetically inherited defective protein pump in the cells of CF sufferers, the bacteria can thrive in the unbalanced environment of their lungs. They form biofilms so that our own immune system can't get to them and take them out. The biofilm, consequently is also an effective barrier against antibiotics and other drugs often used to treat infections.
If these guys at MIT can work up a viable version of this that is medically safe, it will prevent a lot of headaches for doctors trying to treat various diseases.
Your 2 cents are much appreciated. Thank you for fleshing out a point I tried to (but was too impatient to properly) make in my concluding comment. I framed my diatribe mostly along the lines of "bad information or vague miss-information is more damaging to a knowledge seeker than difficult or lack of comprehension". I wanted to end on the notion that throwing in everything along with the kitchen sink in an effort to appeal to the novice who want everything at their finger tips was a bad idea, being a serious dis-service to those looking for the topic of interest rather than supporting knowledge. As you so noted, the modularity of Wikis makes this an easy problem to solve. In fact, I think that happens to be one of the most attractive features of resources like wikipedia as it allows one to build a mental web of relationships, maping out how different ideas relate and interact with one another.
But remember, the context of the original complaint against wikipedia pertained to science articles. And in your own words: "As Wikipedia is more a reference than a textbook, it doesn't make sense for it to try to teach....." Those who come to wikipedia for enlightenment should not necesarily expect to use it as a tool for becoming a really proficient expert in any particular technical field. You might not have liked to decipher the math symbols you encountered in the course of your earlier investigation, but you're fully capable of looking it up, right? At wikipedia, those who know what they're looking for can pick and choose, those who don't know have the option of digging deeper or widening their investigation. That is what a reference like wikipedia ought to offer. I think it should *never* convey to a knowledge seeker notions resembling "well, essentially, this is *ALL* it really is...."
As an engineer communicating your ideas to other, you probably have the luxury of engaging in exchanges and feedback. You likely have a chance to probe your audience's background to determine the best approach in explaining something. That is an advantage wikipedia does not have. The one-size-fits-all requirement being demanded of wikipedia unfortunately can not be met with so many different types of users. I just feel it is a better compromise to let the non-expert/novice reach a little higher and work a little harder than to intentionally throttle the potential of a good reference source.
Well, to be fair, science is hard. It may not be a bad thing that getting the most out of wikipedia requires a "layperson" to put a bit more effort into it. Language use can certainly be tweeked for better readability in a few wiki articles, so I agree, to some extent, with the points raised by the blogger.
But sometimes the goal of disseminating good information runs counter to the goal of convincing the public. Just yesterday, we had an armchair scientist wannabe ranting and raving about ideas as if he's an expert here on /. when in reality he is complete clueless. The guy was so completely bewitched by a slick british documentary on global warming (of the "alien autopsy"/"moon landing hoax" variety) that a full day of arguing with those who know better only succeeded in showing everyone how stubborn he can be.
I may be treading on a tangent with the direction I'm taking with this comment, but I think it is important to distinguish writing laymen style for understanding versus writing laymen style for pursuasion. I think it is critically important for resources like wikipedia to maintain scientific discipline and accuracy at whatever the cost and not pander to political or ideological motives. This includes simplifying dificult ideas to fit a non-expert's conceptual grasp. If resources like wikipedia become too diluted, people will get the dangerous idea that real science as done by scientists is somthing of trivial complexity or arbitrary objectivity. Nutjobs and crackpots would be able to use Wikipedia in ways completely counter to it's purpose. The best thing that Wikipedia can do for the layperson is act as a conduit for anyone sufficiently motivated to really learn the material by link hopping or following the references cited by contributors. Other wise, a simple "authoritive" exposition might just end up missleading or missinforming the intended audience.
I think your advocacy of doing away with length requirement is a noble attempt at the solution to this problem. However, with many complex ideas, voluminous information often ends up being convoluted and confusing. Think about it: in an article on modern file systems or database design, do you *really* want to delve into the finer aspects of sorting algorithms?
....then turn around and claim that everyone else is trying to be civil, when the person you're thanking used the words "I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds"Because it is the only reasonable response to your crazy beligerant rants. Seriously, what choice do you give us? The two of us are not the only ones who think you're nuts. You've given EVERYONE on this thread reason to think so. Maybe you're just a bad communicator or maybe you just broke up with your girlfriend or maybe you have some other good reason for being an absolute ass to everyone who disagrees with you. But in the end, it is your actions and attitude that makes it hard to discuss the science involved here.
