about #1 and "adaptation": Your definition mentions "often hereditary". If it's not, it's not genetic, and if not genetic, not evolutionary, but merely phenomic, easily reversed or altered again. This does not lead to the "origin of (new) species", which IS what Darwin, and his theory, was about.
And "adaptation" is not caused by natural selection. Natural selection is hardly creative, though it was Darwin's genius to see that it could result in creativity. Natural selection is the negative pressure, the environmental discrimination against the less well adapted, which by default, allows any species, or variants within a species, or innovation (ultimately supplied by mutation or other replicative error) that can do a better job of prospering and surviving in the environment it finds itself within, to gain an advantage. It's simple economic theory, actually. While not all "new & improved" products win in the marketplace, some do, and some even replace the old version. Others share. But Natural selection tends to eliminate the old, if the new really is improved. But not always. Remember Coke and its "new" and "Classic" contest? Pretty good metaphor.
But any "new and improved" traits must serendipitously arise, via mutation or other genetic replicative error, before anything new, any new increment in the evolutionary process can occure. That creative process has no relationship to natural selection at all. You, my friend, border on Lamarkism, nor Darwinism, and neoDarwinism. Until and unless a new genetic trait can be created, and tested in the ecological marketplace, natural selection has nothing to discriminate between, and new adaptations and "evolution" is not happening.
About emergence of new species. I know all about Talk.origins. (You do, unfortunately, talk like them.) Irregardless of what you read there, we have never seen the emergence of a new species. Not in the natural. Though extreme laboratory conditions have forced what appear to be new species of single cell life, and a few insects (mostly fruit flies), one cannot even be sure that's proof of anything. Can we use genetic engineering to prove the real evolution most of us (tho maybe not you) are talking about, the "Origin of Species"? Even the emergence of new bacteria and viruses, which I am willing to accept as "evolution" is not certainly so. We simply don't know what the original gene pool contained, what variations were already there and merely show up without anything new being involved.
Regarding your question: "as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about". If you were a biologist, chances are you would know... though not all biologists do, which is exactly why I was published in the AAAS (American Association for The Advancement of Science) challenging a research team's proposal. It sparked something of a debate, and got not a few other scientists to do a reality check and realize that that is still a big problem. It's a problem because evolution is about speciation (and numerous other issues in ecology - say, is the world really losing a significant number of species - as well) and if we still cannot define or empirically determine what a species is, well..... how do we know what we see "going on" is going to lead to evolution? Adaptation, mutation and natural and un-natural selection may be going on, but unles and until we can prove it leads to new species, not just new races or varieties or new adaptations, we cannot prove there is such a thing as evolution. Mere change, even great change through much time, without the origination of new species, is not what Darwin, or the theory (though the paragigm may yet be useful) of evolution, or the culture wars, are about! I'm sorry you don't understand that.
As for me and my knowledge, I don't really need your recognition or agreement or approval, but I spent a number of years teaching it in a couple of universities, including the U of California. I've written about
I'm impressed by the work you've done, and the thoroughness of you analysis. But let me correct a few points, and perhaps add a comment or two.
1. "We have observed evolution: that is a fact".
Not true. We have seen a lot of evidence which can be construed or interpreted as evidence of "evolution", but we have only snapshots or single frames in a VERY LONG movie (a speciation complete, beginning to end), and "evolution" is at best implied or deduced.
2. "We have oodles of historical information which suggests evolution occurred", Not true. Actually, you might get away with "prehistoric" information, ie a fossil and paleontological record, but evolution is admittedly a very slow process, and every species we see today has been here a long time before recorded history, not to mention scientific observation and records.
3. "evidence that speciation by evolution *was* the dominant means for the creation of new species" Well, that's the choice you must make. The species are here. Why or how, that's the whole issue! Countless other species have gone extinct. That's true, but whether the survivors are now owning the whole earth because there's more opportunity to flourish, or they "evolved" out of those that perished (before their demise was complete) or if a Creator (like God) simply created them as replacements or to fit a longer term plan, is not anything we can prove. Consider, for instance, the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Could be. We can deduce or imply that from a fossil sequence. But the Bible (well, the Hebrew scriptures, not the translation you read in the KJV or NIV, etc.,) says God created dinosaurs, then created birds. The sequence aligns with the fossil record, too. So what you choose to believe is reasonable/logical either way: evolution or creation.
4."if we see a few new species with much better adaptation"... You won't. You might see an ascendency of new subpopulations/varieties/races of extant species, however. Every species has a wide range of variation, which is what Darwin started from, but IF speciation is to occur, that variation must accumulate in the surviving population from new survivable genetic errors accumulating to the point that the new population cannot reintegrate (should it meet again with the old pre-tsunami populations) by interbreeding. That is believed, by evolutionists, to take thousands of generations.
5."Creationism by itself is *just* a hypothesis". Exactly. Believed by many - in fact, most the people on the planet. And some very good scientists. Which deserve at least a hearing, and NOT TOTAL exclusion from textbooks or education.
6."Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable." WHY? It is quite possible. It was described 3500 years ago. And, if you should read the exact account, in an exact translation of the original Hebrew, and not the 400 year-old translation of the KJV (and the minor regurgitations of all subsequent versions) you'd find the "story" aligns in form, sequence and detail with what modern science has only recently come to believe is the history of life and its forms.
"An all-powerful God could, of course, spontaneously create a Universe, complete with a history of dinosaurs, and complete with planets shooting away from each other as if there had once been a big bang;" Sure He could. But He actually gives no such suggestion, and indeed, describes something very different. Something very much like that picture, but stretched out over the billions of years, just as we believe it happened. Of course, your error here is taking the "young earth creationist" version of creationism as the only one out there, and as accurately reflecting the Bible. Truth is, there is NOTHING in the Bible about the earth, or the creation, being only a few thousands of years old. Fact is, the original language implies a creation history of immense time.
"this suggests that, if the Universe is really only a few thousand years old, God has a great sense of humor." No, it would suggest we either ha
You're right on, for the most part, but why do you think mentioning "evolution" made the sticker "religious". Is it a tacit recognition that "evolution" is a religion, itself, nowadays? Or that the zealous insistence it be taught as "fact" is a religious act (the attempt to banish a religion)?
Of course, it would be entirely accurate to put in a similar sticker regarding gravity, relativity, the apparent expansion of the universe, quantum mechanics, muons and quarks and photons and electrons (even whether they are particles or wave forms or frequencies of "strings"), not to mention global warming, etc., etc. But the theory of evolution is the big one, the culturally important one, the religiously divisive one, and the only one that zealots on one side are always trying to obfuscate and insist is a "fact", and allow no other thoughts or opinions to even be mentioned or allowed. So, that sticker is the one of concern, and most needed. I would, however, as a scientist, be willing to allow those other stickers IF the text in the books is as dogmatic and unbalanced as the text on evolution usually is.
One other minor point. Scientists don't "rely on some theories so much that they seem to be facts". Gravity is a fact but our theories about it are not, however much we assume one particular theory as "a fact" in a particular situation. Newton's theoretical paradigm works well in some situations, Einstein's in others, and in some areas of cosmology and physics, we are still trying to figure out or construct a theory that will work for describing and accounting for "gravity". Scientists are still working very hard to "prove" evolution, and neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the life forms we find on earth in our time. Admittedly, many are working even harder trying to sell "evolution" as a fact in the culture and political wars, but surely that is a "jihad" against the alternative: creation.
You know, there are but two choices: Intelligent Design, or Not. As for the Intelligent Designer, there are numerous possibilities. The Christian God is but one. Perhaps the best, but hardly the only. As for "Not", evolution is but one. Perhaps the best but not the only. Indeed, when Darwin first proposed it, we knew nothing of genetics. When we learned of genetics, Darwin's paradigm was morphed into "neoDarwinism". Within that broad category, there have been numerous alternatives: like micro versus macro, like whether it applies to the initial creation of life, or merely the "descent with modification" which is the only defined process in the neoDarwinist paradigm. So to insist only one of two possibilities is even possible, we've fenced ourselves off from 1/2 the possibility of ever knowing the truth. To insist neoDarwinist evolution is possible, we've painted ourselves into an even smaller corner of the full range of possibilities.
By the way, I always wonder why some folks can accept and delight in the most extraordinary scifi ideas, and the most incredible movies about horror and the supernatural, but cannot abide the idea of a God or the supernatural which the Bible describes.
