..."speciation" (the forking of a single species into multiple species which cannot interbreed) has been proven conclusively to be absolutely impossible.
On the contrary - it's been observed, in plants and fish.
You can't breed a dog into a lizard, which is what the fantasy of MACRO-evolution (so-called "Darwinism") explicitly claims to be the case.
Strawman alert. Where was this explicit claim made?
A truly and literally honest "scientist" will simply admit that he knows absolutely nothing at all, that his wild guess is as good as the next, and that neither of them is worth a bucket of warm spit.
An odd statement, made in a world where the process of science has given us antibiotics, microelectrons, and space probes to the outer planets.
Ah yes, Behe's tired old 'irreducible complexity' argument. That's been discredited for quite a while now. Natural selection has little to do with chance. Take a look here and here for discussion. Couldn't you come up with something more original?
Darwin himself admitted -- in so many words -- that he could not account for the development of the modern vertebrate eye.
So? Modern biology has progressed far beyond what Darwin ever thought. Just because Darwin didn't explaing the eye doesn't mean it was explained later by someone else. Try this for starters.
In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.
Bullcrap. He did nothing of the sort, except admit his own limits. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
It's obvious that your belief in the christian mythos has blinded you. It's the work of people like those who wrote the paper in question (and on topics that some people considered with the same outrage that you are showing, i.e. quantum physics) that made it possible to create the hardware you used to type your message.
The fact that you disbelieve what they are working on doesn't make it any less useful. This paper is a hypothetical description, but it actually contains items that are testable. Somebody will work out a way to test them, and our knowledge base will get larger. All whether you like it or not.
Rather than screaming and stomping your feet about how outraged you are, why don't you show us where they are wrong? (And just so you know, waving the christian bible around won't constitute acceptable evidence. It's already got too many problems.)
It also steals more CPU cycles from a volunteer's machine that what is necessary. His machine could be used for other things besides SETI@home, you know.
Which is why the client runs at low priority - so the cycles are available for other work as necessary. If the volunteer needs all his cycles for something else, he always has the option of shutting the S@H client off.
I don't understand why you would argue against faster clients when the problem is already infinite in scope.
Because the problem, as defined by the Seti@Home team, is not infinite in scope. In fact, it's very finite. The are only generating about 30 gig of raw data per day, and the analysis capacity in place is way more than sufficient to analyze all that data.
Now, you might say "expand the project". That's a good idea, but it takes money and people that are not available. The S@H guys are running this thing on a relative shoestring. If you are going to tackle an infinite project, you have to throw infinite resources at it, and that's simply not available. They are doing what they can with what they have.
...that can take up several chapters of a good textbook. So, rather than spend it all typing in here, I recommend (as I'm sure lots of other people will) that you go and get a copy of Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schnier. It's got everything you ever wanted to know.
And you're absolutely sure that when you swap in this new FFT subroutine, that you will get the exact same results, down to the least significant bit, every time? Because if you're not sure, then you've effectively changed something in the project, thereby throwing the entire thing into a realm of uncertainty that science does not handle well. It could be enough to invalidate the entire project.
But from the _user's_ viewpoint, it's taking him hours to do one data block, it should be faster! Who cares if he has to wait a few days to get the next one so long as the one he's got finishes quickly? Once it's done, he can go do other things with his processor.
Personally, I don't believe most people are running it that way. This one doesn't work like RC5, or the Mersienne Primes, where it can sit quietly in the background. Since the S@H client takes over so much of the machine, I believe most people only run it when they aren't using their computers. Thus, it's not a question of "doing other things with the computer". When the user is doing the other things, the client is basically shut down.
It's exactly the But from the _user's_ viewpoint, it's taking him hours to do one data block, it should be faster! viewpoint that leads to the race mentality and ultimately cheating to get higher in the rankings. The important thing is the science, not the race. I've got several machines running the S@H client, and I quit checking my rankings a long time ago.
Send the client a sata packet with known characteristics every now and then and check the results.
In fact, they do that. If you look at the 'signals' graph on the web site, you will see that they inject test signals at known frequencies into the outbound data and look for them on the returned results.
When we compare Seti to some other project, such as RC5, we can see that maybe there's such a thing as too much optimization.
