You are right: correlation is by no means axplanation. The mentioned ABC news article blatantly tells of the gender being a result of your job. What's probably going on is that some factor _determines both_ of your choice of job and the gender chances of your children. The thing that determines your chance of having a boy, possibly also determines your preference and skill at certain jobs.
New species arise under two possible conditions: 1. isolation and the consequent genetic drift 2. changed environmental circumstances
Point 1 is strongly reduced for humans in the last century. However, artificial isolation by social circumstances is possible. I think of economic divisions or cultural non-mixing dogmas. Point 2 is also weak for humans, the success of the species is mostly because of its ability to adapt to new environments _without_ needing to change much genetically, making spreading much faster.
Prediction is, in my opinion, near impossible: On the one hand, what makes humans succesfull is adapting quickly without genetically changing, by copying information not through genes, but by written text. So there's no real need to change genetically anymore. On the other hand, we are finding out ways to change ourselves genetically into something we perceive to be more desirable. This will always be subject to the short-lived whim of fashion, but may leave us with an even greater genetic diversity than we already have.
Cloning is of no use whatsoever, since it is a move to standstill in stead of change in a desired direction.
Well, I know, but I do get more FLOPs per Watt on a PPC. It's always better not to buy the top-GHz of the range, the class just below that is only slightly slower but considerably more energy-efficient.
Hmm, the MHz's of a PPC don't compare to those of an x86, it's a different kind of processor altogether (CISC vs. RISC and such things). I don't know about the details, but the Ars Technica site probably explains that.
OK, let me explain, since moderation has downgraded my insightful remark >-)
It requires quite a lot of imagination to build a picture in your mind of how the jaw-bones of a fish became the little sound-conductors in our inner ears. Or how the dolphins moved from land to sea. Or how flowers are specialized leaves. It is much easier to state that someone has just made all that up.
However, that statement is _far more complicated_ than explaining what we see by traits of the things we see. Because the traits of this transcendental someone must be at least as complex as the world we see. Doubling our problem of explaining the world in stead of reducing it.
And that, funny as it may be, is exactly the reason why evolution explains what we see and intelligent design does not! So many things have multiple purposes or half-purposes shared with other organs, and changed purposes but the same origin in other species.
Design starts with the goal and then defines the necessary parts to achieve it. Evolution throws anything at an environment and then keeps what works. The traces of the latter approach are clearly visible within all living things.
I guess it's necessary for the non-AI test participants do be indistinguishable from the AI by equally not having to leave the chat-room to go to the toilet.
Adaptation is essentially the same as evolution. They just refer to different scales of time and at organism or species levels.
In both adaptation and evolution the driving force is selection of those attributes that are favourable to survival.
They essential element of evolution theory is selection, and selection takes place at all levels of biology. Even learning and behaviour are selection-driven changes in the brain, and is therefore evolutionary, at the individual level.
The selection principle can also be found in economics and other non-biological sciences.
That article you refer to, describes _exactly_ the kind of feeling texts like this article give me. And which is so well parodied in the Paper Generator.
So I got modded 'Overrated', which I somehow agree with:-) But your comment, Sir, needs several modpoints of Insightful!
Indeed so, I'm sooo glad I got my mum a Mac... It's a lot more fun to explain to her how to print pictures than having to scare her with security complications.
Being 32 now, I grew up with Voyager. Hearing about it 1976 aged 4 sparked my interest in space flight and astronomy. I've got Andy Chaikin's book 'The New Solar System' to sum up most of it: these craft deserve it to have every last bit of data squeezed out of them! Darn, I can't find that picture where Voyager 1 looks back at the entire solar system...
I can run XP, turn on automatic updates, use free anti-virus and spyware blockers (and not be a retard who clicks on every link or pop-up) use iTunes, MS PhotoShow and MS MovieMaker all for free have an equivalent experience on faster harwdware.
You're summing up things I don't need to worry about on a Mac, so are you telling me about your genuine experience or are you a subtle troll?
