Actually, I asked because I wanted to know. As I've said elsewhere in this thread: 1. outdoor spraying seems like a bad idea and 2. it still seems that indoor-only use is preferable to the staggering death toll due to malaria.
Thanks for contributing to my improved understanding of the issue.
Finally! Someone tries to answer one of my questions! Kudos!
I don't find your argument very compelling, given that, according to WHO, 3,000 children die from malaria in Africa daily. That's over one million per year. That's a staggering number.
So, it increases the risk of breast cancer five-fold. To what degree would it increase the chances of adulthood?
I don't really see why using it sparingly indoors would be any safer than using it sparingly outdoors.
It's not safer. It's more effective. Blanketing a large area with any chemical probably isn't a great idea.
It's my opinion that using a comparatively miniscule amount of the chemical in the places where it is vastly more effective at preventing disease sounds like a pretty good idea. It seems that the WHO agrees.
Indoor use? How about this downside: Most of the places ravaged by malaria have little to no "inside" with which to confine the DDT?
*boggle*
What are you talking about? Where are all these masses of people sleeping under the stars? Or are you saying their homes don't count in some way? The occupants of a simple, thatched mud hut are much safer from malaria if the interior surfaces sprayed with DDT than if they are not. And without artificial light, there's little reason to be out during the peak feeding time of mosquitoes.
Yes, we know you are making a statement that using DDT to kill mosquitoes and prevent disease is worth the cost of killing wildlife through disruption of the food chain and reproduction cycles of avians. Good for you.
Hmm. I was very specific about indoor spraying. I believe that harm to wildlife has been specifically linked to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested to know if I'm incorrect on this point.
I find it interesting, however, that you immediately put wildlife first. Do you do this in your personal life? Can I assume you sleep under the stars, so as to avoid disturbing habitat by living in a house? Or is this a special duty you assign to the (apparently homeless) third-world poor?
I believe that "the bird thing" was linked specifically to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested if that's not the case.
I could just as flippantly say something about not needing the poor of the third world. I'm of the opinion that the ban wouldn't have happened if American and European lives were on the line.
I think there's a strong argument to be made against blanket spraying of any pesticide. I also think that indoor-only use of DDT would not lead to widespread resistance, given that the overwhelming population of mosquitoes would never be exposed to it.
You know what's great at combating malaria? DDT. Does anyone know of any negative side effects of indoor use of DDT, to the inhabitants or the environment? Does anyone know of a more effective way to prevent malaria?
Uh, I think you have the wrong Peter. People don't even have me hold their spare keys, no one would build a church on me. And that which I loose on Earth surely wouldn't go over in Heaven.
I guess I misinterpreted your statement. When you say "very reactive" it seems as if the indicated degree must be relative to something. You gave no context, and I was interested to understand. I threw out a couple of guesses as to your meaning, but seem to have swung wide. Apologies if my tongue-in-cheek guess was off-putting to you.
Based on your response, I suppose that the "very" is relative how you'd like things to be. I wholeheartedly agree! The means to achieve that end is indefensibly off-topic for this forum, but I'd be very interested in any further clarification you have, or any correction to my supposition about your meaning.
Disturbing? To the contrary! I've been trying to corroborate stories of these "gods" most of my life. A face-to-face meeting would be a most welcome way to finally establish the existence of one or more of them! Could you make an introduction?
The administration is now interested in being able to stream a class from site to site [. ..] Key things would be the ability to use commodity web cams as a source
You're not going to be able to usably capture a classroom lecture with webcam and associated microphone.
There are? Can you provide any more information, or some sort of references?
You're not confusing the twelve Federal Reserve regional banks with different currencies, are you? Each regional bank has its mark on the bills it issues, but they are all part of a single system of currency.
Allow me to remind you of the context of my original post. I was responding to the notion that this was our only hope for any sort of AI. I suspect and imagine that this position is not true. I bear no ill will to these researchers or their project.
I'm not sure how you would be able to justify that silicon systems have developed faster than carbon systems. Do you even know the right measure of development for comparison?
Certainly, there is no objective metric of "speed of development". But here's an example of my subjective analysis. I'm not an expert on such things, and I'm not even sure how much is known about this time, but I imagine that 60 years after the first replicating protein we were still ages away from a single celled creature. Compare to an iPhone.
Also, speed is only one factor. At this stage silicon chips are still just man made tools... like hammers except with a different function. They don't yet have the capacity to evolve on their own, so I could argue that while carbon systems take millions of years to evolve, so far silicon systems are yet to display any sign of this ability (though computers are still very young).
I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here. Again, my original point is that what a computers can do is essentially a wide open field. I think that ruling out AI at this point is terribly premature. (Though, expecting it any time soon seems pollyannaish.)
I'm not sure why you tie self-replication to intelligence, though. I suspect that we are in a bootstrapping process, where we build increasingly complex machines with the aid of our existing machines. Who knows where that could lead?
Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.
I'll go further and stipulate that such a thing doesn't exist. But that in no way answers my question.
