He thinks Galileo got a fair trial and yet he was convicted for literally speaking the truth. He is against birth control and is also against infertile couples trying to have a child. I don't think he clearly understands reality let alone science.
That's a job for the scientists that actually understand what they're doing.
Actually, as a scientist, I would disagree with that. I agree that ethics should be judged by someone who understands what the scientists in question are doing (which clearly excludes the pope) but it should be judged by someone with a little more distance from the issue. Otherwise you end up with a conflict of interest between wanting to see if you are correct vs. doing the right thing.
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil.
So there is absolutely zero danger of such artifical DNA escaping the lab and getting into the environment cause goodness knows what damage? I can accept that this danger will be minimal but you would have to do some convincing to suggest that it is zero. For a start the new base pair were generated by trying many different random combinations until they found one that replicated. Clearly this suggests that they do not know exactly what this random combination will do when added to a cell, particularly since this is there next research project!
The usual best defence against "what could possibly go wrong" is to say that this already happens in nature so it can't be dangerous. This is the main argument we use against the nay-sayers of the LHC creating a black hole which will swallow the Earth. Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere are far more energetic and so if that were a danger we would not be here to discuss it! However the whole point of this experiment is to create something which nature has not done before (to our knowledge).
So the only argument I can see which is left is that the safe guards in effect to prevent this getting into the environment are so good that the risk is minimal and/or the chance that this new DNA pair creating a dangerous organism are zero. Since nobody knows what this pair will do yet I can't see how you can be certain of the latter (although I accept the risk may be incredibly small) and no containment procedure is fool proof since it involves humans (e.g. foot and mouth virus escape last year from a UK lab).
So the question we have to ask is whether the value of the research is worth the risk? As a scientist, though not a biologist, I would be inclined to say yes since it seems that this will help you guys understand some of the fundamentals of DNA plus it sounds really cool. Of course I'm a physicist so there may well be some very valid reason I know nothing about as to why there is no danger at all. So the best way to educate me is to explain why there is zero risk. Telling me that I'm stupid for even questioning that something could possibly go wrong, without telling me why I'm stupid, does not inspire confidence!
It should not be applied at all, it's similar to the CD and DVD levy that assumes everyone is a crook.
The nice thing about the CD levy is that it does not assume that you are a crook because the same act that introduced that also made it legal to copy the music for your own private use. Hence it assumes that people buy blank CDs to copy music. I would argue that this is most definitely true since for computer data you would buy DVDs and these do not (yet) have a levy.
But what's a good analogy to the "amps of power" misinformant? Chewing on battery cables?
The one that springs to mind is superconducting magnets which can have large currents but need hardly any power to keep them running (and can store huge amounts of energy - 360MJ for the ATLAS particle physics detector at CERN). However that is not really an 'everyday' example, well unless you are a particle physicist or an NMR specialist. The problem is that you need to have a large current with a tiny voltage (opposite of static electricity) and that requires a tiny/zero resistance.
Use part of the taxes to provide a site where music, films etc. can be downloaded for free from within Canada and then distribute the taxes each month based on the number of times an item is downloaded to a unique IP address that month.
...but what about signal intrusion? You could make the robots mutiny for you.
I'm sure that's exactly what your favourite terrorist organization would love. Removing immense power from the hands of single individuals is how we managed to climb out of the medieval dark ages. I for one would not welcome the arrival of our robot controlling overlords.
Eight and 9-megajoule rail guns have been fired before, but providing 3 million amps of power per shot has been a limitation.
I agree. This would be extremely hard to achieve since amp is a unit of current. The problem is not that but rather that in combination with the voltage required to drive it.
Unfortunately you are a little off with your physics there. To double the velocity you must quadruple the energy. i.e a 128MJ rail gun would be almost 50% of escape velocity. However you can always reduce the mass of the projectile, as assuming the energy imparted remains the same, get closer to escape velocity.