I can tell by your language and sophisticated style you are a scholar and a gentleman. And like any well-trained scientist, tolerant of dissension, and debate. Having established yourself as such, we listen carefully to your opinions, which of course, show that YOU are neither a zealot nor merely some jerk who is out to debunk any ideas that call into question YOUR religion, ie., that "Evolution" did it all.
By the way, adaptation is NOT evolution. It was Darwin's hypothesis/theory that adaptation was the way evolution occurred. He guessed (whether correctly or not, we cannot be absolutely sure because we've never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species) that adaptations could/would accumulate sufficiently, over time (owing fortuitous beneficial genetic errors of replication - rather like mistakes in the manufacture of your computer, but obviously beneficial rather than fatal) and consistently in a direction that would develop a population outside the bell-curve distribution of pre-existing/tolerated variation WITHIN a species, that that different population could no longer "come home" and interbreed with its ancestral cousins (?). So far, though there is much evidence that one may choose to interpret as supporting or indicating Darwin was right, we've yet to see a speciation complete, or PROVE beyond any doubt, that any of the various species in existence today arose in that way.
By the way (#2), we're not even sure what a species is, yet. That's a point I made in "Science", the journal of the AAA, several years ago. That suggests we are still in "theoretical" territory, rather than "fact", eh?
By the way (#3), the biblical account of creation, never says that adaptation doesn't occur, or would suggest the design of the genetic code as the backbone of defining and maintaining species (or "kinds") didn't include variation/variety, or mutation, as a means of allowing sufficient plasticity of species to survive and adjust to changing times and environments. It only says that the higher "kinds" will remain true, the same, within that bell-curve distribution. And it does not say that about the very "lowest" levels, such as bacteria and viruses, etc. Which, of course, seems to be exactly what science has been able to observe, thus far.
Jay Allen's Mt Blacklist is a big plus. I have cut the spam by about 90 to 95%, finally, as I get most the big guys (like the infamous puke "Bob", and "sexpics" guys blacklisted. New ones, with new domains, of course, keep appearing, but one can delete ALL their posts at once, getting around the awful "one at a time" deletion method of MT, once you list them or the significant (and common) par of their URL.
But, I really don't understand how those of you who talk about "free speech" and "freedom of the internet" and bewail "censorship" think massive peddling of the most incredible sorts of porn (like animal and feces and grandma-incest type sex) spam or opportunities to buy fake and killer drugs and penis enlargement are (1) worthwhile and of any socially redeemable value, or worth more than the blogosphere they are destroying (MT will not be the only victim)! You are pretty lame if you think that is worth defending... it's about like defending murder as a "free expression" or right to "pursuit of personal happiness". Get real, the net will eventually die if you always protect the ones who flood it with hate and puke and feces of their mindless and worthless souls.
I ask again, when will some hacker or virus writer really be as noble and high-minded as they claim to be, and wipe out the operations of such spammers? Kill terrorists, not bloggers!
Ah, there you go. I wondered when someone would get to THAT (btw, put "adult content" in quotes, huh? Ain't all that "adult" and has about as many kids looking as adults!). If you are a blogger, you probably get comment spam every day, up to 300 or 400 sometimes, all reflecting new domains trying to get around spam blacklisting and cleansing by bloggers, etc.
I figure, the money spent (course, its a lot less that it was but a year or two ago) on all those domain registrations shows how much profit is in the "adult content" and drugs-online, and online gambling business!
What is it about an off-the-topic political diatribe that merits an "insightful" markup?
Would those moderators who scored it so, cite one actual accurate "fact" in this comment. I certainly respect and allow "azaris" his or her opinion, but: (1) hardly all scientists who warn of impending disasters get ridiculed. But considering the fact that easily half the scientists in the world DO NOT subscribe to the currently "PC" theory or theories, and there are dozens of others attributing the present spell of "global warming" (which is actually a "recent flip-flop" from the "global winter" warnings we were getting about 20 to 30 years ago) to other causes such as "normal cycle", sun-spot activity (at an 8000 year high and proven to affect climate in this way), to a cosmic ray influx, to... well, you read the literature. (2)"We know what the "cook up another external threat" refers to, of course, and understand the (is it "sophmoric"?) reasoning that gets one to that particular belief, but wonder why one who chooses to believe it ignores the fact that 99% of the world's intelligence services believed the "external threat" (WMD) existed, the UN believed it, and even Sadam and all his military commanders believed it because of a rather excellent deception, it appears, by his scientists who were paid - and allowed to live, unlike soccor players who lost a game - for successfully developing those WMD). (3) "excuse" to spend megabucks? (4) "trillions"? Maybe a fourth of that... is the FACT. (5) Judging by the current state of world opinion, and the just-concluded election, I wouldn't say "the people eat it up". They seem quite capable of questioning and disputing politics as well as science!
And, btw, while I HATE seeing any young men die in a far away place, for whatever reason, I hate seeing them die in the twin towers, or on Spanish trains, or Jerusalem markets, or the Gaza (especially very young men tricked into wearing a bomb), or even here close to home, in car wrecks (a few HUNDREDS a day) or of overdoses (at least DOZENS a day), or to partial-birth (that is, born, but not yet free of the last fatal tie to "mommy"). So, where's the balance in your passion for right and justice here, as well as real, non-political science (if that's even possible), here?
Uh, "national park" is an entity defined and delimited, and established and preserved by a "nation", a soveriegn state with internationally recognized soveriegnty over the lands so designated. So who "owns" Mars. Is this not a rather blatant, or ignorant' call for imperialism or hegemony over the planet Mars? (I assume we are talking about the US. If not, then "Hell no! You EU or Canadian bastards ain't gonna take over our Mars!!:)!
Come on guys, you shoulda studied history or government in school, at least before even taking up such a silly topic. Look at how much legislation (not to mention politics, and "power" being exerted by the US fed gov't it took to set up the first "National Park", not to mention all the others... including those we still are trying to establish. YOU ho argue with the ranchers and miners, etc., if you don't understand...
And, btw, "national parks rarely keep anything "pristine" (which it sounds like these guys actually are asking for). Look at Yellowstone, or numerous others -- like, those set up for "off-road trails", or parks allowing dune buggies, etc. I think "natural preserve" or "wilderness area" is the more likely US-type entity they want. Anyway, just goes to show, scince smarts don't necessarily equal political or social or other kinds of smarts...
'Tis true you're killing plants when you eat them. 'Tis also true you're killing life when you eat an apple, or any fruit... there is, after all, the living progeny of the tree embedded in that apple. Seeds, after all, are a bit like babies abandonned on the church steps, wrapped in blankets and with a bottle tucked in... though the tree "mother" has equipped her children with even more provision for their future. I guess, to enjoy the guilt-free convenience of murdering that poor tree's offspring that you migh enjoy life more, you have to pick up on the more modern definitions of life evolving out of the high courts and "pro-choice" crowd, and redefine life to exclude those seeds as mere "fetuses" and not life, and therefore unimportant.
Another reasonable extension of the "protect & respect all life", and avoid imposing "our narrow minded [definitions] of intelligence and sentience", is that you should stop killing flies, give ants and roaches free run of your kitchen (that's compassion, isn't it!), not to mention, fleas and ticks and mosquitoes free access to your blood. They are hardly harming you, and absolutely need your blood to survive. Hmmm, noting the recent attempt to give fish & dolphins and such court standing, who is willing to make the same case for fleas and mosquitoes? Seems they should have a good class action case that we are denying them equal access and their equal rights to happiness and full tummies, etc...
Like, come on... I'll pay more attention to you when I see you've thought this out better and get consistent across the board. Until then, I assume you're just like everyone, imposing those values and proscriptions for behavior that simply appeal to you and justify the way you want to live...
The problem with this discussion, and every time and every where it starts up again, is that its more political than scientific (tho, I must say, that this particular one in Slashdot has had much more reasoned discussion, and refs to real science than I expected) and "philosophical" than intellectual... and it tends to just keep going round and round again, repeating the "same ol" "same ol". I could jump in and say what I think at any one of a dozen points, and choosing this one is pretty arbitrary...
I've already written a half dozen essays (with lots of citations, etc. etc.) so I'm not going to repeat myself here. If you want, go visit my blog, Alcaide's Cafe. But, I do want to at least add a couple of comments.
