He's claiming that bacteria are already at, or very near, their local peak. If they're not at the local peak, they're at a peak that is probably near it.
They had billions of years to search for that peak, and so they have probably found it. If they haven't found it, then they probably will not find it, and its not their "local peak" at all.
I think evolution finds creative and interesting solutions to problems that we wouldn't think of.
I wouldn't underestimate their ability to "dramatically change their membrane" (if there is no clever way to avoid it), while also being able to live in a human body.
ssh is a meta-package that depends on openssh-server and openssh-client.
By default, only openssh-client is installed.
By installing ssh, you're installing openssh-server, which lets people access your host via ssh.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
"See, mom? I crossed the road 10 times with my eyes closed, and nothing bad happened!"
"Doomsayers" are not saying: The LHC will destroy Earth.
They are saying "The LHC has a remote possibility of creating a black hole, which has a remote possibility of destroying Earth."
The "Sun generates these energetic rays all the time" argument fails and repeating its refutation is becoming tiring.
Also note there are other possible risks.
Whatever happens doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, because people are describing risks of the unknown. They are not predicting a result.
The question that people arise (and I am not convinced of the answer) is whether this risk (even if it is small) is worth the extra discoveries?
Now, I've seen scientists try to attach small numbers to the odds of the risks of a black holes or creation of a strangelet. But that shoots up the BS detector. You cannot assign numbers to the odds of the unknown. You don't really know what the risk is.
The "doomsayers", or at least some of them, are rationally afraid of the risks.
Re:Ignorance vs. the Unknown
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
That kind of reasoning really is meaningless without some numbers.
If stars often generate billions of mini-black-holes all the time, and shoot them in all directions, its not at all clear that we will encounter them. Space is big. Real big. Your claim that they would slow down is also dubious. Why would they slow down? Where would their kinetic energy go?
Without some calculation, I think it is very unconvincing to say that the sun is not generating mini black holes all the time, and that argument is all about hand waving.
The big bang is thought to have occurred because galaxies are now expanding, going further from one another. Nobody really knows what happened around it, or that it actually did happen.
When you claimed that the big bang created the laws of physics I lost interest in your post, because that is a silly conjecture.
Saying that GOD created it just pushes everything backwards one step. Now you have to explain god. To say that there are multiple universes, perhaps each had its own "beginning" (of its own timeline) does not require any further explanation!
You just pushed it back one step - while I, saying the multiple universes were simply there, finalize my explanation. Time is a property within those universes, so there was no time in which they did not exist. Again, the big bang did not create the universe, but it created space WITHIN the universe.
To say that there are multiple universes with every possible set of constants is actually quite popular amongst quantum mechanics'.
To say that we happen to be sampling a universe with some arbitrary parameters may imply that there are infinite universes with any arbitrary parameters is a simpler conjecture than to say that there is an intelligent god, because intelligence in itself is far far far more complicated than a set of constants.
Of course that as living, intelligent beings, we live in a universe that supports such life.
This does not imply that there is a god, but instead it implies that possibly there are infinite universes, with different constants/laws. Of course intelligent beings will end up in the "right" ones, or they wouldn't be able to ask about it.
Also, saying that the universe's parameters are exactly tuned for life is not true - as any set of rules that allows forms of self-duplication will make life arise, and very possibly intelligence. If protons weighed 0.001% more than they do, I am not sure at all that molecules wouldn't form, but I am not a physicist. Maybe if molecules didn't form, then some other kind of formation of matter would arise, that would give rise to different self-duplicating mechanisms, which would eventually evolve intelligence.
The point is that noone knows exactly which parameters would yield life. Perhaps they know which parameters would yield life AS WE KNOW it, but that is an entirely different thing.
So, in the past (within the timeline), there was no time? Its not difficult to comprehend, its simply contradictory, and thus false. The closer you are in space and in time to a black hole/singularity, time is slowing down. The beginning of the big bang is probably a "time-freeze", so it may have no past. But its wrong to say that there was "no time".
Nobody knows what caused the big bang, but we do know that there's a law of preservation of mass and energy - and scientists believe that the big bang converted huge amounts of energy to mass, and thus created *space/time*. Mass was converted from energy, and no energy was created at all. That it was simply there is the best explanation science can give.
Now, if you believe a "god" caused the big bang - or whether its just an axiomatic fact of the universe, does not matter at all. As long as we can agree that laws of physics guide the universe since the big bang, and not fairy tales about creatures in the sky.
The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe. It did not *create* any matter, it converted energy to matter.
The energy/mass preservation principle means that matter/energy cannot be created, it *is* in essence ever-lasting, by the principles of physics themselves.