And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote....NeutronCowboy and I did the same check and came to the same conclusion. I don't think you understand what it means to cite your source. Other than these two instances where others can examine the same things you're talking about to judge for themselves how to interperate the information provided, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY CHECKED. I gave a list of tools and methods you mentioned that you claim provide information to support your claims. To be fair, you've made the same assertions to others elsewhere in this post. But you have NEGLECTED TO PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL DATA from any studies using these methods that support your position. Saying doesn't make it so. You can tell us repeatedly there is data that shows you're right until you're blue in the face. But unless we can check the same data, you have demonstrated nothing. Maybe you actually do believe you've cited 11 sources, but you have not done it in any way that allows anyone else to follow up on them. Maybe you actually do believe the poorly thought out conclusions from your myopic understanding of the issues. I've read through some of your response to the data cited by other folks. I'd urge you to take a closer look at their responses which easily debunks your claims. Pay attention to them - they're trying to educate you.
You say you keep repeating yourself and no one listens. Have you stopped to consider that there might be something wrong with what you're say? Or perhaps something wrong with they way you're trying to communicate your ideas? If you're going to insult anyone who tells you that you have not gotten your own ideas straight, what incentive do other have to pay any attention to you? You don't make me angry, you make me sad. Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate. But the way you've gone about on this thread discredits the whole legitimacy of being curious about the other side. Who in their right mind would be willing to explore an idea advocated by an abrasive nut who is insulting everyone trying to talk to him? You start of by calling the scientific consensus a hoax, with nothing to back up this outrageous claim other than a single documentary riddled with breaches of good journalistic ethics. Your assertion that no one has challanged the science in the program is just not true: According to Houghton(former co-chair of IPCC) the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming".
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
I suggest you take the time to seriously examine the ideas and opinions presented here in oposition to yours. enlightening yourself would *not* be time wasted. And I believe I speak for all of slashdot when I say that *my*(our) time has not been wasted if I(we) have succeeded in teaching you something and compelled you to think critically and scientifically about the issue of global warming.
Hmmm.... do you think the borg can assimilate superhuman abilities? What would be the machine version of super abilities? (The ability to fly and super strength relative to animal life forms are pretty mundane for a machine to achieve.)
But I suppose you're right. What I'm having a hard time wraping my head around is trying to judge as a creature of flesh and blood what the most desirable qualities are for a machine life form that doesn't have any basis in reality yet. Am I supposed ask "If I were a machine...."? But then again, If I were a machine, I'd probably wonder about all the things we biological creatures take for granted that are not a part of machine life.
There is a problem with comparing things from the realm of thought and speculation to things from the realm of reality. It really is like deciding which is better: Florida oranges or the golden apples of Greek mythology. In the power example, we can measure or calculate the calories consumed by biological lifeforms with good accuracy, but does it really make sense to compare that against the power requirements of a PC which can't even do the basic machine equivalent of some of the life functions of the simplest bacteria? Since we don't have anything remotely aproaching the sophistication of a machine intelligence, I think it is a cop out to assume that the energy requirements of any such entity with the associated processing power would be naturaly less than that of a biologic life form.
Regarding regenerative abilities, it's easy to conjucture up the idea of self-replication/self-repairing Von Neumann Probes, but again, in the absence of a viable concrete example it makes little sense to say that one is superior to another. From a conceptual perspective (based purely on the essential principles of each type of life forms) hearts can be transplanted (though this is currently still an imperfect reality, it is nonetheless a reality rather than a conjecture.) There is every reason to anticipate that complete replacement with a regenerated heart is possible in the future. Likewise, severed limbs can be reattached and possibly also completely regrown in the future. (Didn't some woman in Europe get a face transplant recently?) These are all medical interventions, no different from a user physically replacing a malfunctioning computer part. There is no reason to assume that further human evolution biologically (be it artificial or natural) can not approach the same level of advancement that you anticipate for a machine life form.
I will conclude by addressing your last point:
"I work with reliably designed equipment every day. It's my job. Look at this from a logical point of view: If you're a robot lifeform, are you REALLY going to design yourself to the same terrible tollerances that humans design their throwaway society?"
If the economic trade-offs work out in favor of producing low tolerance products for throwaway applications, why not? Human society is not inefficient - as a whole, we have motivations that currently place such types of efficiency at a lower priority. It isn't that we can't do it, we have simply chosen not to. It isn't something I'm too thrilled about either. As a child, I grew up in a different society that is a *lot* less consumer oriented and very frugal about everyday resources.
But you know, in the end, it is ALL a moot point. As long as we are talking about science fiction. Why not just dispense with physical existance all together? Why not just choose to be beings of pure energy like the ascended Ancients of Stargate SG-1?