There is still one other effect you have forgotten. The 11km/s escape velocity of the Earth assumes zero air resistance. If you manage to travel at 11km/s on the surface of the planet and you will find that you have a heating problem considerably worse than something like the space shuttle re-entry and this will slow you down pretty rapidly.
From the article: It fits in a manila folder, you can slide it under a door, and if you threw it hard enough you could probably chop someone in half with the thing.
So instead of the MacBook Air we should call it Oddjob's Laptop? Seems appropriate given that it's an Apple and they definitely made some bizarre choices when designing it.
Government workers are already very good at commuting: no matter what the order their numbers always multiply. So telecommuting shouldn't be that hard for them.
Unless you live in most of mainland Europe, where the decimal separator is a comma not a full stop.
...and if you are writing in French then it is correct to do that. However the post was in English and so it is incorrect to use ',' for the decimal point and '.' to separate numbers. It is the same with speech marks: you should adapt to the convention used by the language you are writing in. If I can manage that courtesy to you when writing French or German then perhaps you can manage the same courtesy in return when writing in English?
Looking at the examples you give. Over 64, no organ transplant...so that a younger person who has a better chance of living longer will get the transplant instead. Live in non-debilitating pain for one year so resources can be used to possibly save someone else's life. Since one definition of evil is concern for yourself only at the expense of everyone else it seems to me that only one of these choices is evil.
I genuinely can't understand the mentality of all these people who claim to be constantly going on 10+ hour flights with no access power sockets and want an ultraportable laptop but also want to carry the weight of several spare batteries.
It's simple. I want an ultaportable because, when I get where I am going, it is good to have a small laptop to carry around meetings. Then I can leave the extra battery in the office and switch it out at lunch so I have a fresh battery for the afternoon. I also want to use the laptop on the flight there, and since it is a transatlantic flight it lasts 8-9 hours and Air Canada does not have power sockets in their economy seats yet (although they do have them on some domestic flights so I guess they will eventually get them on intercontinental ones too).
The mentality I find really hard to understand is the one which says that you shouldn't add 1-2mm of thickness for a catch to allow the battery to be replaced! Lets face it the number of people who will not buy it because they cannot quickly replace the battery (effecting an instant recharge) will be huge compared to the number of people would would not buy it if it were 2 mm thicker. Afterall, even 2mm thicker it would still be the world's thinest laptop.
post screenshots of your airline tickets or you're all a bunch of whining fucking liars.
You don't believe that people fly transatlantic? I don't have a boarding pass at the moment since I only fly in the summer when I'm not lecturing but I don't see why it is so hard to believe that people do this. There are lots of planes and the ones I fly on are usually close to full.
It is not for the atheist to prove the non existance of anything.
I am not saying that the atheist has to prove anything. All religions are a matter of personal conscience and if someone is an atheist, while I may not share their faith, I am not going to demand that they prove it is 'correct' or stop believing any more than I would go up to a Hindu, Jew etc and demand that they prove that they are 'correct'.
To prove non-existance of anything is an impossible task and is therefore an unreasonable request.
Sorry, but from a scientific point of view this is completely incorrect. The best example of this is the ether. This was the mysterious non-interacting medium that, in the late 1800's was used to explain the propagation of light. At the time it was the simplest explanation for how light propagated through a vacuum. All other waves had some existing medium to propagate through and so, the easiest solution, was to presume that light too had such a medium. Michelson-Morley proved the non-existence of the ether by studying the motion of the Earth through the supposed ether.
This example shows two things. First that it is indeed possible to prove that something does not exist. The second is that Occam's razor does not always give the correct answer: it might be a very good guide but it is by no means always right.
By the same token I have no proof that there aren't 8 dimensions in our universe so I shouldn't not believe that either?