But there are no such systems at the moment, and there's no particular evidence that given hypothesis is correct. It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.
Sure. And we can "maybe" away any idea that hasn't yet been proven in practice. But that doesn't seem like a useful pursuit to me.
But we have been steadily progressing at developing more complex and capable silicon/electronic systems for the last few decades, and there's no particular reason to expect that progress to slow or stop.
On the other hand, we've been working on Biology and Chemistry in earnest for a couple of hundred years, and the capabilities of those disciplines doesn't seem to be generally developing toward any sort of artificial intelligence. We do know for a fact that biochem can give rise to intelligence, but we seem much further from creating it artificially with those tools.
Your argument forcibly brings to mind those who insisted that, while heavier-than-air flight was possible for birds, it was utterly unachievable for man. Their only evidence being that man hadn't yet achieved it. I freely admit that it may not be possible for intelligence to arise from non-carbon systems, I'm merely pointing out that we've hardly begun the attempt.
I doubt that either of us will be proven correct in our lifetimes, but that in no way negates my argument.
Again billions of years head start! If something like human intelligence arises from silicon in fourty million years (the clock started, what? Sixty years ago?) then it will have happened in only one percent of the time as carbon.
I think that you grossly underestimate our understanding of chemical building blocks of cognition. But, putting that aside, I think your argument recommends our efforts on the silicon front. Again, in only a few short decades we have gone from purely sequential (serial) designs to very fast serial designs that can usefully mimic parallel designs, to today's shaky steps toward significant parallelism.
Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones? Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon. (Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers . ..) I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!
I feel presumptuous making a suggestion. But you opened the door, I'm just walking through.
I highly recommend using a proper lube instead of lotion. I like a water/glycerin/glycol product, like Astroglide. I have a (lady) friend who likes petroleum jelly. (Available in a tube if you go this route. I find the tub gross.)
I think you'll find much better lubrication and sensation. As a bonus, with the water based products cleanup is easier.
When Netflix was a rogue outfit that bought DVDs "off the shelf" and thumbed their noses at the studios it was an awesome service.
Streaming seems to have turned them into a negotiating machine that gives the studios what they want at the expense of the Netflix customer. The result is that it has become a clearinghouse for unpopular content.
I just tried 'em again for a month, and it has become dismal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I asked because I wanted to know. As I've said elsewhere in this thread: 1. outdoor spraying seems like a bad idea and 2. it still seems that indoor-only use is preferable to the staggering death toll due to malaria.
Thanks for contributing to my improved understanding of the issue.
-Peter
Finally! Someone tries to answer one of my questions! Kudos!
I don't find your argument very compelling, given that, according to WHO, 3,000 children die from malaria in Africa daily. That's over one million per year. That's a staggering number.
So, it increases the risk of breast cancer five-fold. To what degree would it increase the chances of adulthood?
-Peter
It's not safer. It's more effective. Blanketing a large area with any chemical probably isn't a great idea.
It's my opinion that using a comparatively miniscule amount of the chemical in the places where it is vastly more effective at preventing disease sounds like a pretty good idea. It seems that the WHO agrees.
-Peter
Wow.
*boggle*
What are you talking about? Where are all these masses of people sleeping under the stars? Or are you saying their homes don't count in some way? The occupants of a simple, thatched mud hut are much safer from malaria if the interior surfaces sprayed with DDT than if they are not. And without artificial light, there's little reason to be out during the peak feeding time of mosquitoes.
Hmm. I was very specific about indoor spraying. I believe that harm to wildlife has been specifically linked to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested to know if I'm incorrect on this point.
I find it interesting, however, that you immediately put wildlife first. Do you do this in your personal life? Can I assume you sleep under the stars, so as to avoid disturbing habitat by living in a house? Or is this a special duty you assign to the (apparently homeless) third-world poor?
-Peter
I believe that "the bird thing" was linked specifically to outdoor spraying. I'd be interested if that's not the case.
I could just as flippantly say something about not needing the poor of the third world. I'm of the opinion that the ban wouldn't have happened if American and European lives were on the line.
I think there's a strong argument to be made against blanket spraying of any pesticide. I also think that indoor-only use of DDT would not lead to widespread resistance, given that the overwhelming population of mosquitoes would never be exposed to it.
-Peter
You know what's great at combating malaria? DDT. Does anyone know of any negative side effects of indoor use of DDT, to the inhabitants or the environment? Does anyone know of a more effective way to prevent malaria?
-Peter
Uh, I think you have the wrong Peter. People don't even have me hold their spare keys, no one would build a church on me. And that which I loose on Earth surely wouldn't go over in Heaven.
-Peter
I guess I misinterpreted your statement. When you say "very reactive" it seems as if the indicated degree must be relative to something. You gave no context, and I was interested to understand. I threw out a couple of guesses as to your meaning, but seem to have swung wide. Apologies if my tongue-in-cheek guess was off-putting to you.