Well, now your post makes sense. But I still think you're misguided. machine life. robotic intelligence. Show me? If we're going to consider this from the realm of fantasy or speculative fiction, I can conjure up equally amazing notions but with super-intelligent pink dragons. Perhaps you've thought a lot about the perfect machine life. And that's fine - I admire imaginative people. But what is to say that your conception represents the peak of existential perfection? I suppose you can think whatever you want. I don't mean this as a flame, please don't think I'm intentionally trying to piss you off or disrespect your opinion. But I think life as we have it, right now, the biological variety, is infinitely more awesome than any science fiction idea of machines conceived by man. Dear lord, man! We are still trying to figure out exactly how most of it works! :-)
[update: Damn you, NeutronCowboy, for beating me to the punch. But really, thank you. You have been a lot more elequent than I in this thread.]
0 2/1686
You do *not* get to have the last word. Everyone here is mostly trying to have a civil discussion with you. But so far, all you've done is insult and intimidate your critics. You say I don't provide any references or resources. I need to cite only one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Oreskes has sampled almost a thousand seperate scholastic studies across multiple disciplines. and there was *NO* direct dissent. This is a far cry from the "gobal warming hoax" you claim. These researchers are serious scientists. They only responsibility they have is to their own designated area of research.
What have you done? Aside from providing a link to that god-awful documentary and a reference to "the global carbon cycle" at the Umich website cited by one of your critics, you have produced absolutely squat. I have gone through all your comments and as of 2 PM PDT, everything you've expressed so far in reply to those in this discussion thread has been a whole bunch of hand waving, groundless assertions, or evasive facts. You're quick to dismiss the references provided by others but other than just those two citations, I can't find any other sources despite your repeated assertion that you have indeed provided references. In reply to my earier comment, you mention:
ice record
CO2 sedimentation
weather balloons
atmospheric temperature gradient
oceanic outgassing measurements
the CO2/temperature correlation
(basic common sense)
saying doesn't make it so. where is the reference to back up your position? Where are the figures and charts from studies that use these methods to disagree with the conclusions of our current understanding of global warming? I think your engaged in this exchange just for the sake of arguing without any genuine intention to enlighten or be enlightened. Some of what you say just makes absolutely no sense. "realistic data that predates animal life"????? "wholesale rape of baby seals."??????
In light of such bizarre comments, I am left with no alternative but to urge you to stop bothering the nice folks at slashdot and don't skip out on your medications.
Mutually corroborating data makes for a convincing argument. When multiple investigative conclusions all point to the same thing, it's hard to say the conclusion should be dismissed based in inaccuracy. The ice core itself may or may not be accurate enough (what is enough?) But when considered along with everything else, it is spot on. Suppose we indulge you for a moment. 10 years? The industrial revolution has been going on a lot longer than that. Even with a margin of 10 years, the general trend is *not* due to statistical sampling or measurement errors. The "source" that you cite is nothing more than the polished product of a video production outfit. Professionally speaking, they're no different from "alien autopsy", "moon landing hoax", and other similar embarrassments. Real data, like the type that comes from peer reviewed journals, you seem to be unwilling to produce at the moment. Go ahead - we'll wait.
I am not familiar with this perspective as a part of mainstream scientific thought. To my knowledge, Ice core records correlate pretty well with tree ring records and other geologic evidence. Pretty much all of it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?
On a more serious note, the notion of cold-related deaths, especially the flu and other infectious diseases, is very misleading. The cold isn't directly responsible for most of the cause of death. It is the circumstances created by it. When studying emerging infectious diseases a few semesters ago, our professor explained that the cold drives people indoors where large numbers of both the infected and potential victims congregate in crowded places (like apartments, dorms etc). Combined with reduced air circulation to conserve heat and general lack of mobility, people are put at much higher risks of exposure and illnesses can spread with ease. One can easily deduce that hot weather is capable of doing very much the same thing.
I was just goofing off when I posted that lame borg joke. However, I think you're suffering from a severe lack of perspective. No machine yet created by humans have as of yet approached the elegence, efficiency, or versitility of what evolution has shaped over more than a billion years. Almost every living thing is capable of some degree of self-repair. For how much of our modern hardware can you say the same? Man has been designing tools and machines since our cavemen ancestors began forming abstract thoughts. But mother nature has been doing the same with Earth's entire biosphere when the sun was still a teenager.
When your praise of machines are extend to computer hardware, the comparision to biological systems is almost laughable.
Biological material requires huge amounts of energy to maintain, doesn't function as efficiently or as cleanly as a well designed machine,...Do you know how much waste heat your computer puts out? Or are you simply deaf to the noise of that case fan cooling the inside of your CPU? And also, with such a great design, how come each new generation of machines seems to sport their own form factor?