Truth is, before global warming was the mantra, the coming ice age was the thing. We were constantly harangued about how we had to go back to the lifestyles of the poor and primitive (or at least 1800's) or else be responsible for the death of everyone, and everything. That was only a couple of decades ago,
Now, when the ice age didn't pan out, the mantra switched to the opposite. Partly just because normal climate cycles went the other way again. Any way, if you really do do some research, you'll find that the majority of scientists have not joined the band wagon. In fact, if you want to just count "votes", far more have signed statements and petitions, etc. saying that the whole global warming thing is not a very pressing threat, if any at all, and that the real science on the issue is far from solid or conclusive. Most scientists have appealed for more caution and more research before we decide to turn ourselves around and head back to a lifestyle of the 1800s. Which position, btw, is that which the Bush admin took. The fact that after 3 years they have decided there are some concerns, but hardly of the urgency the real doomsayers (a la Hollywood) would have us believe, should suggest maybe they are a bit more open and honest than oft accused.
When science becomes politics, folks with political agendas (and wanting the US or the world to head back to the golden lifestyles of a century ago is a political agenda, too) tend to listen just to their own camp, and try to decide issues with nosecounts rather than real science. Kyoto is exactly that sort of thing. If 125 countries sign, that doesn't mean its a good approach, or proving the science. Half (well, closer to three fourths) are countries who would gain politically and economically by putting others (mostly the economic powerhouses) into the protocol's shackles. And having some "president" of some banana republic "voting" by signing on to Kyoto is hardly anything that should prove warming is a real threat.
My last article on this topic concerns Russia's signing on. The points I made there are that (1) Russia never was very concerned with the environment before, but has only just now got religion Why? Because their economy has tanked so badly, the past few years, that their emission goals for the next ten are already "met". Their economic engine shut down for lack of efficiency and relevance! So, if they can push the US into complying, they will only hurt the US, now, not themselves. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Analysis (which I cite) suggests that Kyoto, over its lfetime, will only (at best, if honestly followed and China and a few other "exceptions" don't just boom enough to undo even that) reduce warming by 0.19 degrees C. But it will very quickly reduce the US economy by 2.3 percent! Quite an edge for stumbling Russia and the EU! And, for those who castigate Bush for the fact our economy only grew at a 3.7 percent this last quarter (and thus should be booted out of office) what will they say if Kerry signs Kyoto, and the US economy spins down that 2.3 percent?
Those who are more anti-modern age, or anti-US than anti-warming, won't mind at all, will they?
And now, if only Google (and a few of its copycats) would do their share. Comment spam (filing false comments on blogs that are only there to deposit links to their own sites) is rather rapidly driving the bloggers off the net! And it wouldn't be half the problem if Google's simple -minded system of ranking: putting those sites at the top of search results simply by counting up the number of links to them, even in such places as a comment. I spend more time deleting and banning spammers than I do writing for my blog, and that's true for most. I get dozens every day, and hundreds on worse days, up to a thousand at least once a week. And most are porn, or the junk you-all get.
Blacklisting (I use MT Blacklist, a cooperative designed by Jay Allen) is only pasrtially effective because the spammers, especially the porn and gambling spammers, create new URLS by the dozens every day. "Animal sex.com" returns as "e.Animal sex" and xAnimal sex" and Animal sex 1" etc., endlessly. If the search engines can't get more proactive and protective, they will allow the ruin of one of the best features on the internet.
And for those of you who say that the spammers don't make money... what else would keep them spending so much on buying the domains and URLs and bandwidth...?
It's obvious, as you read Slashdot for a while, and the responses to you, and in this thread, that a lot of folks have very little real heart or compassion, but lots of ego problems and need to feel superior to someone!
Phishers have a lot of advantages when it's so easy to copy a website in such detail, and use such subtle subterguges as font, or a combination of phrasing (ie, paypalverifications.com or citi-bank-identity-protection.com)to trick us. My first "confirm your account" from eBay just about got me! And I'm not a dummy. Neither is grandma, who for the most part just wants to get a quilt pattern, email the g-kids at college, or buy a gift from eBay. She shouldn't have to become an expert geek, computer savvy, and defend her every moment online against the evil folks using it against her. How many geeks, btw, can fix their own car if it breaks down on the highway? Or know if the tow truck is bonafide and not going to mug them or steal their car? Or the garage it goes to isn't a chop shop or drug cartel installing a secret compartment while doing bonafide repairs?
Come on, such creativity as most who visit Slashdot think they have could be used to develop a few protections for their (obviously) inferior brothers and sisters.
Why are there so many "bleeding hearts" for squirrels and fishes, and "minorities", but so few for the victims of crime and crap on the net, or us poor "less endowed" folks who can't hack or figure out how install a non-MS OS? Sorry, we just have another/different life... and would really appreciate a little more sympathy or compassion from you "experts", and less "too bad, sucker, you musta deserved it (get a Darwin award for stupidity)".
"The problem here is that most people won't change their email provider simply for the hassle of keeping contacts up to date."
Which, of course, is another topic... but one almost as important, I think.
I have had but one ISP that ever offered a mail forwarding service for a time after I left them. We don't necessarily need portability, but at least need forwarding!
Of course, you can get mail accounts with some services offering domains, but they are such awkward webmail... You usually can't bother because you can't answer or send except on site...
It's not so much a "nasty little secret" being kept from us "white eyes" by the Native Americans, as a cynical deeception being facilitated by journalists who are ignorant, biased, or simply milking a story (by keeping it going), and lawyers who are milking the system, and various politicos milking the "ethnic card".
I even wonder why a burial ground gets such a knee-jerk reaction. MANY of the graves/skeletons claimed as "ancestral" by the current resident Native American group have no ancestral connection to them, having preceded them and their residence by hundreds or thousands of generations. And even if more historically recent, they may be the graves of the people who were once at war with them and concerned more with committing, or suffering, genocide. If you think about it, there are probably few places on the earth that haven't been the grave of some poor soul, sometime!
Unfortunately, some folks just like the PR, and hope to get dollars or reputation out of opposing almost every thing someone somewhere tries to do. And others simply don't like governments, science, economic development, "progress", or other human beings, and and look for any excuse to oppose them. Squirrels (which seem to thrive in Central Park) or skeletons (which seem to ignore the generations that follow them) are but a convenient and easily exploitable tool (they never object on their behalf, eh?)
Actually, it's not the same thing. You've described a "sign", not a "symbol", being used for communication. Essentially all living creatures communicate, and higher sentient creatures tend to do it better. Bared teeth, raised hair or eyebrows, urine or feces left as a "marker", outstretched arms, are each a sign that is relatively easily enacted, and percieved, and it's "content" (the information that is most often exchanged) fairly much a part of it. But a language is a symbolic communication system, employing "signs" or objects that are completely arbitrarily endowed with meaning unrelated to the sign (therefore, a "symbol"). For instance, "STOP". There is nothing in that array of ink molecules, or in the vocalized sound, that means or implies "stop". The meaning is entirely invented and agreed upon by a group of people voluntarily, intellectually, and thus culturally, agreeing to it. That builds a "language", along with the addition of syntactic (grammatical, etc.) rules.
When a group of chimps develop a unique set of signs regarding sex or food or other social actions, they've developed a set of signs that seve much like language, but are far from it. Children developing arbitrary symbols and syntax and sharing it within their group to communicate new, things (like imaginary, or hypothesized, or desired things not yet seen), they are developing a language that is not just a set of more-or-less obvious signs and gestures, able only to relate to concrete items and experiences and intentions.
Essentially, every unsolicited advertisement I get from a "legitimate" business (often because of some other transaction I made that opened me up to further sales pitches) at least gives me a way of opting out/resigning from their list. These trashy spammers don't... or if I do click a link to opt out it's really a trojan horse for a virus or a confirmation that they have my mailbox!
As to whether the source is here or elsewhere, most of the drug crap and porn, etc., comes from abroad.
But hey, how about that "comment spam" that is driving half the bloggers off the internet. There isn't even a message there to justify "free speech". It's merely a means of leaving their links everywhere to build a "Google" rank. And how does that fit with free speech? Bloggers have something to say, but those spam jerks are freezing them right off the net!
It used to use up nearly all my bandwidth just getting it, then going through the not-so-easy process of eliminating them one by one from my blog. Now, at least, since I started using Jay Allen's "MT Blacklist", I save about half the bandwidth and an hour or so a day, by blocking most and wiping out the rest, but... I still detest the scum who flood the net, costing us all dearly in our own rights to peace and solitude and the right to affordable internet.