RC5 has a known number of keys to check, and that number is truely enormous when compared to the number of keys per day that can be done. Thus, there is every incentive to optimize the hell out of the client.
By comparison Seti@Home is already processing data faster than it can be created. Optimizing the client won't make the analysis go any faster - maybe they would be able to check each work unit three times instead of two. But, where's the incentive to optimize?
S@H is a victum of its own success. What will probably happen is the number of users will start to drop off as people become bored. This isn't necessarily bad.
Certainly Josephus brief mention of Christ in the Annals (although not by name) makes it hard to reject his existence outright.
Except that the brief mention you cite exhibits evidence of being forged in later, not actually appearing in the original text. For one thing, the statement itself does not fit the 'speaking' style of the rest of the text.
anybody else think that this is a sign of the second coming of jesus?
No, and you shouldn't either. This particular meteor storm has recurred every year, with peaks every 33 years. The last peak was 1966, and was by all accounts spectactular.
If you're worried about the conjunction of this with the turn of the millenium, you should relax on this as well. The christian counting of years was calculated by Dennis the Short, in the mid 500s at the direction of the Pope. He worked off of events of the time that modern bible scholars and historians now know were inaccurate. The best calculations show that the birth of Jesus was 4 years earlier than Dennis calculated. Thus, the millenium really turned in 1996. You missed it.
The RIAA used to be a technical standards organization for the recording industry - they would set things like standard equilization curves and provide technical support for studios. Now, they're more of a marketing and lobbying organization, apparently trying to protect the music industry's profits.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. There are some of us who feel that the casual passing around of data that we consider private to be an issue. If you don't feel it's an issue, you're welcome to feel that way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's just another indication that Microsoft doesn't have a real idea about security, which is why they are constantly getting hammered on security issues.
How many buffer overflow bugs would be fixed if MS put a test in their compiler or DLLs to look for it?
I'm not so sure. Gore was at Microsoft yesterday, and spent most of his question-and-answer session saying "no comment" whenever questions about the trial came up. However, the comments about values that he did make in that context sounded like he was on the side of the judge. There was an extensive NPR story on it this morning. Check the NPR web site - they should have a Real-Audio recording of it in a couple of hours.
Maybe next time voters will vote Libertarian and endorse a society where people's right to buy (or not to buy) software of their choice is respected.
I have a simple question about your analysis: What happens if there is no effective choice, and that continuing lack of choice is enforced by the company providing the only possiblity?
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary - it's been observed, in plants and fish.
You can't breed a dog into a lizard, which is what the fantasy of MACRO-evolution (so-called "Darwinism") explicitly claims to be the case.
Strawman alert. Where was this explicit claim made?
A truly and literally honest "scientist" will simply admit that he knows absolutely nothing at all, that his wild guess is as good as the next, and that neither of them is worth a bucket of warm spit.
An odd statement, made in a world where the process of science has given us antibiotics, microelectrons, and space probes to the outer planets.
...phil
Darwin himself admitted -- in so many words -- that he could not account for the development of the modern vertebrate eye.
So? Modern biology has progressed far beyond what Darwin ever thought. Just because Darwin didn't explaing the eye doesn't mean it was explained later by someone else. Try this for starters.
In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.
Bullcrap. He did nothing of the sort, except admit his own limits. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
...phil
The fact that you disbelieve what they are working on doesn't make it any less useful. This paper is a hypothetical description, but it actually contains items that are testable. Somebody will work out a way to test them, and our knowledge base will get larger. All whether you like it or not.
Rather than screaming and stomping your feet about how outraged you are, why don't you show us where they are wrong? (And just so you know, waving the christian bible around won't constitute acceptable evidence. It's already got too many problems.)
...phil
Which is why the client runs at low priority - so the cycles are available for other work as necessary. If the volunteer needs all his cycles for something else, he always has the option of shutting the S@H client off.
...phil
Because the problem, as defined by the Seti@Home team, is not infinite in scope. In fact, it's very finite. The are only generating about 30 gig of raw data per day, and the analysis capacity in place is way more than sufficient to analyze all that data.
