I think within a species there is only so much possible variation. If you could map all the possible human DNA sequences, I think you would find them all clustered together and very divided from the clusters of any other species.
Ah, I see. You're theory is founded on a false assumption, and might have merit if we didn't know anything at all about how DNA works. DNA is DNA, man. Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, Thymine. It's all just organic chemistry, and the laws of chemistry and physics are not different for giraffes than for monkeys. Lions and tigers can produce offspring together. It is common practice to splice genes for phosphorescent proteins found in jellyfish into guppies, mice, and generally anything that we want to be able to see clearly under a microscope. Hell, 92 percent of your genes are the same as those of a mouse. 44 percent are the same as those of a fruit fly. If you've ever had chicken pox, your DNA strand in many of your cells contains genes put there by the virus.
There is a subtle circular argument in your logic here, as well. You think there is a finite set of possible genomes that count as human, and that no genome in the set can be mutated in a way that would place the resulting genome outside of the human set. Therefore, if I pick a genome from the set (let's say yours) and add a random base pair to it at a random location, that resulting genome must also be in the "human" set -- if it is not, then my mutation has just transformed a human genome into the genome of another species, and that would violate your premise. So now I can take that genome, and add another random base pair. The result of this mutation is also in the human set. And I can add a base pair to that one, and the one after that, and the one after that. I can keep producing new members of the set in this manner ad infinitum. Therefore, it is not a finite set, which violates the other premise.
If DNA worked the way you seem to think it does, then you must either accept that mutations do not occur, or that all life on earth counts as being part of the same species.
No, I don't think my analogy was clever. I think it was brain dead obvious. I am not suggesting that genetic change is as uncomplicated as simple addition, so your wonderful "counterexample" about how there is no reason to think your descendants will be 12 feet tall is a bit of a straw man.
What is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 is this: If you believe in genetics (inheritance and mutation) and that a population can change over time (with traits that make an organism more likely to reproduce becoming more prevalent), and if you believe that a population can be divided into more than one population by migration or physical barriers, then given enough generations how does that NOT add up to the creation of new species, as diverse as dogs and lobsters, with functioning eyeballs?
You are claiming to accept each piece of the mechanism while rejecting the logical result. THAT it what my analogy was intended to fire upon.
And if you really want to know my biases, I was raised Christian and taught to believe in the literal truth of Genesis, so that is my bias. My beliefs today are the result of critical thinking that led me to discard that bias.
While we're on the subject I'm a little tired in general of people declaring each other "biased" if they have already reached a conclusion on some particular subject. To be biased is to be predisposed to a particular conclusion. Having thought about the issue and arrived at one is not a bias.
If you want to debate whether a creator kicked the whole evolutionary process off somehow, that's another issue, and one I'm not particularly inclined to argue about. I can't prove there was no creator (nobody can, which is why it is scientifically inadequate), but I can certainly point out that your skepticism that dogs and lobsters could share a common ancestor is logically inconsistent with your claim to buy into genetic change over time.
I believe that you can add 1 and 1 together and get 2. And that you can add 1 to that result to get three, and so on. What I'm skeptical of is that those minor changes could ever add up to a million, or to integers as diverse as 32 and 13429, or a prime number. I just doubt that math has that great a range of potential change.
What about the frostbite? That's actually the least plausible result of Sunshine's suitless spacewalk. The cold wouldn't cause Mace too much harm in just 15 seconds, even if he encountered the very lowest temperatures in space. That's because heat leaves the body very slowly in a vacuum.
Yes, right you are. I was going to include a sentence about how the Gregorian Calendar came into existence after several of the "end of the world" dates describable with it had already passed, but I couldn't remember when exactly it was invented and didn't want to look it up. Besides, it seemed somewhat sidereal to my point.
The Mayan Long Count calendar does not even "end" on that date, it merely reaches a point where an additional significant digit is needed to write it.
Saying that the world will end because the calendar ends is foolish enough, but it's worse than that. The people who believe that seem to think that a calendar ends whenever the number of significant digits changes. By that logic, our Gregorian calendar will end on January 1st, 10000 A.D -- and already HAS ended on Jan 1st 1000 A.D., Jan 1st 100 A.D., and Jan 1st 10 A.D.
There is no need for the "IV." Bill O'Reilly mark One was built with a vacuum flux power core that will last for billions of years. It is true that the alloy from which his nanomesh brain is constructed will decay with time, driving him more and more insane, but fortunately this does not adversely impact performance of his primary functions.
I get where you're coming from, and we're on the same side in this debate, but "normal" just isn't the word you want. It is properly defined to denote what is commonplace. You want to use it as a word for the way things should be, as a synonym for rightness. . . and that just isn't the world, amigo.
To invoke a slashdot cliche, I don't think it means what you think it means.