If time is a property of the universe, then time may have had a beginning, but the universe is ever lasting, big-bang or not.
You can also consider the universe as a timeline, starting with the big bang, there is no "time" before the universe, thus the universe was not created.
Why are you mentioning the bible? Who cares about the bible?
So, this god of yours does not need a creator because it is everlasting. Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself? That time is a property of the universe? Why push it all one step further away and obscure a simple explanation into a complicated one?
We cannot "test nor witness" directly almost anything. We test and witness things through our potentially faulty senses - which is a form of indirection itself.
We only "see" electricity through indirect electric sensors that we have like lamps, or electric devices, or the magnetic effect on metals. These are only slightly more indirect than directly seeing objects.
Similarly, we see evolution through millions of fossils, containing features predicted with high accuracy beforehand, by evolution researchers. This is only slightly more indirect, and quite a bit more direct than how we "see" some very exotic physical principles, which are obviously true, or technology wouldn't work.
I haven't read the Unified GC Theory, but here is my take on it:
Reference counting wastes a memory storing the counts (especially for small objects)
The extra memory can easily push things out of the cache negating the supposed cache-locality they are supposed to allow
Reference counting does a lot of unnecessary extra work (increasing and decreasing references as they are passed around unnecessarily)
The extra determinism of object death time is not that important, especially as nobody should really rely on GC for cleanup code
The extra determinism of cleanup times is not that important, if efficient GC implementations take negligible amounts of time to complete a cycle (I guess some real numbers ought to be used here)
Reference counting + cycle detection is more complicated than generational GC
Actual implementations of ref-counting GC's seem to be based on malloc/free and use their knowledge of freed memory (reference counts at 0) when allocating. This makes allocations more expensive than the O(1) moving pointer generational GC. This is not inherent, though, but it is kind of pointless to see refcounts going down to 0, and then waiting out on that information until you sweep to re-claim that memory -- because if you sweep anyway, why not find the unreachable objects then?
Actually, many parents of children with down syndrome actively admit that not aborting was a mistake.
Lower middle class people cannot withstand the burden of raising children with down syndrome without being drained and virtually destroyed (In the words of some parents).
Perhaps have a separate "unstable" power grid that provides a dynamic amount of power?
The "message" would simply be a collapse in the amount of power provided - so your heaters and other devices with an efficient buffer could be connected to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Python's one, at least, is fairly obvious... :-)
He's claiming that bacteria are already at, or very near, their local peak. If they're not at the local peak, they're at a peak that is probably near it.
They had billions of years to search for that peak, and so they have probably found it. If they haven't found it, then they probably will not find it, and its not their "local peak" at all.
I think evolution finds creative and interesting solutions to problems that we wouldn't think of.
I wouldn't underestimate their ability to "dramatically change their membrane" (if there is no clever way to avoid it), while also being able to live in a human body.
ssh is a meta-package that depends on openssh-server and openssh-client.
By default, only openssh-client is installed.
By installing ssh, you're installing openssh-server, which lets people access your host via ssh.
"See, mom? I crossed the road 10 times with my eyes closed, and nothing bad happened!"
"Doomsayers" are not saying: The LHC will destroy Earth.
They are saying "The LHC has a remote possibility of creating a black hole, which has a remote possibility of destroying Earth."
The "Sun generates these energetic rays all the time" argument fails and repeating its refutation is becoming tiring.
Also note there are other possible risks.
Whatever happens doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, because people are describing risks of the unknown. They are not predicting a result.
The question that people arise (and I am not convinced of the answer) is whether this risk (even if it is small) is worth the extra discoveries?
Now, I've seen scientists try to attach small numbers to the odds of the risks of a black holes or creation of a strangelet. But that shoots up the BS detector. You cannot assign numbers to the odds of the unknown. You don't really know what the risk is.
The "doomsayers", or at least some of them, are rationally afraid of the risks.
That kind of reasoning really is meaningless without some numbers.
If stars often generate billions of mini-black-holes all the time, and shoot them in all directions, its not at all clear that we will encounter them. Space is big. Real big. Your claim that they would slow down is also dubious. Why would they slow down? Where would their kinetic energy go?
Without some calculation, I think it is very unconvincing to say that the sun is not generating mini black holes all the time, and that argument is all about hand waving.
The big bang is thought to have occurred because galaxies are now expanding, going further from one another. Nobody really knows what happened around it, or that it actually did happen.
When you claimed that the big bang created the laws of physics I lost interest in your post, because that is a silly conjecture.
I am sure you can understand why.
