The judge ruled on the sticker and the circumstances surrounding the decision to stick them in the texts. The religous bias in the stickers is perfectly clear considered in the light of the environment in Cobb County. The school board and certain raving local citizens set the table and then brought the stickers to it in a very public way.
The judge showed wisdom by avoiding the same overly-literal interpretaion as the parent. The stickers were stuck in the midst of a chronic public controversy that is *explicitly* fueled by the creationism vs. evolution debate.
Make no bones about it, the creationist viewpoint will only fit in rigid and literal brains. This argument (C v. E) is tired and old. Since the original furor after the origin was published, the theory of evolution has been refined and expanded while biblical lieralists have had to concede philosophical ground at a rapid pace, and all for good reasons.
The literalist world-view is limiting, narrow and dangerous. It cannot concieve of a genuine spirituality that encompases rationality *and* a sense of the mysterious with equal comfort. News of this decision really birghtened my day. With the generally depressing political climate we labor under, it was so nice to hear of someone showing some genuine wisdom. Hooray.
Oh, one more thing, Nice comment, actually. Not every human brain can (or enjoys) understanding computers down to a detailed level. This is true of even some quite smart people.
However, eventually, you'd hope we'd raise a crop of folks raised from the cradle with such useful abstractions, so that they'd find complex multimedia design as intuitive as reading. However, that's not where we are at the moment.
These folks started their outfit in the area where I grew up (Southeastern Idaho, USA). They have since moved to a better area for their international construction business. However, they've left behind a small colony of homes built on their dome technology. They are tucked into the side of an old volcanic dome overlooking the Snake River, cute locale, really.
I've been inside of several of them (high school dances, double dates, you know) and found them to be great. The first they built for themselves was huge, a bit ugly on the exterior and rough on the inside. They just hadn't yet figured out how to build the interior walls using standard construction techniques, yet have them match the curved walls. Later versions improved greatly, both in terms of exterior finish and in interior partition of the space.
Even the rough models built in the early 80's were pretty cool and livable. Granted, I was also impressed by advancements in double-wide technology, but consider the region I grew up in. Like any technology, home building innovation requires dedication and a lot of do-overs.
Think about this for a minute.
Rat cells don't have to divide any faster than humans for them to have had more cell divisions since our divergence.
They reproduce more often so they have more generations per unit time than we. The rats somatic cells are also probably just 20 divisions or so away from the original zygote. Just multiply it out and you have more cell divisions per unit time in the rats.
CSI is not bad for Science, but it can be bad for the gullable and simple-minded.
CSI and ilk represent a type of draw to technical fields that might be positive if the impressionable person is young and has access to solid guidance.
In the case of forensics, I recently spoke with a private contractor who does forensics software development for Scotland Yard. As I'd already suspected, the job growth in forensics is nearly zero, if not negative.
So, CSI isn't bad for science, but if you are making lifelong career decisions based on a shitty TV show, you've got more important problems.
I'm working on a doctorate right now trying to develop a method to help make what Dr. Venter is proposing feasible. The approach I'm using is a semi-industrial method that can hopefully screen thousands of samples in one experiment, while stopping short of full sequencing. I'm actually working on the analytical portions of the problem, not the sampling part. Lots of computer time for me, looking at binary fingerprints . ..
Dr. Venter is a pioneer. He annoys many people with his stunts, but he does encourage new approaches. He got very rich doing just that. Bully for him, I say.
Plus, we actually do stick genes into a genome to see what they do. It's called molecular cloning and protein expression studies. He's just proposing that we simplify the apparatus to the point where we can get a grip on what is really going on.
Here's the thing. Sequence isn't everything, but it's the only thing that selection really acts upon. If we want to understand the mechanisms of evolution, say for the practical purpose of directed evolution of special-purpose proteins or just for basic knowledge, we need to sample a lot of the sequence variations that selection has "allowed".
Really, it's a case of inductive vs. deductive approaches to the Big Biological Questions. The Venter approach is to gather a huge, less-biased set of the permitted variations of genes. From that, we can derive more general principles to help us with our engineering efforts.
He is a scientist, not an engineer, so he's probably motivated by different urges. Relax, kids, and just let yourselves get excited about something for once. It's a cool big world out there with lots of room for different approaches.
Nowhere in the article was the inheritance of an acquired characteristic implied.
Instead, the postulate was that a stressful environmental shift motivated a few individuals to go bipedal and then the extant primate capacity for imitation and, ultimately, culture encouraged widespread adoption of a behavior that they were *already* capable of!
Subsequent generations of selection could refine our ability to remain upright with less fatigue, like locking knee-caps and changes to the lower spine, pelvis and feet.