If you want "normal" to mean the same as "the right thing," don't accomplish it by changing the definition of the word -- let's focus on making it commonplace to do the right thing.
I am writing to inform you of an accounting error in your recent slashdot post. The post makes it clear that you intended to disburse 2 cents worth of opinion, but I received 6 cents worth. Please find enclosed the excess 4 cents worth of opinion, which I am returning to avoid prosecution.
Zenaku
1) Futurama is a great program. 2) My friend K. has a sweet ass. 3) The Wayans Brothers should be legally barred from making films. 4) Tacos rule.
Hmm. . . on re-reading your post I now realize that you brought it up as both an advantage and a disadvantage, and I am questioning my own reading comprehension skills.
You make it sound as though reading your opponent is entirely a matter of observing his body language, and without it you are SOL. I'd say you've watched one to many poker movies themed on the premise that "everyone has a tell."
While a person's body language can certainly give them away, it's only one piece of information that you use to determine whether he has a hand. If a guy looks nervous and uncomfortable like he's trying to get away with something, he might be trying to look like he's bluffing, or he might just be afraid his wife is going to catch him playing poker again.;)
Their current and prior game behavior is just as if not more important -- What does he usually bet, what does he usually fold, what hands does he like to chase, how does he usually act when he's in a given position. And you still get all of that from a computer opponent.
In fact, I would even suggest that since body language is out of the equation, the computer would be easier to read -- you will have to focus on its style of play, and won't be distracted by less significant factors like how it eats an oreo.
A bear and a human are locked in a fight to the death, and you happen along with a gun, who do you shoot?
Nobody. The bear doesn't need my help, and shooting it OR the person will just alert it to my presence. I back away slowly and quietly, and go back the way I came. Then I tell local authorities where they can recover the poor bastard's remains.
I don't disagree. I was just pointing out that monetary penalties can't be enforced unless you're willing to put the person in prison if they haven't got the cash, and that means that a monetary penalty can never be an alternative to a more physical form of punishment, such as confinement. The confinement becomes the real punishment.
If the fine itself was the real punishement, and the confinement only a means of extracting payment from those who can't pay up front, then you just wind up with a system where the rich can afford to commit crimes and pay the fine whenever they get caught, and the poor go directly to jail.
The system, in my opinion, ought to punish people equally according to the crime, and fine them solely for the purpose of recovering their ill-gotten profits.
There is a huge problem with "Pay X amount of dollars" as a punishment for crime, especially punishment for an intentity theft sort of crime. Usually the perp hasn't got the money, and you can't take away what they don't have.
Nor can you really monitor them and sieze any money they make in the future, because there would be no reason for them to make any, except for what they can continue to make illegally and get away with.
My name is not especially common, but there is another person with the same first and last name as me, who is also from the same hometown as I am, and is 8 or 9 years younger than me.
I first became aware of him when I was in high-school -- his drawing of a ninja turtle was published in the children's section of the newspaper, with my name under it. I got teased. Then a short while later I endured some more razzing when he called the local radio station (and got on air) to request a song that I hated.
I've heard about him numerous times over the years, just because of wires getting crossed. A friend will tell me that they met someone else who knows me, only it will be someone I have never met. My sister will get asked if she is related to me, say yes, and then get a follow up question about how I'm doing that makes no sense, because the person is really asking about the other guy.
I figure he must be about 21 now. God help me, I hope he doesn't have a myspace page.
Like almost all Start Trek technology, the pseudo-science principle used to justify it is pretty malleable, and can be changed by the writers to fit the situation as needed.
The way I remember it, a subject is physically broken down to a molecular level and the actual particles of which he/she is composed are then sent through "subspace." So the subject is in fact transported, not replicated. If the transporter simply transmitted data describing how to build a copy of the person, then 1) there would be no transporter accidents, because you could simply delay disassembling the original until the person had arrived safely, and B) there would be no limitations about "beaming through shields" since their pure communication technologies obviously work through shields. Also, 3) nobody would ever die, since they could always be restored from a "backup copy" using the transporter.
How this explanation, which I recall as the official one, jives with certain episodes like the one with two Rikers is a mystery to me. The beauty of technobabble.
I'll gladly recant if I'm wrong, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that Starbuck is the 5th of the final five, so we've seen them all.
And I think that sucks. Having 4 to 5 major characters (Okay, so Tory is not a major character and Anders is debatable) suddenly turn out to be cylons smacks of retcon to me, and it renders all their previous development with these characters flat and uninteresting. I'm mostly referring to Tigh's callous and unflinching bigotry towards the "Toasters," and the relationship between Tyrell and Sharon (Boomer/Valeri, not Athena/Agathon).
If I were to go back and watch season one and two again, this lame Shyamalanesque twist will have already polluted my perception, and those stories will seem meaningless, overpowered by the blunt graceless irony of "but HE'S A CYLON!"