...has a pitiful effective lifetime, and failure of one component WILL destroy the rest of the unit.Let me as you: what is the average life time of a typical computer (such as *yours*) between upgrades? Can *your* computer function without a keyboard? mouse? monitor? It ain't growing back like a gecko's tail.
...Machine material is effectively immortal, can run on as much or as little energy as is available, is effectively immortal...I must disagree, as I've burned out two monitors, fried a Pentium, and suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure over less than 20 years since I've regularly used a computer. And if you've ever tried using a computer in places with low quality power, (such as parts of India, Africa, South America where outages, power spikes, and brown outs are common) you would know how fickled the hardware inside your box reall is. You want a reliable computer system, you need to invest a *lot* of effort to put together robust and well designed parts. You want a reliable lifeform, you go and pick up some pond scum from any dirty watering hole.
Don't be ridiculous!
The most logical thing for them to do is to assimilate us all.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Will someone please explain this "tar" business??????
I don't know anything about superhero comics, but I'm beginning to get the idea that the writers at DC have become anti-smoking crusaders while I was busy not looking.
all the mutations are in the genes of the queen, but none of it comes to expression in the phenology of the queen
This is more or less correct. I think what most of the folks here are getting hung up on is some slight miss conceptions and a bit of confusion over your slightly odd use of terminology.
Okay, A summary of a few points to (hopefully) clear up some of this confusion:
It is important to distinguish between somatic cell mutations and germ line mutations. Based on what you've said already, it seems you understand this distinction, but does not trust the conclusion this distinction leads to. To be specific, a single ant of the sterile worker caste which develops a mutation would not be able to propagate that mutation. If the mutation arose some where between fertilization and full maturation of an embryo, however, there is a chance that this particular developing embryo would be stimulated by environmental factors (in the case of honey bees, being feed with royal jelly) and develop into a fertile queen. Provided this mutation is a germ line mutation that affects all developing ovaries, this queen is now capable of passing on the mutation to all her offsprings - including any that may be stimulated by environmental factors into developing into a new queen. Likewise, if the mutation happens to affect the germ line of the male drones, it would similarly propagate through ensuing generations.
It is important to distinguish between gene mutation and gene expression. Most routine steps and processes involved in the development and growth of a hive colony that is relevent to this particular discussion are regulated by gene expression that are controlled by a variety of factors, not gene mutation. Individual ants develop into separate castes not because of mutations but because they are directed by exposure to hormones and other environmental signals which switch certain genes on and off. The fate of any particulary embryo is not cast in stone (pardon the pun), but is rather directed in the way that is most beneficial to the colony. So in this sense, a queen ant does not grow a sac in it's abdomen for storing sweety goodness because the genes in its body is has turned it into an egg laying machine rather than a pantry - it has nothing to do with mutation.
It is important to recognize that evolution is not a directed process with any particular goal. As such, it often makes little sense to talk about what is ultimately useful or whatever anyone's particular judgement of "fitness" happens to be. Evolution is notorious for taking winding meandering paths that arrive at the most suprising of places. I work with microbiologist who study membrane bound protein pumps that allow a bacteria to get rid of drugs that doctors use to cure infections (yep, this is one aspect of the increasingly famous and dreaded buzzword "antibiotic resistance"). Guess what? Investigations of the molecular structure indicates it evolved from an ancestor structure which also has developed slightly differently and branched off to become the amazing and miraculous flagella that creationists are so fond of promoting as singularly unique. (On a side note, everyone needs to realize that if the creationists have their way, we throw away all the progress made in our understanding of the evolutionary basis of immunology and drug resistance. minor infections? Seasonal flu vaccines? forget it. People will die by the millions - all because we choose to be ignorant about the way mother nature works.) In an ant or a bee, a mutation that *you* would consider to be beneficial may not work out in the grand scheme of things. For example a mutation of a certain metabolic trait (the ability to better digest woody fiber) might benefit one individual (let's say a queen termite that is founding a new colony), but if that individual happens to be living in an environment where the opportunity to exploit that trait is not met (the colony is in praire or grassland with not
talk about deja vu!
Some time ago, I wondered about the exact situation this article raises.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130374 &cid=10879347
At the time, it fascinated me because it occured to me that you could have twins which share a maternal set of chromosomes but have one sex chromosome from the father be an X for one of the siblings and the other be a Y.
In other words, almost identical twin brother/sister pair! One wonders how much of gender is actually in our genes. Well, to have a pair of individuals share so much with the exception of the sex chromosomes - it becomes more reasonable to do an actual comparison. (I am aware there is still lots of room for genetic variation from the rest of the father's somatic set) I don't know how scientific it would be, but as a thought experiment, I wasn't to concerned about it at the time I posted it.
troll????? are you kidding me? jeez! some people have no sense of humor.
ahhh...good old fashioned netscape.