That's an interesting idea. I too get the impression that the GUI design is driven by the tool in stead of the other way around. Another example is that way back when I plyed games on the Commodore 64, the games used to be joystick-controlled. But nowadays almost all games are (two button) mouse-controlled! I think the change happened when all PC's became standard equipped with mice. I've got a really cool CH-products joystick, but the only games that make use of it are flight sims (which I bought it for of course). I wish I could run around Diablo II with my joystick and fire the spells from the many buttons! But no, I control Diablo like a Windows desktop, left click-attack, right click-weird action. I actually had to buy a two button mouse to play games. What would the games today have looked like if the mice from around 1995 had a scroll-wheel?
The one-button mouse is a godsend for people who have no GUI-experience!
How on earth am I going to explain my mom that to do one thing, she has to click the left, and to do the other, she has to click the right button? She already gets confused at the possibility of having more than one application open. The concept of point-and-click is screwed up by adding a contextual menu-button - that's click and point (and click again).
I know every function can also be reached only using the left button, but how would I have to explain to my mom not to use the right one (which would confuse her)?
I think Apple always made the right choice: make things simple up front. And anyone who wants more, can do so (command/ctrl/option-click or get a multibutton mouse).
Slashdot Mirror
You are right: correlation is by no means axplanation.
The mentioned ABC news article blatantly tells of the gender being a result of your job.
What's probably going on is that some factor _determines both_ of your choice of job and the gender chances of your children.
The thing that determines your chance of having a boy, possibly also determines your preference and skill at certain jobs.
New species arise under two possible conditions:
1. isolation and the consequent genetic drift
2. changed environmental circumstances
Point 1 is strongly reduced for humans in the last century. However, artificial isolation by social circumstances is possible. I think of economic divisions or cultural non-mixing dogmas.
Point 2 is also weak for humans, the success of the species is mostly because of its ability to adapt to new environments _without_ needing to change much genetically, making spreading much faster.
Prediction is, in my opinion, near impossible:
On the one hand, what makes humans succesfull is adapting quickly without genetically changing, by copying information not through genes, but by written text. So there's no real need to change genetically anymore.
On the other hand, we are finding out ways to change ourselves genetically into something we perceive to be more desirable. This will always be subject to the short-lived whim of fashion, but may leave us with an even greater genetic diversity than we already have.
Cloning is of no use whatsoever, since it is a move to standstill in stead of change in a desired direction.
Well, I know, but I do get more FLOPs per Watt on a PPC. It's always better not to buy the top-GHz of the range, the class just below that is only slightly slower but considerably more energy-efficient.
Hmm, the MHz's of a PPC don't compare to those of an x86, it's a different kind of processor altogether (CISC vs. RISC and such things). I don't know about the details, but the Ars Technica site probably explains that.
I have been puzzled by x86 users' preoccupation with heat for quite some time.
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and easier to just use a processor that doesn't get so friggin' hot? Like a PowerPC or Crusoe...
Is it me or is the Windows graphics architecture, expectedly, far more complicated than the Mac OSX graphics architecture?
OK, let me explain, since moderation has downgraded my insightful remark >-)
It requires quite a lot of imagination to build a picture in your mind of how the jaw-bones of a fish became the little sound-conductors in our inner ears. Or how the dolphins moved from land to sea. Or how flowers are specialized leaves.
It is much easier to state that someone has just made all that up.
However, that statement is _far more complicated_ than explaining what we see by traits of the things we see.
Because the traits of this transcendental someone must be at least as complex as the world we see. Doubling our problem of explaining the world in stead of reducing it.
Belief in creationism demonstrates a lack of imagination.
And that, funny as it may be, is exactly the reason why evolution explains what we see and intelligent design does not!
So many things have multiple purposes or half-purposes shared with other organs, and changed purposes but the same origin in other species.
Design starts with the goal and then defines the necessary parts to achieve it.
Evolution throws anything at an environment and then keeps what works.