It is very interesting that you should choose this example because there are serious scientific theories that suggest there may well be more than 3+1 dimensions in the Universe. If you talk to a scientist then the response you will generally get is that we don't have any evidence of 4+ space-like dimensions yet but there might be that many, we just don't know. You will generally not hear anyone categorically state that these theories are wrong and that there must only be 3+1 dimensions. They might have a personal belief about whether the theory is right or not but the scientific point of view is that it is unproven. The same holds for your more outlandish examples (except, sadly, for Father Christmas since you can show that it is impossible for him to perform his task in the manner attributed within the laws of physics) - and may be the flying spaghetti monster too but I have no idea what that is.
So for an atheist to go around saying categorically that God does not exist, unless they have some proof that they have not disclosed to the rest of us, they are making a leap of faith...and faith is something that suggests a religion. That leap may be based on rationality and they may have logical arguments to back it up but, as shown in the ether example, rationality and logical argument are great guides most of the time but are by no means infallible. Hence my contention that if you really want to get at the truth the first thing you have to be willing to do is admit that you might be wrong.
This was intended to be a simple example that was asy to understand. The evidence for GR comes from many different sources. For example the orbital mechanics of binary neutron stars agrees with GR and hence with the gravitational field propagating at light speed. While we know that GR does not hold for large gravitational fields at extremely small scales the solar system is not such a case and hence, we can predict its behaviour with a very high degree of confidence.
Atheism is not a religion, it's just the lack of belief in deities. It is the default position. There is no doctrine, ritual, or morality associated with a lack of belief.
No, Agnosticism is the lack of belief. Atheism is the active belief that God does not exist. Hence Agnosticism is the 'default' position in that they have made no decision about the existence of God and could be swayed either way by evidence. An Atheist, on the other hand, actively denies the existence of God without proof of his non-existence (lack of evidence of existence is NOT the same as proof of non-existence).
This is why militant Atheists are just as intolerant and bigotted as fundamental Christians. When you are unwilling to accept even the possibility that you may have some things wrong you are very unlikely to find the truth.
How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
It cannot. If the sun disappeared this instant the Earth would continue in orbit under its gravitational field for 8 minutes more: the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the Earth. In fact, rather ironically, it is the theory of relativity which, in its general form, explains gravity that also requires that information is never transmitted faster than the speed of light. So far from gravity having instantaneous action at a distance, the study of gravity has shown us that nothing can have instantaneous action at a distance...at least if you you like to have cause precede effect.
If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?
I know what you mean but don't worry - the word is getting out about how you treat foreigners so soon we should be smart enough to know not to come to the US.
As cool as Google Apps may be, you're essentially trusting your data integrity and security to an outside company.
Just to drive home your point further what can be even more important is that, as trustworthy as Google may be, they are subject to US law. This is a huge problem in places like Canada which have privacy laws since using, for example, GMail means that your organization can end up breaking Canadian law because the US government has free access to any data in your email which you may be legally responsible for protecting.
One of the things which amazed me though is how it seems impossible to actually buy a simple HDD recorder in the US. I stayed in Albuquerque over christmas and, since things were a lot cheaper than in Canada, looked at getting a DVD recorder with an HDD built in. As far as I can tell you cannot buy them in the US. None at Best Buy or Circuit City, neither did their online sites list them. The only one I could find anywhere was a rather low capacity one at WalMart (which I did not buy).
So why aren't there any? My initial reaction was that there was some bizarre US copyright/DMCA thing about having HDD recorders...but then I saw Tivo's on sale (but don't want to pay a monthly charge). So is it a patent thing or is it just that, unlike Europe and Canada, there is no demand?
So it's perfectly okay for a Creationist to demand that he be allowed to give a speech at a biology department?
No it is not OK to demand it but it is fine if the creationist is invited to give a talk by someone with the authority to do so. Some of the other members of the department may well disagree strongly but out of basic decence they should at least let the talk proceed. I understood that the administration had invited the Pope to give a talk.
Slashdot Mirror
He thinks Galileo got a fair trial and yet he was convicted for literally speaking the truth. He is against birth control and is also against infertile couples trying to have a child. I don't think he clearly understands reality let alone science.