By the way, calling them all these names has zero effect on them, so why really bother? The crap they peddle already shows that they are beneath contempt!
1,3,4 get my vote. Prop 2 is not sensible, and I say "nay". But as for 5: This I say to you, "Cuz two good human scientist/observers, properly dressed and outfitted (Land's End, anyone?) would have done everything the two rovers dis in their 6 months, in one day. Plus, pulled out the right tool, aimed it in the exact right spot (in moments, not days of relayed instructions), and answered all our questions about "blueberries", and water signs, and... and... Three decades hence, billions of $, and a dozen more robots and we still have the same debates. A human exlorer answers questions, and collects the right samples... which robots and rovers, and hour or two away, cannot!
Note: Goodyear, the company that pionerred the blimp's-eye-view cam (credited by many to have led directly to the infinitely more obnoxious "webcam" revolution, has offered to buy the Hubble.....
source: NY Times (all the news you should be allowed to know)
Uh, I like your signature motto, the "quote" by Einstein... and sympathize (or is that "empathize"?), BUT, what was the source? I ask, cuz, truth is, Einstein never did think the universe is infinite. In fact, his conclusion that it had a beginning (is finite) led to the "Big Bang" theory, and his certainty that it was both finite (not infinite in expanse) and had a timed future led to his "cosmological constant", which he soon denounced but hopeful scientists, everywhere, resurrect in hopes of defining and explaining the finite universe!.
Notice, there is no such effort regarding human stupidity... though politicians everywhere build careers on their certainty about you and me, and tell us how they have infinite wisdom and thus solve our problem(s).
If you haven't noticed yet, passing laws against things, especially things everyone can do, or be the victim of, in the privacy of their own homes is essentially ------- in the wind. Useless. More likely to come back in your own face....
The only way we are ever going to get rid of 90%, or more, of the spam is to start offing the idiots who actually respond, even buying the garbage being promoted/marketed by spammers. Forget cops and courts, start looking to militias and in-the-street executions!
Ah yes, they tried that once... actually quite a few times but the king salmon, the USSR, kinda led all the other salmon, so the experiment wasn't so much as a bunch of separate trials, but a school effort... anyway, it failed. Miserably.
In case you never heard, committees rarely make good, or efficient, or timely decisions, and most genious of invention, in art and science and technology, not to mention business, has been by individual quirky geeks who swam against, or complete disregard of the stream, and which way the school of "correct", "experts", whome we oft call "They", thought they should go.
But, not to mention all that... (1)there would certainly be a few on the committe who would betray, and sell out the secrecy, or (2)advise another way because their own secret partners were already going that diection and wanted desparately to keep the other 99 disk researchers from catching up, or getting to the finish line first, or (3) just not want to look stupid and approve something really new and politically incorrect....
or, not to mention that it might look like one or two were really on the most promising track... and then either drifted off, or learned three years later it wasn't worth a hoot...
or, not to mention, with 30 of the 100 all in hot pursuit of the "right" technology, they would all work faster and harder to get there first. That, of course wasted the investments in 29 or 28, who simply made mistakes or were too slow, but the world, and countless other industries waiting on the accomplishment of the new disk technology, all profitted handsomely by the early completion of their rounds (USSR had that exact problem).
By the way, those phony "democratic caveats": "of course, no one would be forced to give up their (committee-determined) poor ideas, but the investor (economic and peer) pressure would strongly encourage the "right" decisions by companies trying to come up with something really new...." are nothing real. (China, in their Hong Kong takeover has been doing it for years, and is just about to succeed in dissolving the only good innovative society in Asia!!) It still amounts to nothing more than economy and science by "elected" committee...." an already tried and failed approach to ruling the world...
Unfortunately, of course, there's more politics than science being talked about on this one. So think about the politics, a bit, before just trashing Bush.
Some complain Bush won't adequately fund NASA, ignoring the fact the Dems crucified his proposal for the "cost", so that they scaled back the budget just to get a chance to get it to go. And of course they did it by claiming it would cost a trillion or more. Cooler heads and honest calculations showed it really could be done generally with modest increases in budget and serious increases in focus and project designs by NASA.
Some complain this means the ISS is dead - well, if you look at the history of that pathetic (almost scientifically pointless) project, it's been almost dead most of its ill-fated life. It was never more than a welfare project, and weak-kneed political effort (to kiss up to the Russians and Europe), and spent most of its life as a Clinton deal. And if you want to bitch about the US not funding it, consider the fact hardly any of the ISS "partners" ever met their commitments, and the US usually got blackmailed into picking up their shares, too. When the shuttles went down, its last real chance at serious life went, too (does that tell you anything about the real strength of the idea, that it relied so on the US and the totally decrepit and over-the-hill shuttle program?).
Some complain that this was "dumped" on NASA. Have you noticed the immediate leap-for-joy at NASA, the fact that almost universally NASA and the cadre of folks who support NASA rejoiced that NASA once again had a vision and program mission that woke up all the tired bureaucrats and sleepy scientists and infused it with a youthful zeal, again? And did you see how Japan and the EU both did a "Me Too!" within months, and said they could mimic the program in their own space agencies for similar (rather low) price tags?
And some complain there's no need, that we can do all the science with robots and the old program. Now, I'm a great fan and supporter of the current missions to Mars, but in case you haven't noticed, the rovers take months to go where a man (or woman) could go in a day, and struggle for weeks to examine something like a "blueberry" that a human scientist coulda done in a day, and that the number of things the rovers can do are a couple of percents what a human team could do on site? The science will never get done in your lifetime if we rely on robots. And the hopes and aspirations and dreams of a new generation, for a new world beyond the mayhem of terrorism (that is only going to multiply, I'm afraid) and war and the endless grumbling about everything humans, or the US, or the Republicans, or the Christians, or the taggers in LA, do.
Oh yes. One last point: I'm a VERY STRONG supporter of Hubble. Go to my website, read my articles and see the link to the support petition, etc., if you want the proof. But This is in no way a competitor or alternative. Hubble is dying (or in danger of it) because of the Shuttle program being underfunded and falling apart for lack of care. NASA has been forced to run a limo-style space project in about the same fashion Cuba would, using 1955 chevy's instead of a fleet of new limos! I recommend you keep the two issues separate (NASA is not going to compromise this chance at a reincarnation for Hubble), and just keep the pressure on. Maybe the robot servicing is a feasible alternative - and one that can fit into the rest of the program. But I would rather, if only one more shuttle flew, it went to the Hubble instead of the ISS!
I'm rather a fan of SETI, though often off-put by some of the things they say and do, this "prediction" being a good example. Of course, it's really just a gimmick to grab some good press, good vibes from the public, and bolster their (financial?) support in these hard times when politics, war, and NASA trying to recapture its former glory in space exploration (through the Bush admin new space exploration initiative).
But, without getting into that, or the rest of this discussion, I just want to challenge your nifty equation (N= etc....), and more particularly, the factor "fp" (fraction of stars with planets). You claim that, now having discovered about 150, plus or minus, planets orbiting the billion stars in the Milky Way, we can assume about 20% of that billion stars have planets. That's quite a leap, I'd say. So much so as to be a non-sequiter. But, even worse, for your optimism/hopes (and SETI's, and even my own, I guess), the fact is that not one of those "planets" discovered, so far, is of a type, or in a location (orbit, orbit shape, and orbital distance from its sun) that it hold any promise for life (of any sort, let alone anything like life as we now understand it).
Just FYO, I'd like to refer you to an article that just came out in Cornell University"s "e-print service" for the sciences. The title is, "How Special is the Solar System?". You can get it at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/040326 6.pdf . That will download the article. Here's the abstract: "Most mechanisms proposed for the formation of planets are modified versions of
the mechanism proposed for the solar system. Here we argue that, in terms of those
planetary systems which have been observed, the case for the solar system being a
typical planetary system has yet to be established. We consider the possibility that
most observed planetary systems have been formed in some quite dfferent way. If so, it
may be that none of the observed planetary systems is likely to harbour an earth-like
Planet."
Read the whole thing and you get the rest of my point: all the "planets" discovered, so far, are very odd (usually gas giants in very bad neighborhoods) and quite unsuitable for life. And, as the abstract reveals, event the assumption that most (or even many) planets out there will be anything like our earth (or that the suns will have planetary systems like ours), or that their place in the galaxy will be at all decent (gravitationally, radiation & energy-wise, etc - that is, a rather quiet safe neighborhood, good for life), is a very unproven (and unlikely) assumption.