Based on your response, I suppose that the "very" is relative how you'd like things to be. I wholeheartedly agree! The means to achieve that end is indefensibly off-topic for this forum, but I'd be very interested in any further clarification you have, or any correction to my supposition about your meaning.
-Peter
Disturbing? To the contrary! I've been trying to corroborate stories of these "gods" most of my life. A face-to-face meeting would be a most welcome way to finally establish the existence of one or more of them! Could you make an introduction?
Thanks,
Peter
As compared to what? Martians?
This is a world wide problem, so I don't see what culture you're comparing to.
Are you taking this to be a Western problem? If so, could you outline what other cultures you find to be more forward-looking?
Thanks,
Peter
You're not going to be able to usably capture a classroom lecture with webcam and associated microphone.
-Peter
Is this different than scrip in any meaningful way?
-Peter
There are? Can you provide any more information, or some sort of references?
You're not confusing the twelve Federal Reserve regional banks with different currencies, are you? Each regional bank has its mark on the bills it issues, but they are all part of a single system of currency.
-Peter
Allow me to remind you of the context of my original post. I was responding to the notion that this was our only hope for any sort of AI. I suspect and imagine that this position is not true. I bear no ill will to these researchers or their project.
Certainly, there is no objective metric of "speed of development". But here's an example of my subjective analysis. I'm not an expert on such things, and I'm not even sure how much is known about this time, but I imagine that 60 years after the first replicating protein we were still ages away from a single celled creature. Compare to an iPhone.
I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here. Again, my original point is that what a computers can do is essentially a wide open field. I think that ruling out AI at this point is terribly premature. (Though, expecting it any time soon seems pollyannaish.)
I'm not sure why you tie self-replication to intelligence, though. I suspect that we are in a bootstrapping process, where we build increasingly complex machines with the aid of our existing machines. Who knows where that could lead?
-Peter
I'll go further and stipulate that such a thing doesn't exist. But that in no way answers my question.
Sure. And we can "maybe" away any idea that hasn't yet been proven in practice. But that doesn't seem like a useful pursuit to me.
But we have been steadily progressing at developing more complex and capable silicon/electronic systems for the last few decades, and there's no particular reason to expect that progress to slow or stop.
On the other hand, we've been working on Biology and Chemistry in earnest for a couple of hundred years, and the capabilities of those disciplines doesn't seem to be generally developing toward any sort of artificial intelligence. We do know for a fact that biochem can give rise to intelligence, but we seem much further from creating it artificially with those tools.
Your argument forcibly brings to mind those who insisted that, while heavier-than-air flight was possible for birds, it was utterly unachievable for man. Their only evidence being that man hadn't yet achieved it. I freely admit that it may not be possible for intelligence to arise from non-carbon systems, I'm merely pointing out that we've hardly begun the attempt.
I doubt that either of us will be proven correct in our lifetimes, but that in no way negates my argument.
-Peter
Again billions of years head start! If something like human intelligence arises from silicon in fourty million years (the clock started, what? Sixty years ago?) then it will have happened in only one percent of the time as carbon.
I think that you grossly underestimate our understanding of chemical building blocks of cognition. But, putting that aside, I think your argument recommends our efforts on the silicon front. Again, in only a few short decades we have gone from purely sequential (serial) designs to very fast serial designs that can usefully mimic parallel designs, to today's shaky steps toward significant parallelism.
-Peter
Wow, talk about carbon bias!
Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones? Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon. (Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers . . .) I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!
-Peter
Did you see Moon? First real Sci-Fi movie I've seen in years. Can anyone else recommend some reasonably novel, recent Sci-Fi movies?
Also, it seems REALLY soon to be talking about rebooting Firefly.
-Peter
What's what I got as well. On the third reload I got a different commercial (Toyota) and then the video played. Chrome on Snow Leopard.
-Peter
Anyone have a link to the actual video? The provided link just keeps playing a PBS commercial at me.
-Peter
I feel presumptuous making a suggestion. But you opened the door, I'm just walking through.
I highly recommend using a proper lube instead of lotion. I like a water/glycerin/glycol product, like Astroglide. I have a (lady) friend who likes petroleum jelly. (Available in a tube if you go this route. I find the tub gross.)
I think you'll find much better lubrication and sensation. As a bonus, with the water based products cleanup is easier.
-Peter
Yeah, they don't even have second-run WB content on streaming.
The streaming content absolutely sucks. There's an occasional gem due to their Starz relationship, but that's small consolation.
-Peter
When Netflix was a rogue outfit that bought DVDs "off the shelf" and thumbed their noses at the studios it was an awesome service.
Streaming seems to have turned them into a negotiating machine that gives the studios what they want at the expense of the Netflix customer. The result is that it has become a clearinghouse for unpopular content.
I just tried 'em again for a month, and it has become dismal.
-Peter
My presumption was that you wouldn't be able to drive such a tall tower with so much smaller a "greenhouse".
-Peter
Silverlight is available for Mac. Netflix added support for Mac quite a while ago.
-Peter