There's no indication that the new sequences code for any amino acid.
That's not quite the same as saying that there is evidence that they do not code any amino acid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's a job for the scientists that actually understand what they're doing.
Actually, as a scientist, I would disagree with that. I agree that ethics should be judged by someone who understands what the scientists in question are doing (which clearly excludes the pope) but it should be judged by someone with a little more distance from the issue. Otherwise you end up with a conflict of interest between wanting to see if you are correct vs. doing the right thing.
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil.
So there is absolutely zero danger of such artifical DNA escaping the lab and getting into the environment cause goodness knows what damage? I can accept that this danger will be minimal but you would have to do some convincing to suggest that it is zero. For a start the new base pair were generated by trying many different random combinations until they found one that replicated. Clearly this suggests that they do not know exactly what this random combination will do when added to a cell, particularly since this is there next research project!
The usual best defence against "what could possibly go wrong" is to say that this already happens in nature so it can't be dangerous. This is the main argument we use against the nay-sayers of the LHC creating a black hole which will swallow the Earth. Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere are far more energetic and so if that were a danger we would not be here to discuss it! However the whole point of this experiment is to create something which nature has not done before (to our knowledge).
So the only argument I can see which is left is that the safe guards in effect to prevent this getting into the environment are so good that the risk is minimal and/or the chance that this new DNA pair creating a dangerous organism are zero. Since nobody knows what this pair will do yet I can't see how you can be certain of the latter (although I accept the risk may be incredibly small) and no containment procedure is fool proof since it involves humans (e.g. foot and mouth virus escape last year from a UK lab).
So the question we have to ask is whether the value of the research is worth the risk? As a scientist, though not a biologist, I would be inclined to say yes since it seems that this will help you guys understand some of the fundamentals of DNA plus it sounds really cool. Of course I'm a physicist so there may well be some very valid reason I know nothing about as to why there is no danger at all. So the best way to educate me is to explain why there is zero risk. Telling me that I'm stupid for even questioning that something could possibly go wrong, without telling me why I'm stupid, does not inspire confidence!
It should not be applied at all, it's similar to the CD and DVD levy that assumes everyone is a crook.
The nice thing about the CD levy is that it does not assume that you are a crook because the same act that introduced that also made it legal to copy the music for your own private use. Hence it assumes that people buy blank CDs to copy music. I would argue that this is most definitely true since for computer data you would buy DVDs and these do not (yet) have a levy.
But what's a good analogy to the "amps of power" misinformant? Chewing on battery cables?
The one that springs to mind is superconducting magnets which can have large currents but need hardly any power to keep them running (and can store huge amounts of energy - 360MJ for the ATLAS particle physics detector at CERN). However that is not really an 'everyday' example, well unless you are a particle physicist or an NMR specialist. The problem is that you need to have a large current with a tiny voltage (opposite of static electricity) and that requires a tiny/zero resistance.
Use part of the taxes to provide a site where music, films etc. can be downloaded for free from within Canada and then distribute the taxes each month based on the number of times an item is downloaded to a unique IP address that month.
...but what about signal intrusion? You could make the robots mutiny for you.
I'm sure that's exactly what your favourite terrorist organization would love. Removing immense power from the hands of single individuals is how we managed to climb out of the medieval dark ages. I for one would not welcome the arrival of our robot controlling overlords.
Eight and 9-megajoule rail guns have been fired before, but providing 3 million amps of power per shot has been a limitation.
I agree. This would be extremely hard to achieve since amp is a unit of current. The problem is not that but rather that in combination with the voltage required to drive it.
Unfortunately you are a little off with your physics there. To double the velocity you must quadruple the energy. i.e a 128MJ rail gun would be almost 50% of escape velocity. However you can always reduce the mass of the projectile, as assuming the energy imparted remains the same, get closer to escape velocity.