I'd revise that "fp" way towards zero, and "ne" very very close to zero. Just for starts.
Slashdot Mirror
about #1 and "adaptation": Your definition mentions "often hereditary". If it's not, it's not genetic, and if not genetic, not evolutionary, but merely phenomic, easily reversed or altered again. This does not lead to the "origin of (new) species", which IS what Darwin, and his theory, was about.
And "adaptation" is not caused by natural selection. Natural selection is hardly creative, though it was Darwin's genius to see that it could result in creativity. Natural selection is the negative pressure, the environmental discrimination against the less well adapted, which by default, allows any species, or variants within a species, or innovation (ultimately supplied by mutation or other replicative error) that can do a better job of prospering and surviving in the environment it finds itself within, to gain an advantage. It's simple economic theory, actually. While not all "new & improved" products win in the marketplace, some do, and some even replace the old version. Others share. But Natural selection tends to eliminate the old, if the new really is improved. But not always. Remember Coke and its "new" and "Classic" contest? Pretty good metaphor.
But any "new and improved" traits must serendipitously arise, via mutation or other genetic replicative error, before anything new, any new increment in the evolutionary process can occure. That creative process has no relationship to natural selection at all. You, my friend, border on Lamarkism, nor Darwinism, and neoDarwinism. Until and unless a new genetic trait can be created, and tested in the ecological marketplace, natural selection has nothing to discriminate between, and new adaptations and "evolution" is not happening.
About emergence of new species. I know all about Talk.origins. (You do, unfortunately, talk like them.) Irregardless of what you read there, we have never seen the emergence of a new species. Not in the natural. Though extreme laboratory conditions have forced what appear to be new species of single cell life, and a few insects (mostly fruit flies), one cannot even be sure that's proof of anything. Can we use genetic engineering to prove the real evolution most of us (tho maybe not you) are talking about, the "Origin of Species"? Even the emergence of new bacteria and viruses, which I am willing to accept as "evolution" is not certainly so. We simply don't know what the original gene pool contained, what variations were already there and merely show up without anything new being involved.
Regarding your question: "as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about". If you were a biologist, chances are you would know ... though not all biologists do, which is exactly why I was published in the AAAS (American Association for The Advancement of Science) challenging a research team's proposal. It sparked something of a debate, and got not a few other scientists to do a reality check and realize that that is still a big problem. It's a problem because evolution is about speciation (and numerous other issues in ecology - say, is the world really losing a significant number of species - as well) and if we still cannot define or empirically determine what a species is, well..... how do we know what we see "going on" is going to lead to evolution? Adaptation, mutation and natural and un-natural selection may be going on, but unles and until we can prove it leads to new species, not just new races or varieties or new adaptations, we cannot prove there is such a thing as evolution. Mere change, even great change through much time, without the origination of new species, is not what Darwin, or the theory (though the paragigm may yet be useful) of evolution, or the culture wars, are about! I'm sorry you don't understand that.
As for me and my knowledge, I don't really need your recognition or agreement or approval, but I spent a number of years teaching it in a couple of universities, including the U of California. I've written about
1. "We have observed evolution: that is a fact". Not true. We have seen a lot of evidence which can be construed or interpreted as evidence of "evolution", but we have only snapshots or single frames in a VERY LONG movie (a speciation complete, beginning to end), and "evolution" is at best implied or deduced.
2. "We have oodles of historical information which suggests evolution occurred", Not true. Actually, you might get away with "prehistoric" information, ie a fossil and paleontological record, but evolution is admittedly a very slow process, and every species we see today has been here a long time before recorded history, not to mention scientific observation and records.
3. "evidence that speciation by evolution *was* the dominant means for the creation of new species" Well, that's the choice you must make. The species are here. Why or how, that's the whole issue! Countless other species have gone extinct. That's true, but whether the survivors are now owning the whole earth because there's more opportunity to flourish, or they "evolved" out of those that perished (before their demise was complete) or if a Creator (like God) simply created them as replacements or to fit a longer term plan, is not anything we can prove. Consider, for instance, the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Could be. We can deduce or imply that from a fossil sequence. But the Bible (well, the Hebrew scriptures, not the translation you read in the KJV or NIV, etc.,) says God created dinosaurs, then created birds. The sequence aligns with the fossil record, too. So what you choose to believe is reasonable/logical either way: evolution or creation.
4."if we see a few new species with much better adaptation" ... You won't. You might see an ascendency of new subpopulations/varieties/races of extant species, however. Every species has a wide range of variation, which is what Darwin started from, but IF speciation is to occur, that variation must accumulate in the surviving population from new survivable genetic errors accumulating to the point that the new population cannot reintegrate (should it meet again with the old pre-tsunami populations) by interbreeding. That is believed, by evolutionists, to take thousands of generations.
5."Creationism by itself is *just* a hypothesis". Exactly. Believed by many - in fact, most the people on the planet. And some very good scientists. Which deserve at least a hearing, and NOT TOTAL exclusion from textbooks or education.
6."Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable." WHY? It is quite possible. It was described 3500 years ago. And, if you should read the exact account, in an exact translation of the original Hebrew, and not the 400 year-old translation of the KJV (and the minor regurgitations of all subsequent versions) you'd find the "story" aligns in form, sequence and detail with what modern science has only recently come to believe is the history of life and its forms.
"An all-powerful God could, of course, spontaneously create a Universe, complete with a history of dinosaurs, and complete with planets shooting away from each other as if there had once been a big bang;" Sure He could. But He actually gives no such suggestion, and indeed, describes something very different. Something very much like that picture, but stretched out over the billions of years, just as we believe it happened. Of course, your error here is taking the "young earth creationist" version of creationism as the only one out there, and as accurately reflecting the Bible. Truth is, there is NOTHING in the Bible about the earth, or the creation, being only a few thousands of years old. Fact is, the original language implies a creation history of immense time.
"this suggests that, if the Universe is really only a few thousand years old, God has a great sense of humor." No, it would suggest we either ha
Of course, it would be entirely accurate to put in a similar sticker regarding gravity, relativity, the apparent expansion of the universe, quantum mechanics, muons and quarks and photons and electrons (even whether they are particles or wave forms or frequencies of "strings"), not to mention global warming, etc., etc. But the theory of evolution is the big one, the culturally important one, the religiously divisive one, and the only one that zealots on one side are always trying to obfuscate and insist is a "fact", and allow no other thoughts or opinions to even be mentioned or allowed. So, that sticker is the one of concern, and most needed. I would, however, as a scientist, be willing to allow those other stickers IF the text in the books is as dogmatic and unbalanced as the text on evolution usually is.
One other minor point. Scientists don't "rely on some theories so much that they seem to be facts". Gravity is a fact but our theories about it are not, however much we assume one particular theory as "a fact" in a particular situation. Newton's theoretical paradigm works well in some situations, Einstein's in others, and in some areas of cosmology and physics, we are still trying to figure out or construct a theory that will work for describing and accounting for "gravity". Scientists are still working very hard to "prove" evolution, and neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the life forms we find on earth in our time. Admittedly, many are working even harder trying to sell "evolution" as a fact in the culture and political wars, but surely that is a "jihad" against the alternative: creation.
You know, there are but two choices: Intelligent Design, or Not. As for the Intelligent Designer, there are numerous possibilities. The Christian God is but one. Perhaps the best, but hardly the only. As for "Not", evolution is but one. Perhaps the best but not the only. Indeed, when Darwin first proposed it, we knew nothing of genetics. When we learned of genetics, Darwin's paradigm was morphed into "neoDarwinism". Within that broad category, there have been numerous alternatives: like micro versus macro, like whether it applies to the initial creation of life, or merely the "descent with modification" which is the only defined process in the neoDarwinist paradigm. So to insist only one of two possibilities is even possible, we've fenced ourselves off from 1/2 the possibility of ever knowing the truth. To insist neoDarwinist evolution is possible, we've painted ourselves into an even smaller corner of the full range of possibilities.
By the way, I always wonder why some folks can accept and delight in the most extraordinary scifi ideas, and the most incredible movies about horror and the supernatural, but cannot abide the idea of a God or the supernatural which the Bible describes.