Here's the thing about evolution. You think you understand it, but you probably don't. The basic mechanisms of inheritance are understood, but the interactions of cultural/behavioral adaptations with inheritable characterisitics is not at all understood by even the wonkiest of wonks. Just say the words "group selection" to someone well-read in evolutionary theory, if you want an earful.
Why the Cultural Revolution iconography? I think it's because of the methods of social control used during that era. The creator of the banner might be drawing a parallel between the Communists obvious attempts at social engineering with the more subtle methods used by the global elite.
That's just my thought. It seems like a plausible interpretation given the iconoclastic bent of the hacker ethos.
Mitch
I'm guessing it's a reference to Orwell and 1984. They were in a state of perpetual war against "Eurasia" or whoever. The point was that a state of perpetual conflict kept the populace malleable and obedient.
Now, note that the banner doesn't say "Eurasia", it says "Eurabia". This is probably a dig at the current conflict we are being distracted by.
Just my thoughts.
Mitch
Now, don't gripe because Ian M. Banks is not *hard* sci fi. However, he presents a really interesting view of a possible future culture. His fundamental premise is: How does (relatively rigid) human culture adapt to omnipresent surveilance and omnipotent, paternalistic (maternalistic, for you gender Nazis) technology?
I recommend, to start: (Player of Games) or (Feersum Endjinn). He's from the UK, so some titles are hard to get.
Are there any other Banks fans out there?
Re:Those of us in the know...
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Thanks for the reply. This is a very important issue here. Now, our thread is getting away from the e-voting topic, but this is a germane departure. The controversy over the machines is important, but it is also a big distraction. E-voting won't increase voter turnout. Voting can't get any easier than it already is.
You've created a paralysing feedback loop with you comment, however. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken. Voter, system. System, voter.
Action is the only thing that's going to fix the system, cuz it aint fixing itself. Regardless of the philosophical constraints in our systems, concerted action is the only thing that makes things happen.
Complaining about the system is useful only to a very limited point. If it helps one discover ways to either cope better or effect change, then great. Otherwise it quickly becomes a psychological handicap that provides an excuse for inaction or even paralysis.
If the system encourages paralysis, the morally correct action is to acknowledge this, expend effort to overcome that paralysis, *then* change the system through further action. Simple, yes. Cliched, probably. True to my experience, definitely.
Re:Those of us in the know...
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, This may be a bit inflammatory, but I think your comment demands some, umm, comment.
First, I'm going to ask for clarification. Is voting a game of big numbers or is voting a game of small numbers? Your comment supports the first then instantly switches to the opposite point. My one vote doesn't count, then, suddenly, we have a close race and it counts. Which is it?
I'll reveal my personal stance on the voting machines. Big, Bad Idea. The darling old ladies who serve as ballot judges in my local precinct have eyes like hawks, but they can't see potential voter fraud on a purely electronic platform. This is a clear case of a manufacturer using its superior resources to push an agenda against the public interest.
Plus, I insist that my vote does matter. It's not all presidential politics. Local referenda on city and county issues can directly affect my quality of life. In a race where voter turn-out is maybe 3,000 folks, my vote definitely counts. Heck, a guy of meager income like me can even swing an election through personal effort alone.
Time to quit bitching and get off the apathy wagon, kids.
First, I *am* a scientist (doctoral candidate in computational biology/molecular biology) and I'm working like hell to get a post-doc or other job in a country not the US after I finish my doctorate.
Second, I agree with the poster that our country has lost its edge, especially culturally.
Third, that's not why I'm trying to get some experience outside of the US system of science. What's my biggest motivator? Quality of life. I'm not attending a big-name school with great connections into our bigger temples of science. I have some interest in reaching out to the non-science public as part of my career.
Usually (in the USA), those interests are a sure-fire way to get stuck in a career at a podunk university with high teaching loads and lower pay than comparably educated professionals. The pay issue is not a huge issue since it used to be that there were compensations in terms of working conditions and lifestyle.
Not any more, the average young scientist with any social ideals in the USA can look forward to a continuing decline in the quality of their career experience in the public universities. I guess it's just my dumb luck to be born with populist ideals and a general enjoyment of teaching *and* research.
I'm kind of going on a bit here, so I'll sum it up. I'm giving up on the American publically-funded state university system. Why? Self-defense and self-esteem. I don't need to get rich from science. I view a career in science as a vocation that is very valuable socially.
All I expect in return is reasonable working conditions, some mobility throughout my career and some financial security (especially retirement and pay commensurate with education and productivity). In return, I will be the best scientist/researcher/educator I can be and try to help younger folks (professional scientists and non-) understand the value and utility of scientific methods and approaches.
This contract is no longer respected in this country, so I will keep looking.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge ruled on the sticker and the circumstances surrounding the decision to stick them in the texts. The religous bias in the stickers is perfectly clear considered in the light of the environment in Cobb County. The school board and certain raving local citizens set the table and then brought the stickers to it in a very public way.