There is still one other effect you have forgotten. The 11km/s escape velocity of the Earth assumes zero air resistance. If you manage to travel at 11km/s on the surface of the planet and you will find that you have a heating problem considerably worse than something like the space shuttle re-entry and this will slow you down pretty rapidly.
From the article: It fits in a manila folder, you can slide it under a door, and if you threw it hard enough you could probably chop someone in half with the thing.
So instead of the MacBook Air we should call it Oddjob's Laptop? Seems appropriate given that it's an Apple and they definitely made some bizarre choices when designing it.
Government workers are already very good at commuting: no matter what the order their numbers always multiply. So telecommuting shouldn't be that hard for them.
Unless you live in most of mainland Europe, where the decimal separator is a comma not a full stop.
...and if you are writing in French then it is correct to do that. However the post was in English and so it is incorrect to use ',' for the decimal point and '.' to separate numbers. It is the same with speech marks: you should adapt to the convention used by the language you are writing in. If I can manage that courtesy to you when writing French or German then perhaps you can manage the same courtesy in return when writing in English?
Sadly, if they are following the UNIX method, all they need to make children is 'fork'.
So pick your evil.
Looking at the examples you give. Over 64, no organ transplant...so that a younger person who has a better chance of living longer will get the transplant instead. Live in non-debilitating pain for one year so resources can be used to possibly save someone else's life. Since one definition of evil is concern for yourself only at the expense of everyone else it seems to me that only one of these choices is evil.
I genuinely can't understand the mentality of all these people who claim to be constantly going on 10+ hour flights with no access power sockets and want an ultraportable laptop but also want to carry the weight of several spare batteries.
It's simple. I want an ultaportable because, when I get where I am going, it is good to have a small laptop to carry around meetings. Then I can leave the extra battery in the office and switch it out at lunch so I have a fresh battery for the afternoon. I also want to use the laptop on the flight there, and since it is a transatlantic flight it lasts 8-9 hours and Air Canada does not have power sockets in their economy seats yet (although they do have them on some domestic flights so I guess they will eventually get them on intercontinental ones too).
The mentality I find really hard to understand is the one which says that you shouldn't add 1-2mm of thickness for a catch to allow the battery to be replaced! Lets face it the number of people who will not buy it because they cannot quickly replace the battery (effecting an instant recharge) will be huge compared to the number of people would would not buy it if it were 2 mm thicker. Afterall, even 2mm thicker it would still be the world's thinest laptop.
post screenshots of your airline tickets or you're all a bunch of whining fucking liars.
You don't believe that people fly transatlantic? I don't have a boarding pass at the moment since I only fly in the summer when I'm not lecturing but I don't see why it is so hard to believe that people do this. There are lots of planes and the ones I fly on are usually close to full.
It is not for the atheist to prove the non existance of anything.
I am not saying that the atheist has to prove anything. All religions are a matter of personal conscience and if someone is an atheist, while I may not share their faith, I am not going to demand that they prove it is 'correct' or stop believing any more than I would go up to a Hindu, Jew etc and demand that they prove that they are 'correct'.
To prove non-existance of anything is an impossible task and is therefore an unreasonable request.
Sorry, but from a scientific point of view this is completely incorrect. The best example of this is the ether. This was the mysterious non-interacting medium that, in the late 1800's was used to explain the propagation of light. At the time it was the simplest explanation for how light propagated through a vacuum. All other waves had some existing medium to propagate through and so, the easiest solution, was to presume that light too had such a medium. Michelson-Morley proved the non-existence of the ether by studying the motion of the Earth through the supposed ether.
This example shows two things. First that it is indeed possible to prove that something does not exist. The second is that Occam's razor does not always give the correct answer: it might be a very good guide but it is by no means always right.
By the same token I have no proof that there aren't 8 dimensions in our universe so I shouldn't not believe that either?