Now, you might say "expand the project". That's a good idea, but it takes money and people that are not available. The S@H guys are running this thing on a relative shoestring. If you are going to tackle an infinite project, you have to throw infinite resources at it, and that's simply not available. They are doing what they can with what they have.
...phil
...that can take up several chapters of a good textbook. So, rather than spend it all typing in here, I recommend (as I'm sure lots of other people will) that you go and get a copy of Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schnier. It's got everything you ever wanted to know.
...phil
And you're absolutely sure that when you swap in this new FFT subroutine, that you will get the exact same results, down to the least significant bit, every time? Because if you're not sure, then you've effectively changed something in the project, thereby throwing the entire thing into a realm of uncertainty that science does not handle well. It could be enough to invalidate the entire project.
...phil
Personally, I don't believe most people are running it that way. This one doesn't work like RC5, or the Mersienne Primes, where it can sit quietly in the background. Since the S@H client takes over so much of the machine, I believe most people only run it when they aren't using their computers. Thus, it's not a question of "doing other things with the computer". When the user is doing the other things, the client is basically shut down.
It's exactly the But from the _user's_ viewpoint, it's taking him hours to do one data block, it should be faster! viewpoint that leads to the race mentality and ultimately cheating to get higher in the rankings. The important thing is the science, not the race. I've got several machines running the S@H client, and I quit checking my rankings a long time ago.
...phil
In fact, they do that. If you look at the 'signals' graph on the web site, you will see that they inject test signals at known frequencies into the outbound data and look for them on the returned results.
...phil
RC5 has a known number of keys to check, and that number is truely enormous when compared to the number of keys per day that can be done. Thus, there is every incentive to optimize the hell out of the client.
By comparison Seti@Home is already processing data faster than it can be created. Optimizing the client won't make the analysis go any faster - maybe they would be able to check each work unit three times instead of two. But, where's the incentive to optimize?
S@H is a victum of its own success. What will probably happen is the number of users will start to drop off as people become bored. This isn't necessarily bad.
...phil
How so? Please explain. Seriously.
...phil
Got any way to prove that God did speak to John on the Isle of Patmos?
...phil
Except that the brief mention you cite exhibits evidence of being forged in later, not actually appearing in the original text. For one thing, the statement itself does not fit the 'speaking' style of the rest of the text.
...phil
"Local time" means you can ignore time zones - when it's 12:30am wherever you happen to be will be the best time for you.
...phil
No, and you shouldn't either. This particular meteor storm has recurred every year, with peaks every 33 years. The last peak was 1966, and was by all accounts spectactular.
If you're worried about the conjunction of this with the turn of the millenium, you should relax on this as well. The christian counting of years was calculated by Dennis the Short, in the mid 500s at the direction of the Pope. He worked off of events of the time that modern bible scholars and historians now know were inaccurate. The best calculations show that the birth of Jesus was 4 years earlier than Dennis calculated. Thus, the millenium really turned in 1996. You missed it.
...phil
As of 7:50 eastern time, you could still get the file from download.com.
...phil
The RIAA used to be a technical standards organization for the recording industry - they would set things like standard equilization curves and provide technical support for studios. Now, they're more of a marketing and lobbying organization, apparently trying to protect the music industry's profits.
...phil
He probably didn't think that far. There is such a thing as pushing an anology beyond its limits.
...phil
Because they broke into my desk while I was at lunch?
...phil
Next?
...phil
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. There are some of us who feel that the casual passing around of data that we consider private to be an issue. If you don't feel it's an issue, you're welcome to feel that way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
...phil
How many buffer overflow bugs would be fixed if MS put a test in their compiler or DLLs to look for it?
...phil
I'm not so sure. Gore was at Microsoft yesterday, and spent most of his question-and-answer session saying "no comment" whenever questions about the trial came up. However, the comments about values that he did make in that context sounded like he was on the side of the judge. There was an extensive NPR story on it this morning. Check the NPR web site - they should have a Real-Audio recording of it in a couple of hours.
...phil
.. I really don't have much influence either.
...phil
I have a simple question about your analysis: What happens if there is no effective choice, and that continuing lack of choice is enforced by the company providing the only possiblity?
...phil