The judge showed wisdom by avoiding the same overly-literal interpretaion as the parent. The stickers were stuck in the midst of a chronic public controversy that is *explicitly* fueled by the creationism vs. evolution debate.
Make no bones about it, the creationist viewpoint will only fit in rigid and literal brains. This argument (C v. E) is tired and old. Since the original furor after the origin was published, the theory of evolution has been refined and expanded while biblical lieralists have had to concede philosophical ground at a rapid pace, and all for good reasons.
The literalist world-view is limiting, narrow and dangerous. It cannot concieve of a genuine spirituality that encompases rationality *and* a sense of the mysterious with equal comfort. News of this decision really birghtened my day. With the generally depressing political climate we labor under, it was so nice to hear of someone showing some genuine wisdom. Hooray.
Oh, one more thing, Nice comment, actually. Not every human brain can (or enjoys) understanding computers down to a detailed level. This is true of even some quite smart people.
However, eventually, you'd hope we'd raise a crop of folks raised from the cradle with such useful abstractions, so that they'd find complex multimedia design as intuitive as reading. However, that's not where we are at the moment.
Anyhoo, nice comments.
Do I sound familiar? Drop a line to the lonely potato guy.
These folks started their outfit in the area where I grew up (Southeastern Idaho, USA). They have since moved to a better area for their international construction business. However, they've left behind a small colony of homes built on their dome technology. They are tucked into the side of an old volcanic dome overlooking the Snake River, cute locale, really.
I've been inside of several of them (high school dances, double dates, you know) and found them to be great. The first they built for themselves was huge, a bit ugly on the exterior and rough on the inside. They just hadn't yet figured out how to build the interior walls using standard construction techniques, yet have them match the curved walls. Later versions improved greatly, both in terms of exterior finish and in interior partition of the space.
Even the rough models built in the early 80's were pretty cool and livable. Granted, I was also impressed by advancements in double-wide technology, but consider the region I grew up in. Like any technology, home building innovation requires dedication and a lot of do-overs.
My $0.02
Think about this for a minute. Rat cells don't have to divide any faster than humans for them to have had more cell divisions since our divergence. They reproduce more often so they have more generations per unit time than we. The rats somatic cells are also probably just 20 divisions or so away from the original zygote. Just multiply it out and you have more cell divisions per unit time in the rats.
CSI is not bad for Science, but it can be bad for the gullable and simple-minded.
CSI and ilk represent a type of draw to technical fields that might be positive if the impressionable person is young and has access to solid guidance.
In the case of forensics, I recently spoke with a private contractor who does forensics software development for Scotland Yard. As I'd already suspected, the job growth in forensics is nearly zero, if not negative.
So, CSI isn't bad for science, but if you are making lifelong career decisions based on a shitty TV show, you've got more important problems.
I'm working on a doctorate right now trying to develop a method to help make what Dr. Venter is proposing feasible. The approach I'm using is a semi-industrial method that can hopefully screen thousands of samples in one experiment, while stopping short of full sequencing. I'm actually working on the analytical portions of the problem, not the sampling part. Lots of computer time for me, looking at binary fingerprints . . .
Dr. Venter is a pioneer. He annoys many people with his stunts, but he does encourage new approaches. He got very rich doing just that. Bully for him, I say.
Plus, we actually do stick genes into a genome to see what they do. It's called molecular cloning and protein expression studies. He's just proposing that we simplify the apparatus to the point where we can get a grip on what is really going on.
Here's the thing. Sequence isn't everything, but it's the only thing that selection really acts upon. If we want to understand the mechanisms of evolution, say for the practical purpose of directed evolution of special-purpose proteins or just for basic knowledge, we need to sample a lot of the sequence variations that selection has "allowed".
Really, it's a case of inductive vs. deductive approaches to the Big Biological Questions. The Venter approach is to gather a huge, less-biased set of the permitted variations of genes. From that, we can derive more general principles to help us with our engineering efforts.
He is a scientist, not an engineer, so he's probably motivated by different urges. Relax, kids, and just let yourselves get excited about something for once. It's a cool big world out there with lots of room for different approaches.
Mitch
Hey, folks.
Nowhere in the article was the inheritance of an acquired characteristic implied.
Instead, the postulate was that a stressful environmental shift motivated a few individuals to go bipedal and then the extant primate capacity for imitation and, ultimately, culture encouraged widespread adoption of a behavior that they were *already* capable of!
Subsequent generations of selection could refine our ability to remain upright with less fatigue, like locking knee-caps and changes to the lower spine, pelvis and feet.
Here's the thing about evolution. You think you understand it, but you probably don't. The basic mechanisms of inheritance are understood, but the interactions of cultural/behavioral adaptations with inheritable characterisitics is not at all understood by even the wonkiest of wonks. Just say the words "group selection" to someone well-read in evolutionary theory, if you want an earful.