That's cute.as opposed to IE...who is just simply slutty. We all look down at how easily it can behave promiscuously on the web. But at the same time some of us often face a desire or need to access resources that the slut so conveniently provides. Oh, what's a faithful man to do!
I think you have the right idea, but there is another angle that is perhaps a bit more salient. Like lots of folks here on slashdot, I was trained in technology of the hardware/software variety (BSEE). But I'm also in the process of completing a couple of certificates in Bio-technology. What I wasn't aware of before as purely an electrical engineer is the contrast in the amount of regulatory red-tape involved between bio-science and IT/electronic-science. Aside from the FCC, we hardware guys don't really have to answer to anyone. As far as I know, the software guys don't answer to anyone at all. However, in order to protect consumers against potentially dangerous products applied physically to the human body, drug manufacturers, foodstuff producers, and research biologists work under a HUGE magnifying glass with the FDA watching and approving of their every move. The criticality of documentation for the establishment of a paper trail of accountability is so thorough that to many slashdotters, it would border on rediculous. On tope of that, any research that uses animal test subjects are also watched over by the USDA to ensure proper treatment of the animals and uncompromised testing methods.
With all this oversight, it is very difficult, nearly impossible to emulate the kind of development that the X-prize seeks to stimulate. An ambitious entrepreneur with lots of dreams and great ideas is simply not going to be able to cut across all that bureaucratic red-tape no matter how much capital investment (s)he has. You need to have a different kind of resource, like for example relationships with established laboratories staffed with qualified (and interested) professionals who are willing and capable of doing the kind of research to bring your ideas to reality.
...but something close, perhaps?
the 1996 Ig Nobel Prize for public health goes to....
Ellen Kleist of Nuuk, Greenland and Harald Moi of Oslo, Norway, for their cautionary medical report "Transmission of Gonorrhea Through an Inflatable Doll." [Published in "Genitourinary Medicine," vol. 69, no. 4, Aug. 1993, p. 322.]
There is an infectious threshold that a contagion needs to pass before it can spread through a population as an epidemic. If used properly, a drug that is 99% effective can nip it in the bud before the epidemic stage provides an opportunity for widspread replication and the chances for mutation.. If it doesn't reproduce much in the wild, it doesn't get a whole lot of opportunity to mutate into something dangerous. Used incorrectly, or abused in obviously stupid ways to serve other ends, be it political or otherwise, resistance *will* be a problem in the future.
The problem of non-human hosts (birds, obviously, but also swines), however, complicates the picture a bit. Using drugs to treat human cases goes a long way toward keeping an epidemic in check. This is especially true considering how mobile we are in this day and age. The agriculture industry has also had mixed success in keeping domestic livestock safe. But what worries a lot of experts are migratory wild birds. They are the one variable we have almost no control over.
On a slightly different note, the flu seems to be giving up a lot of its secrets. There is a timely article from reuters via Yahoo that highlights some new (?maybe old but uncirculated in the mainstream press?) information researchers have uncovered about the 1918 flu and the similarities to H5N1.
As such, maybe this drug, if developed and used properly, is enough to deal with the problem. Kill 99% with the drug. Let the immune system, unmolested and unprovoked, deal with the remaining 1%.......at least all the smart people who read slashdot. Oh, wait..
I think that was unintentionally funny.
Heh, Why bother "happening" to be in the city at all? Point your Pringle yagi antenna - powered wireless connection west across the bay and be a proud San Franciscan from the comfort of your own home. If I needed to, I know I would. But seriously, I'm wondering 2 things:
How tamper proof are they actually going to make this thing? If the policy is libral/versatile/friendly enough, they probably won't face *too* much circumvention attempts. But there will inevitably be a few bad apples intent upon being a pain in the ass for the service providers and ruin it to varying degrees for the rest of us.
What does this mean for the community run free wireless groups already operating in SF? With the uniqueness and value of their efforts decreased, will they fold and cease to exist? Would that loss of diversity and choice be harmful? Have the leaders/organizers of the project(s) come out with public statements regarding the deployment?
If Brittany Spears can tell kids what's fashionable......
Like, for example the wonders of semiconductor physics!
No! No! No! Any hacker with even an ounce of skill is more than capable of setting up shop on his own. What you gotta do is offer the guy something he would never EVER get legitimately. What these criminal types REALLY ought to do is come on slashdot here and promise they can arrange regular *private* meetings with our favorite adult performers from the pr0n we all download.