Wow, you got it all backwards.
Saying that GOD created it just pushes everything backwards one step. Now you have to explain god. To say that there are multiple universes, perhaps each had its own "beginning" (of its own timeline) does not require any further explanation!
You just pushed it back one step - while I, saying the multiple universes were simply there, finalize my explanation. Time is a property within those universes, so there was no time in which they did not exist. Again, the big bang did not create the universe, but it created space WITHIN the universe.
To say that there are multiple universes with every possible set of constants is actually quite popular amongst quantum mechanics'.
To say that we happen to be sampling a universe with some arbitrary parameters may imply that there are infinite universes with any arbitrary parameters is a simpler conjecture than to say that there is an intelligent god, because intelligence in itself is far far far more complicated than a set of constants.
Of course that as living, intelligent beings, we live in a universe that supports such life.
This does not imply that there is a god, but instead it implies that possibly there are infinite universes, with different constants/laws. Of course intelligent beings will end up in the "right" ones, or they wouldn't be able to ask about it.
Also, saying that the universe's parameters are exactly tuned for life is not true - as any set of rules that allows forms of self-duplication will make life arise, and very possibly intelligence. If protons weighed 0.001% more than they do, I am not sure at all that molecules wouldn't form, but I am not a physicist. Maybe if molecules didn't form, then some other kind of formation of matter would arise, that would give rise to different self-duplicating mechanisms, which would eventually evolve intelligence.
The point is that noone knows exactly which parameters would yield life. Perhaps they know which parameters would yield life AS WE KNOW it, but that is an entirely different thing.
So, in the past (within the timeline), there was no time? Its not difficult to comprehend, its simply contradictory, and thus false.
The closer you are in space and in time to a black hole/singularity, time is slowing down. The beginning of the big bang is probably a "time-freeze", so it may have no past. But its wrong to say that there was "no time".
Nobody knows what caused the big bang, but we do know that there's a law of preservation of mass and energy - and scientists believe that the big bang converted huge amounts of energy to mass, and thus created *space/time*. Mass was converted from energy, and no energy was created at all. That it was simply there is the best explanation science can give.
Now, if you believe a "god" caused the big bang - or whether its just an axiomatic fact of the universe, does not matter at all. As long as we can agree that laws of physics guide the universe since the big bang, and not fairy tales about creatures in the sky.
The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe.
It did not *create* any matter, it converted energy to matter.
The energy/mass preservation principle means that matter/energy cannot be created, it *is* in essence ever-lasting, by the principles of physics themselves.
If time is a property of the universe, then time may have had a beginning, but the universe is ever lasting, big-bang or not.
You can also consider the universe as a timeline, starting with the big bang, there is no "time" before the universe, thus the universe was not created.
Why are you mentioning the bible? Who cares about the bible?
So, this god of yours does not need a creator because it is everlasting.
Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself? That time is a property of the universe?
Why push it all one step further away and obscure a simple explanation into a complicated one?
Whoosh! You totally missed my point.
Then who created this infinitely-more-complex god?
An uber-infinitely-kaboodley-hoo more complex god?
We cannot "test nor witness" directly almost anything. We test and witness things through our potentially faulty senses - which is a form of indirection itself.
We only "see" electricity through indirect electric sensors that we have like lamps, or electric devices, or the magnetic effect on metals. These are only slightly more indirect than directly seeing objects.
Similarly, we see evolution through millions of fossils, containing features predicted with high accuracy beforehand, by evolution researchers. This is only slightly more indirect, and quite a bit more direct than how we "see" some very exotic physical principles, which are obviously true, or technology wouldn't work.
Seriously, haven't you got these arguments countered like a million times?
Its complex (lets ignore for a moment that evolution explains the complexity that arises), so there's an even more complex creator.
So, this creator must have an even more complex creator. And instead of reducing the complexity of the explanation, you increased it, significantly.
Well, it was useful while it lasted.
You're doing it wrong
Non-ACM publication would be appreciated.
I haven't read the Unified GC Theory, but here is my take on it:
I just tested it in gedit - and it seems to do exactly what the patent suggests.
Yeah, all hundreds of them.
The wonders indeed.
Actually, many parents of children with down syndrome actively admit that not aborting was a mistake.
Lower middle class people cannot withstand the burden of raising children with down syndrome without being drained and virtually destroyed (In the words of some parents).
Salad fingers!
Perhaps have a separate "unstable" power grid that provides a dynamic amount of power?
The "message" would simply be a collapse in the amount of power provided - so your heaters and other devices with an efficient buffer could be connected to it.
oops, mis-moderated. Replying to undo.