The traces of the latter approach are clearly visible within all living things.
That lander was European.
You'll be sharing those mineral rights with liberal Europeans who signed the Kyoto protocol...
"It just works" is what I always say to defend my choice for Mac OSX.
Lovely, these cultural differences :-)
So being in a chat-room with an AI is a real tear-jerker?
For when you find out that that lovely girl you were chatting with was in fact a machine?
Hmm, just read the linked article from the post and noticed a roll of toilet paper in one of its pictures.
I guess it's necessary for the non-AI test participants do be indistinguishable from the AI by equally not having to leave the chat-room to go to the toilet.
They overlooked flight sims. And the Genre Defining Flight sim is definately Austin Meyer's X-plane.
Adaptation is essentially the same as evolution. They just refer to different scales of time and at organism or species levels.
In both adaptation and evolution the driving force is selection of those attributes that are favourable to survival.
They essential element of evolution theory is selection, and selection takes place at all levels of biology. Even learning and behaviour are selection-driven changes in the brain, and is therefore evolutionary, at the individual level.
The selection principle can also be found in economics and other non-biological sciences.
That article you refer to, describes _exactly_ the kind of feeling texts like this article give me. And which is so well parodied in the Paper Generator.
:-)
So I got modded 'Overrated', which I somehow agree with
But your comment, Sir, needs several modpoints of Insightful!
Hmm, I have the distinct impression that this author has read yesterday's article and used the Automatic CS Paper Generator to produce this article.
It has the same superficial flow of words, non-statements and not-touching-the-point style as the examples it generated for me.
I thought the whole of planet Earth had only one entry: Mostly harmless...
Indeed so, I'm sooo glad I got my mum a Mac...
It's a lot more fun to explain to her how to print pictures than having to scare her with security complications.
Ah, here is Voyager 1's picture of the solar system. As awesome as the first pictures of the Earth and the Moon together!
These are the kind of pictures that give us a kind of perspective on life...
Being 32 now, I grew up with Voyager. Hearing about it 1976 aged 4 sparked my interest in space flight and astronomy.
I've got Andy Chaikin's book 'The New Solar System' to sum up most of it: these craft deserve it to have every last bit of data squeezed out of them!
Darn, I can't find that picture where Voyager 1 looks back at the entire solar system...
Yes, I was, and I RTFA: "The Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology, or DART..."
I can run XP, turn on automatic updates, use free anti-virus and spyware blockers (and not be a retard who clicks on every link or pop-up) use iTunes, MS PhotoShow and MS MovieMaker all for free have an equivalent experience on faster harwdware.
You're summing up things I don't need to worry about on a Mac, so are you telling me about your genuine experience or are you a subtle troll?
That's an interesting idea.
I too get the impression that the GUI design is driven by the tool in stead of the other way around.
Another example is that way back when I plyed games on the Commodore 64, the games used to be joystick-controlled.
But nowadays almost all games are (two button) mouse-controlled! I think the change happened when all PC's became standard equipped with mice.
I've got a really cool CH-products joystick, but the only games that make use of it are flight sims (which I bought it for of course). I wish I could run around Diablo II with my joystick and fire the spells from the many buttons! But no, I control Diablo like a Windows desktop, left click-attack, right click-weird action. I actually had to buy a two button mouse to play games.
What would the games today have looked like if the mice from around 1995 had a scroll-wheel?
The one-button mouse is a godsend for people who have no GUI-experience!
How on earth am I going to explain my mom that to do one thing, she has to click the left, and to do the other, she has to click the right button? She already gets confused at the possibility of having more than one application open.
The concept of point-and-click is screwed up by adding a contextual menu-button - that's click and point (and click again).
I know every function can also be reached only using the left button, but how would I have to explain to my mom not to use the right one (which would confuse her)?
I think Apple always made the right choice: make things simple up front. And anyone who wants more, can do so (command/ctrl/option-click or get a multibutton mouse).