By the way, adaptation is NOT evolution. It was Darwin's hypothesis/theory that adaptation was the way evolution occurred. He guessed (whether correctly or not, we cannot be absolutely sure because we've never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species) that adaptations could/would accumulate sufficiently, over time (owing fortuitous beneficial genetic errors of replication - rather like mistakes in the manufacture of your computer, but obviously beneficial rather than fatal) and consistently in a direction that would develop a population outside the bell-curve distribution of pre-existing/tolerated variation WITHIN a species, that that different population could no longer "come home" and interbreed with its ancestral cousins (?). So far, though there is much evidence that one may choose to interpret as supporting or indicating Darwin was right, we've yet to see a speciation complete, or PROVE beyond any doubt, that any of the various species in existence today arose in that way.
By the way (#2), we're not even sure what a species is, yet. That's a point I made in "Science", the journal of the AAA, several years ago. That suggests we are still in "theoretical" territory, rather than "fact", eh?
By the way (#3), the biblical account of creation, never says that adaptation doesn't occur, or would suggest the design of the genetic code as the backbone of defining and maintaining species (or "kinds") didn't include variation/variety, or mutation, as a means of allowing sufficient plasticity of species to survive and adjust to changing times and environments. It only says that the higher "kinds" will remain true, the same, within that bell-curve distribution. And it does not say that about the very "lowest" levels, such as bacteria and viruses, etc. Which, of course, seems to be exactly what science has been able to observe, thus far.
Jay Allen's Mt Blacklist is a big plus. I have cut the spam by about 90 to 95%, finally, as I get most the big guys (like the infamous puke "Bob", and "sexpics" guys blacklisted. New ones, with new domains, of course, keep appearing, but one can delete ALL their posts at once, getting around the awful "one at a time" deletion method of MT, once you list them or the significant (and common) par of their URL.
... it's about like defending murder as a "free expression" or right to "pursuit of personal happiness". Get real, the net will eventually die if you always protect the ones who flood it with hate and puke and feces of their mindless and worthless souls.
But, I really don't understand how those of you who talk about "free speech" and "freedom of the internet" and bewail "censorship" think massive peddling of the most incredible sorts of porn (like animal and feces and grandma-incest type sex) spam or opportunities to buy fake and killer drugs and penis enlargement are (1) worthwhile and of any socially redeemable value, or worth more than the blogosphere they are destroying (MT will not be the only victim)! You are pretty lame if you think that is worth defending
I ask again, when will some hacker or virus writer really be as noble and high-minded as they claim to be, and wipe out the operations of such spammers? Kill terrorists, not bloggers!
Ah, there you go. I wondered when someone would get to THAT (btw, put "adult content" in quotes, huh? Ain't all that "adult" and has about as many kids looking as adults!). If you are a blogger, you probably get comment spam every day, up to 300 or 400 sometimes, all reflecting new domains trying to get around spam blacklisting and cleansing by bloggers, etc.
I figure, the money spent (course, its a lot less that it was but a year or two ago) on all those domain registrations shows how much profit is in the "adult content" and drugs-online, and online gambling business!
What is it about an off-the-topic political diatribe that merits an "insightful" markup?
Would those moderators who scored it so, cite one actual accurate "fact" in this comment. I certainly respect and allow "azaris" his or her opinion, but:
(1) hardly all scientists who warn of impending disasters get ridiculed. But considering the fact that easily half the scientists in the world DO NOT subscribe to the currently "PC" theory or theories, and there are dozens of others attributing the present spell of "global warming" (which is actually a "recent flip-flop" from the "global winter" warnings we were getting about 20 to 30 years ago) to other causes such as "normal cycle", sun-spot activity (at an 8000 year high and proven to affect climate in this way), to a cosmic ray influx, to... well, you read the literature.
(2)"We know what the "cook up another external threat" refers to, of course, and understand the (is it "sophmoric"?) reasoning that gets one to that particular belief, but wonder why one who chooses to believe it ignores the fact that 99% of the world's intelligence services believed the "external threat" (WMD) existed, the UN believed it, and even Sadam and all his military commanders believed it because of a rather excellent deception, it appears, by his scientists who were paid - and allowed to live, unlike soccor players who lost a game - for successfully developing those WMD).
(3) "excuse" to spend megabucks?
(4) "trillions"? Maybe a fourth of that... is the FACT.
(5) Judging by the current state of world opinion, and the just-concluded election, I wouldn't say "the people eat it up". They seem quite capable of questioning and disputing politics as well as science!
And, btw, while I HATE seeing any young men die in a far away place, for whatever reason, I hate seeing them die in the twin towers, or on Spanish trains, or Jerusalem markets, or the Gaza (especially very young men tricked into wearing a bomb), or even here close to home, in car wrecks (a few HUNDREDS a day) or of overdoses (at least DOZENS a day), or to partial-birth (that is, born, but not yet free of the last fatal tie to "mommy"). So, where's the balance in your passion for right and justice here, as well as real, non-political science (if that's even possible), here?
Uh, "national park" is an entity defined and delimited, and established and preserved by a "nation", a soveriegn state with internationally recognized soveriegnty over the lands so designated. So who "owns" Mars. Is this not a rather blatant, or ignorant' call for imperialism or hegemony over the planet Mars? (I assume we are talking about the US. If not, then "Hell no! You EU or Canadian bastards ain't gonna take over our Mars!! :)!
...
Come on guys, you shoulda studied history or government in school, at least before even taking up such a silly topic. Look at how much legislation (not to mention politics, and "power" being exerted by the US fed gov't it took to set up the first "National Park", not to mention all the others... including those we still are trying to establish. YOU ho argue with the ranchers and miners, etc., if you don't understand
And, btw, "national parks rarely keep anything "pristine" (which it sounds like these guys actually are asking for). Look at Yellowstone, or numerous others -- like, those set up for "off-road trails", or parks allowing dune buggies, etc. I think "natural preserve" or "wilderness area" is the more likely US-type entity they want. Anyway, just goes to show, scince smarts don't necessarily equal political or social or other kinds of smarts...
A simple view of life, perhaps...
... there is, after all, the living progeny of the tree embedded in that apple. Seeds, after all, are a bit like babies abandonned on the church steps, wrapped in blankets and with a bottle tucked in ... though the tree "mother" has equipped her children with even more provision for their future. I guess, to enjoy the guilt-free convenience of murdering that poor tree's offspring that you migh enjoy life more, you have to pick up on the more modern definitions of life evolving out of the high courts and "pro-choice" crowd, and redefine life to exclude those seeds as mere "fetuses" and not life, and therefore unimportant.
'Tis true you're killing plants when you eat them. 'Tis also true you're killing life when you eat an apple, or any fruit
Another reasonable extension of the "protect & respect all life", and avoid imposing "our narrow minded [definitions] of intelligence and sentience", is that you should stop killing flies, give ants and roaches free run of your kitchen (that's compassion, isn't it!), not to mention, fleas and ticks and mosquitoes free access to your blood. They are hardly harming you, and absolutely need your blood to survive. Hmmm, noting the recent attempt to give fish & dolphins and such court standing, who is willing to make the same case for fleas and mosquitoes? Seems they should have a good class action case that we are denying them equal access and their equal rights to happiness and full tummies, etc...
Like, come on... I'll pay more attention to you when I see you've thought this out better and get consistent across the board. Until then, I assume you're just like everyone, imposing those values and proscriptions for behavior that simply appeal to you and justify the way you want to live...
"Just another humbling experience for those who think humans are something special apart from the rest of creation."
Methinks you flatter yourself too much.
The problem with this discussion, and every time and every where it starts up again, is that its more political than scientific (tho, I must say, that this particular one in Slashdot has had much more reasoned discussion, and refs to real science than I expected) and "philosophical" than intellectual ... and it tends to just keep going round and round again, repeating the "same ol" "same ol". I could jump in and say what I think at any one of a dozen points, and choosing this one is pretty arbitrary...
I've already written a half dozen essays (with lots of citations, etc. etc.) so I'm not going to repeat myself here. If you want, go visit my blog, Alcaide's Cafe. But, I do want to at least add a couple of comments.
Truth is, before global warming was the mantra, the coming ice age was the thing. We were constantly harangued about how we had to go back to the lifestyles of the poor and primitive (or at least 1800's) or else be responsible for the death of everyone, and everything. That was only a couple of decades ago,
Now, when the ice age didn't pan out, the mantra switched to the opposite. Partly just because normal climate cycles went the other way again. Any way, if you really do do some research, you'll find that the majority of scientists have not joined the band wagon. In fact, if you want to just count "votes", far more have signed statements and petitions, etc. saying that the whole global warming thing is not a very pressing threat, if any at all, and that the real science on the issue is far from solid or conclusive. Most scientists have appealed for more caution and more research before we decide to turn ourselves around and head back to a lifestyle of the 1800s. Which position, btw, is that which the Bush admin took. The fact that after 3 years they have decided there are some concerns, but hardly of the urgency the real doomsayers (a la Hollywood) would have us believe, should suggest maybe they are a bit more open and honest than oft accused.