Sincerely, etc.
Why the Cultural Revolution iconography? I think it's because of the methods of social control used during that era. The creator of the banner might be drawing a parallel between the Communists obvious attempts at social engineering with the more subtle methods used by the global elite.
That's just my thought. It seems like a plausible interpretation given the iconoclastic bent of the hacker ethos.
Mitch
I'm guessing it's a reference to Orwell and 1984. They were in a state of perpetual war against "Eurasia" or whoever. The point was that a state of perpetual conflict kept the populace malleable and obedient.
Now, note that the banner doesn't say "Eurasia", it says "Eurabia". This is probably a dig at the current conflict we are being distracted by.
Just my thoughts.
Mitch
Now, don't gripe because Ian M. Banks is not *hard* sci fi. However, he presents a really interesting view of a possible future culture. His fundamental premise is: How does (relatively rigid) human culture adapt to omnipresent surveilance and omnipotent, paternalistic (maternalistic, for you gender Nazis) technology?
I recommend, to start: (Player of Games) or (Feersum Endjinn). He's from the UK, so some titles are hard to get.
Are there any other Banks fans out there?
Thanks for the reply. This is a very important issue here. Now, our thread is getting away from the e-voting topic, but this is a germane departure. The controversy over the machines is important, but it is also a big distraction. E-voting won't increase voter turnout. Voting can't get any easier than it already is.
You've created a paralysing feedback loop with you comment, however. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken. Voter, system. System, voter.
Action is the only thing that's going to fix the system, cuz it aint fixing itself. Regardless of the philosophical constraints in our systems, concerted action is the only thing that makes things happen.
Complaining about the system is useful only to a very limited point. If it helps one discover ways to either cope better or effect change, then great. Otherwise it quickly becomes a psychological handicap that provides an excuse for inaction or even paralysis.
If the system encourages paralysis, the morally correct action is to acknowledge this, expend effort to overcome that paralysis, *then* change the system through further action. Simple, yes. Cliched, probably. True to my experience, definitely.
Well, This may be a bit inflammatory, but I think your comment demands some, umm, comment.
First, I'm going to ask for clarification. Is voting a game of big numbers or is voting a game of small numbers? Your comment supports the first then instantly switches to the opposite point. My one vote doesn't count, then, suddenly, we have a close race and it counts. Which is it?
I'll reveal my personal stance on the voting machines. Big, Bad Idea. The darling old ladies who serve as ballot judges in my local precinct have eyes like hawks, but they can't see potential voter fraud on a purely electronic platform. This is a clear case of a manufacturer using its superior resources to push an agenda against the public interest.
Plus, I insist that my vote does matter. It's not all presidential politics. Local referenda on city and county issues can directly affect my quality of life. In a race where voter turn-out is maybe 3,000 folks, my vote definitely counts. Heck, a guy of meager income like me can even swing an election through personal effort alone.
Time to quit bitching and get off the apathy wagon, kids.
As a person who can't stand to read longer articles (esp. scientific literature) on the screen, I've already been waiting a long time for e-ink.
I vaguely remember a Popular Science (I think) article from the early 80's/late 70's describing thie rudiments of the E-ink technology.
Man, it's a long haul from the lab bench to the store shelf, isn't it?
Anyone else remember this stuff?
First, I *am* a scientist (doctoral candidate in computational biology/molecular biology) and I'm working like hell to get a post-doc or other job in a country not the US after I finish my doctorate.
.
Second, I agree with the poster that our country has lost its edge, especially culturally.
Third, that's not why I'm trying to get some experience outside of the US system of science. What's my biggest motivator? Quality of life. I'm not attending a big-name school with great connections into our bigger temples of science. I have some interest in reaching out to the non-science public as part of my career.
Usually (in the USA), those interests are a sure-fire way to get stuck in a career at a podunk university with high teaching loads and lower pay than comparably educated professionals. The pay issue is not a huge issue since it used to be that there were compensations in terms of working conditions and lifestyle.
Not any more, the average young scientist with any social ideals in the USA can look forward to a continuing decline in the quality of their career experience in the public universities. I guess it's just my dumb luck to be born with populist ideals and a general enjoyment of teaching *and* research.
I'm kind of going on a bit here, so I'll sum it up. I'm giving up on the American publically-funded state university system. Why? Self-defense and self-esteem. I don't need to get rich from science. I view a career in science as a vocation that is very valuable socially.
All I expect in return is reasonable working conditions, some mobility throughout my career and some financial security (especially retirement and pay commensurate with education and productivity). In return, I will be the best scientist/researcher/educator I can be and try to help younger folks (professional scientists and non-) understand the value and utility of scientific methods and approaches.
This contract is no longer respected in this country, so I will keep looking.
So there. . .