It is very interesting that you should choose this example because there are serious scientific theories that suggest there may well be more than 3+1 dimensions in the Universe. If you talk to a scientist then the response you will generally get is that we don't have any evidence of 4+ space-like dimensions yet but there might be that many, we just don't know. You will generally not hear anyone categorically state that these theories are wrong and that there must only be 3+1 dimensions. They might have a personal belief about whether the theory is right or not but the scientific point of view is that it is unproven. The same holds for your more outlandish examples (except, sadly, for Father Christmas since you can show that it is impossible for him to perform his task in the manner attributed within the laws of physics) - and may be the flying spaghetti monster too but I have no idea what that is.
So for an atheist to go around saying categorically that God does not exist, unless they have some proof that they have not disclosed to the rest of us, they are making a leap of faith...and faith is something that suggests a religion. That leap may be based on rationality and they may have logical arguments to back it up but, as shown in the ether example, rationality and logical argument are great guides most of the time but are by no means infallible. Hence my contention that if you really want to get at the truth the first thing you have to be willing to do is admit that you might be wrong.
This was intended to be a simple example that was asy to understand. The evidence for GR comes from many different sources. For example the orbital mechanics of binary neutron stars agrees with GR and hence with the gravitational field propagating at light speed. While we know that GR does not hold for large gravitational fields at extremely small scales the solar system is not such a case and hence, we can predict its behaviour with a very high degree of confidence.
Atheism is not a religion, it's just the lack of belief in deities. It is the default position. There is no doctrine, ritual, or morality associated with a lack of belief.
No, Agnosticism is the lack of belief. Atheism is the active belief that God does not exist. Hence Agnosticism is the 'default' position in that they have made no decision about the existence of God and could be swayed either way by evidence. An Atheist, on the other hand, actively denies the existence of God without proof of his non-existence (lack of evidence of existence is NOT the same as proof of non-existence).
This is why militant Atheists are just as intolerant and bigotted as fundamental Christians. When you are unwilling to accept even the possibility that you may have some things wrong you are very unlikely to find the truth.
How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
It cannot. If the sun disappeared this instant the Earth would continue in orbit under its gravitational field for 8 minutes more: the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the Earth. In fact, rather ironically, it is the theory of relativity which, in its general form, explains gravity that also requires that information is never transmitted faster than the speed of light. So far from gravity having instantaneous action at a distance, the study of gravity has shown us that nothing can have instantaneous action at a distance...at least if you you like to have cause precede effect.
If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?
I know what you mean but don't worry - the word is getting out about how you treat foreigners so soon we should be smart enough to know not to come to the US.
As cool as Google Apps may be, you're essentially trusting your data integrity and security to an outside company.
Just to drive home your point further what can be even more important is that, as trustworthy as Google may be, they are subject to US law. This is a huge problem in places like Canada which have privacy laws since using, for example, GMail means that your organization can end up breaking Canadian law because the US government has free access to any data in your email which you may be legally responsible for protecting.
One of the things which amazed me though is how it seems impossible to actually buy a simple HDD recorder in the US. I stayed in Albuquerque over christmas and, since things were a lot cheaper than in Canada, looked at getting a DVD recorder with an HDD built in. As far as I can tell you cannot buy them in the US. None at Best Buy or Circuit City, neither did their online sites list them. The only one I could find anywhere was a rather low capacity one at WalMart (which I did not buy).
So why aren't there any? My initial reaction was that there was some bizarre US copyright/DMCA thing about having HDD recorders...but then I saw Tivo's on sale (but don't want to pay a monthly charge). So is it a patent thing or is it just that, unlike Europe and Canada, there is no demand?
So it's perfectly okay for a Creationist to demand that he be allowed to give a speech at a biology department?
No it is not OK to demand it but it is fine if the creationist is invited to give a talk by someone with the authority to do so. Some of the other members of the department may well disagree strongly but out of basic decence they should at least let the talk proceed. I understood that the administration had invited the Pope to give a talk.
...and then they'll fire you because they'll know you weren't using Windows.