When science becomes politics, folks with political agendas (and wanting the US or the world to head back to the golden lifestyles of a century ago is a political agenda, too) tend to listen just to their own camp, and try to decide issues with nosecounts rather than real science. Kyoto is exactly that sort of thing. If 125 countries sign, that doesn't mean its a good approach, or proving the science. Half (well, closer to three fourths) are countries who would gain politically and economically by putting others (mostly the economic powerhouses) into the protocol's shackles. And having some "president" of some banana republic "voting" by signing on to Kyoto is hardly anything that should prove warming is a real threat.
My last article on this topic concerns Russia's signing on. The points I made there are that (1) Russia never was very concerned with the environment before, but has only just now got religion Why? Because their economy has tanked so badly, the past few years, that their emission goals for the next ten are already "met". Their economic engine shut down for lack of efficiency and relevance! So, if they can push the US into complying, they will only hurt the US, now, not themselves. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Analysis (which I cite) suggests that Kyoto, over its lfetime, will only (at best, if honestly followed and China and a few other "exceptions" don't just boom enough to undo even that) reduce warming by 0.19 degrees C. But it will very quickly reduce the US economy by 2.3 percent! Quite an edge for stumbling Russia and the EU! And, for those who castigate Bush for the fact our economy only grew at a 3.7 percent this last quarter (and thus should be booted out of office) what will they say if Kerry signs Kyoto, and the US economy spins down that 2.3 percent?
Those who are more anti-modern age, or anti-US than anti-warming, won't mind at all, will they?
Well, that's enough time on this...
Yeah.
... what else would keep them spending so much on buying the domains and URLs and bandwidth...?
And now, if only Google (and a few of its copycats) would do their share. Comment spam (filing false comments on blogs that are only there to deposit links to their own sites) is rather rapidly driving the bloggers off the net! And it wouldn't be half the problem if Google's simple -minded system of ranking: putting those sites at the top of search results simply by counting up the number of links to them, even in such places as a comment. I spend more time deleting and banning spammers than I do writing for my blog, and that's true for most. I get dozens every day, and hundreds on worse days, up to a thousand at least once a week. And most are porn, or the junk you-all get.
Blacklisting (I use MT Blacklist, a cooperative designed by Jay Allen) is only pasrtially effective because the spammers, especially the porn and gambling spammers, create new URLS by the dozens every day. "Animal sex.com" returns as "e.Animal sex" and xAnimal sex" and Animal sex 1" etc., endlessly. If the search engines can't get more proactive and protective, they will allow the ruin of one of the best features on the internet.
And for those of you who say that the spammers don't make money
Right On! Go, Simonetta!
... and would really appreciate a little more sympathy or compassion from you "experts", and less "too bad, sucker, you musta deserved it (get a Darwin award for stupidity)".
It's obvious, as you read Slashdot for a while, and the responses to you, and in this thread, that a lot of folks have very little real heart or compassion, but lots of ego problems and need to feel superior to someone!
Phishers have a lot of advantages when it's so easy to copy a website in such detail, and use such subtle subterguges as font, or a combination of phrasing (ie, paypalverifications.com or citi-bank-identity-protection.com)to trick us. My first "confirm your account" from eBay just about got me! And I'm not a dummy. Neither is grandma, who for the most part just wants to get a quilt pattern, email the g-kids at college, or buy a gift from eBay. She shouldn't have to become an expert geek, computer savvy, and defend her every moment online against the evil folks using it against her. How many geeks, btw, can fix their own car if it breaks down on the highway? Or know if the tow truck is bonafide and not going to mug them or steal their car? Or the garage it goes to isn't a chop shop or drug cartel installing a secret compartment while doing bonafide repairs?
Come on, such creativity as most who visit Slashdot think they have could be used to develop a few protections for their (obviously) inferior brothers and sisters.
Why are there so many "bleeding hearts" for squirrels and fishes, and "minorities", but so few for the victims of crime and crap on the net, or us poor "less endowed" folks who can't hack or figure out how install a non-MS OS? Sorry, we just have another/different life
"The problem here is that most people won't change their email provider simply for the hassle of keeping contacts up to date."
... but one almost as important, I think.
Which, of course, is another topic
I have had but one ISP that ever offered a mail forwarding service for a time after I left them. We don't necessarily need portability, but at least need forwarding!
Of course, you can get mail accounts with some services offering domains, but they are such awkward webmail... You usually can't bother because you can't answer or send except on site...
It's not so much a "nasty little secret" being kept from us "white eyes" by the Native Americans, as a cynical deeception being facilitated by journalists who are ignorant, biased, or simply milking a story (by keeping it going), and lawyers who are milking the system, and various politicos milking the "ethnic card".
I even wonder why a burial ground gets such a knee-jerk reaction. MANY of the graves/skeletons claimed as "ancestral" by the current resident Native American group have no ancestral connection to them, having preceded them and their residence by hundreds or thousands of generations. And even if more historically recent, they may be the graves of the people who were once at war with them and concerned more with committing, or suffering, genocide. If you think about it, there are probably few places on the earth that haven't been the grave of some poor soul, sometime!
Unfortunately, some folks just like the PR, and hope to get dollars or reputation out of opposing almost every thing someone somewhere tries to do. And others simply don't like governments, science, economic development, "progress", or other human beings, and and look for any excuse to oppose them. Squirrels (which seem to thrive in Central Park) or skeletons (which seem to ignore the generations that follow them) are but a convenient and easily exploitable tool (they never object on their behalf, eh?)
Wonder if there would be any good way to render that in real HTML??
Actually, it's not the same thing. You've described a "sign", not a "symbol", being used for communication. Essentially all living creatures communicate, and higher sentient creatures tend to do it better. Bared teeth, raised hair or eyebrows, urine or feces left as a "marker", outstretched arms, are each a sign that is relatively easily enacted, and percieved, and it's "content" (the information that is most often exchanged) fairly much a part of it. But a language is a symbolic communication system, employing "signs" or objects that are completely arbitrarily endowed with meaning unrelated to the sign (therefore, a "symbol"). For instance, "STOP". There is nothing in that array of ink molecules, or in the vocalized sound, that means or implies "stop". The meaning is entirely invented and agreed upon by a group of people voluntarily, intellectually, and thus culturally, agreeing to it. That builds a "language", along with the addition of syntactic (grammatical, etc.) rules.
When a group of chimps develop a unique set of signs regarding sex or food or other social actions, they've developed a set of signs that seve much like language, but are far from it. Children developing arbitrary symbols and syntax and sharing it within their group to communicate new, things (like imaginary, or hypothesized, or desired things not yet seen), they are developing a language that is not just a set of more-or-less obvious signs and gestures, able only to relate to concrete items and experiences and intentions.
Essentially, every unsolicited advertisement I get from a "legitimate" business (often because of some other transaction I made that opened me up to further sales pitches) at least gives me a way of opting out/resigning from their list. These trashy spammers don't ... or if I do click a link to opt out it's really a trojan horse for a virus or a confirmation that they have my mailbox!
As to whether the source is here or elsewhere, most of the drug crap and porn, etc., comes from abroad.
But hey, how about that "comment spam" that is driving half the bloggers off the internet. There isn't even a message there to justify "free speech". It's merely a means of leaving their links everywhere to build a "Google" rank. And how does that fit with free speech? Bloggers have something to say, but those spam jerks are freezing them right off the net!
It used to use up nearly all my bandwidth just getting it, then going through the not-so-easy process of eliminating them one by one from my blog. Now, at least, since I started using Jay Allen's "MT Blacklist", I save about half the bandwidth and an hour or so a day, by blocking most and wiping out the rest, but... I still detest the scum who flood the net, costing us all dearly in our own rights to peace and solitude and the right to affordable internet.
By the way, calling them all these names has zero effect on them, so why really bother? The crap they peddle already shows that they are beneath contempt!
1,3,4 get my vote. Prop 2 is not sensible, and I say "nay". But as for 5: This I say to you, "Cuz two good human scientist/observers, properly dressed and outfitted (Land's End, anyone?) would have done everything the two rovers dis in their 6 months, in one day. Plus, pulled out the right tool, aimed it in the exact right spot (in moments, not days of relayed instructions), and answered all our questions about "blueberries", and water signs, and ... and... Three decades hence, billions of $, and a dozen more robots and we still have the same debates. A human exlorer answers questions, and collects the right samples... which robots and rovers, and hour or two away, cannot!
Note: Goodyear, the company that pionerred the blimp's-eye-view cam (credited by many to have led directly to the infinitely more obnoxious "webcam" revolution, has offered to buy the Hubble.....
source: NY Times (all the news you should be allowed to know)
Uh, I like your signature motto, the "quote" by Einstein... and sympathize (or is that "empathize"?), BUT, what was the source? I ask, cuz, truth is, Einstein never did think the universe is infinite. In fact, his conclusion that it had a beginning (is finite) led to the "Big Bang" theory, and his certainty that it was both finite (not infinite in expanse) and had a timed future led to his "cosmological constant", which he soon denounced but hopeful scientists, everywhere, resurrect in hopes of defining and explaining the finite universe!.
Notice, there is no such effort regarding human stupidity... though politicians everywhere build careers on their certainty about you and me, and tell us how they have infinite wisdom and thus solve our problem(s).
If you haven't noticed yet, passing laws against things, especially things everyone can do, or be the victim of, in the privacy of their own homes is essentially ------- in the wind. Useless. More likely to come back in your own face.... The only way we are ever going to get rid of 90%, or more, of the spam is to start offing the idiots who actually respond, even buying the garbage being promoted/marketed by spammers. Forget cops and courts, start looking to militias and in-the-street executions!
Ah yes, they tried that once ... actually quite a few times but the king salmon, the USSR, kinda led all the other salmon, so the experiment wasn't so much as a bunch of separate trials, but a school effort... anyway, it failed. Miserably.
... and then either drifted off, or learned three years later it wasn't worth a hoot...
In case you never heard, committees rarely make good, or efficient, or timely decisions, and most genious of invention, in art and science and technology, not to mention business, has been by individual quirky geeks who swam against, or complete disregard of the stream, and which way the school of "correct", "experts", whome we oft call "They", thought they should go.
But, not to mention all that... (1)there would certainly be a few on the committe who would betray, and sell out the secrecy, or (2)advise another way because their own secret partners were already going that diection and wanted desparately to keep the other 99 disk researchers from catching up, or getting to the finish line first, or (3) just not want to look stupid and approve something really new and politically incorrect....
or, not to mention that it might look like one or two were really on the most promising track
or, not to mention, with 30 of the 100 all in hot pursuit of the "right" technology, they would all work faster and harder to get there first. That, of course wasted the investments in 29 or 28, who simply made mistakes or were too slow, but the world, and countless other industries waiting on the accomplishment of the new disk technology, all profitted handsomely by the early completion of their rounds (USSR had that exact problem).
By the way, those phony "democratic caveats": "of course, no one would be forced to give up their (committee-determined) poor ideas, but the investor (economic and peer) pressure would strongly encourage the "right" decisions by companies trying to come up with something really new...." are nothing real. (China, in their Hong Kong takeover has been doing it for years, and is just about to succeed in dissolving the only good innovative society in Asia!!) It still amounts to nothing more than economy and science by "elected" committee...." an already tried and failed approach to ruling the world...
Who you kidding? Us? Or yourself?
Unfortunately, of course, there's more politics than science being talked about on this one. So think about the politics, a bit, before just trashing Bush.
Some complain Bush won't adequately fund NASA, ignoring the fact the Dems crucified his proposal for the "cost", so that they scaled back the budget just to get a chance to get it to go. And of course they did it by claiming it would cost a trillion or more. Cooler heads and honest calculations showed it really could be done generally with modest increases in budget and serious increases in focus and project designs by NASA.
Some complain this means the ISS is dead - well, if you look at the history of that pathetic (almost scientifically pointless) project, it's been almost dead most of its ill-fated life. It was never more than a welfare project, and weak-kneed political effort (to kiss up to the Russians and Europe), and spent most of its life as a Clinton deal. And if you want to bitch about the US not funding it, consider the fact hardly any of the ISS "partners" ever met their commitments, and the US usually got blackmailed into picking up their shares, too. When the shuttles went down, its last real chance at serious life went, too (does that tell you anything about the real strength of the idea, that it relied so on the US and the totally decrepit and over-the-hill shuttle program?).
Some complain that this was "dumped" on NASA. Have you noticed the immediate leap-for-joy at NASA, the fact that almost universally NASA and the cadre of folks who support NASA rejoiced that NASA once again had a vision and program mission that woke up all the tired bureaucrats and sleepy scientists and infused it with a youthful zeal, again? And did you see how Japan and the EU both did a "Me Too!" within months, and said they could mimic the program in their own space agencies for similar (rather low) price tags?
And some complain there's no need, that we can do all the science with robots and the old program. Now, I'm a great fan and supporter of the current missions to Mars, but in case you haven't noticed, the rovers take months to go where a man (or woman) could go in a day, and struggle for weeks to examine something like a "blueberry" that a human scientist coulda done in a day, and that the number of things the rovers can do are a couple of percents what a human team could do on site? The science will never get done in your lifetime if we rely on robots. And the hopes and aspirations and dreams of a new generation, for a new world beyond the mayhem of terrorism (that is only going to multiply, I'm afraid) and war and the endless grumbling about everything humans, or the US, or the Republicans, or the Christians, or the taggers in LA, do.
Oh yes. One last point: I'm a VERY STRONG supporter of Hubble. Go to my website, read my articles and see the link to the support petition, etc., if you want the proof. But This is in no way a competitor or alternative. Hubble is dying (or in danger of it) because of the Shuttle program being underfunded and falling apart for lack of care. NASA has been forced to run a limo-style space project in about the same fashion Cuba would, using 1955 chevy's instead of a fleet of new limos! I recommend you keep the two issues separate (NASA is not going to compromise this chance at a reincarnation for Hubble), and just keep the pressure on. Maybe the robot servicing is a feasible alternative - and one that can fit into the rest of the program. But I would rather, if only one more shuttle flew, it went to the Hubble instead of the ISS!
I'm rather a fan of SETI, though often off-put by some of the things they say and do, this "prediction" being a good example. Of course, it's really just a gimmick to grab some good press, good vibes from the public, and bolster their (financial?) support in these hard times when politics, war, and NASA trying to recapture its former glory in space exploration (through the Bush admin new space exploration initiative).
6 6.pdf . That will download the article. Here's the abstract:
But, without getting into that, or the rest of this discussion, I just want to challenge your nifty equation (N= etc....), and more particularly, the factor "fp" (fraction of stars with planets). You claim that, now having discovered about 150, plus or minus, planets orbiting the billion stars in the Milky Way, we can assume about 20% of that billion stars have planets. That's quite a leap, I'd say. So much so as to be a non-sequiter. But, even worse, for your optimism/hopes (and SETI's, and even my own, I guess), the fact is that not one of those "planets" discovered, so far, is of a type, or in a location (orbit, orbit shape, and orbital distance from its sun) that it hold any promise for life (of any sort, let alone anything like life as we now understand it).
Just FYO, I'd like to refer you to an article that just came out in Cornell University"s "e-print service" for the sciences. The title is, "How Special is the Solar System?". You can get it at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/04032
"Most mechanisms proposed for the formation of planets are modified versions of the mechanism proposed for the solar system. Here we argue that, in terms of those planetary systems which have been observed, the case for the solar system being a typical planetary system has yet to be established. We consider the possibility that most observed planetary systems have been formed in some quite dfferent way. If so, it may be that none of the observed planetary systems is likely to harbour an earth-like Planet."
Read the whole thing and you get the rest of my point: all the "planets" discovered, so far, are very odd (usually gas giants in very bad neighborhoods) and quite unsuitable for life. And, as the abstract reveals, event the assumption that most (or even many) planets out there will be anything like our earth (or that the suns will have planetary systems like ours), or that their place in the galaxy will be at all decent (gravitationally, radiation & energy-wise, etc - that is, a rather quiet safe neighborhood, good for life), is a very unproven (and unlikely) assumption.
I'd revise that "fp" way towards zero, and "ne" very very close to zero. Just for starts.