I thought the end of season two was bad, but this is worse. It retroactively ruins parts of the series that were previously good.
How's this for disturbing? If you are male and you did want to clone yourself, and I mean clone in the sense of the word where the resulting organism has exactly the same DNA as you, it would require that the egg cell used for the cloning process come from your sister, mother, grandmother, mother's sister, sister's daughter. . . somebody with whom you share a matrilineal blood-line.
This is because you have DNA in the mitochondria in your cells, which you got from your mother, and they are not replaced by the cloning process, which merely replaces the nucleus of the donor cell.
I was disturbed when I realized this, as it means creating my army of clones to bring about my total domination of the globe would require the cooperation of my mom, who probably wouldn't approve.
The article (or at least the interactive thingy) specifically discusses the techniques that image spammers use to confuse OCR and render it ineffective. So, short answer is: filters already do this, and it doesn't work.
All systems of belief that are based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements are religions. Scientology is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements. Christianity is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements. Therefore, both Scientology and Christianity are religions.
It is you who is making an "innocent by association" argument, suggesting that Christianity is somehow a "more true" religion, because of the presence of history in its sacred text and because it's been around longer, and I am arguing solely to refute that notion.
While it is true that I think both are ridiculous, it is not because they are associated with each other. It is because both present fairy tales as fact.
I will admit that as a historical text, the bible contains accounts of many people, places and events that did exist/occur, and records them in a way that is not completely divorced from what actually happened. Considered in this regard, as a history, it is vastly superior to the works of L. Ron Hubbard.
But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.
But as pertains to this discussion, it is the religious aspects that seem relevant to me -- Christians, if they are truly believers, do not go to church and worship Jesus on the grounds that he existed and was mentioned in a historical document that can be partially verified. They worship him on the grounds that he is GOD.
The fact that the unverifiable "miraculous" parts of the bible are embedded into a real history doesn't buy them any credibility as a doctrine. It just makes the fact to bunk ratio more favorable. Clearly, the fact that Jesus existed and was executed by Rome has little bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was God. Similarly, it has no bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was a God who drove a Volkswagen. Or the claim that he was a God and rode around in silver chariot drawn by flying dolphins.
The bible absolutely contains more true statements about the history of civilization than Scientology does -- but the "real religion" cred of both is on equal footing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all so obvious now!
Ah, I see. You're theory is founded on a false assumption, and might have merit if we didn't know anything at all about how DNA works. DNA is DNA, man. Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, Thymine. It's all just organic chemistry, and the laws of chemistry and physics are not different for giraffes than for monkeys. Lions and tigers can produce offspring together. It is common practice to splice genes for phosphorescent proteins found in jellyfish into guppies, mice, and generally anything that we want to be able to see clearly under a microscope. Hell, 92 percent of your genes are the same as those of a mouse. 44 percent are the same as those of a fruit fly. If you've ever had chicken pox, your DNA strand in many of your cells contains genes put there by the virus.
There is a subtle circular argument in your logic here, as well. You think there is a finite set of possible genomes that count as human, and that no genome in the set can be mutated in a way that would place the resulting genome outside of the human set. Therefore, if I pick a genome from the set (let's say yours) and add a random base pair to it at a random location, that resulting genome must also be in the "human" set -- if it is not, then my mutation has just transformed a human genome into the genome of another species, and that would violate your premise. So now I can take that genome, and add another random base pair. The result of this mutation is also in the human set. And I can add a base pair to that one, and the one after that, and the one after that. I can keep producing new members of the set in this manner ad infinitum. Therefore, it is not a finite set, which violates the other premise.
If DNA worked the way you seem to think it does, then you must either accept that mutations do not occur, or that all life on earth counts as being part of the same species.
No, I don't think my analogy was clever. I think it was brain dead obvious. I am not suggesting that genetic change is as uncomplicated as simple addition, so your wonderful "counterexample" about how there is no reason to think your descendants will be 12 feet tall is a bit of a straw man.
What is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 is this: If you believe in genetics (inheritance and mutation) and that a population can change over time (with traits that make an organism more likely to reproduce becoming more prevalent), and if you believe that a population can be divided into more than one population by migration or physical barriers, then given enough generations how does that NOT add up to the creation of new species, as diverse as dogs and lobsters, with functioning eyeballs?
You are claiming to accept each piece of the mechanism while rejecting the logical result. THAT it what my analogy was intended to fire upon.
And if you really want to know my biases, I was raised Christian and taught to believe in the literal truth of Genesis, so that is my bias. My beliefs today are the result of critical thinking that led me to discard that bias.
While we're on the subject I'm a little tired in general of people declaring each other "biased" if they have already reached a conclusion on some particular subject. To be biased is to be predisposed to a particular conclusion. Having thought about the issue and arrived at one is not a bias.
If you want to debate whether a creator kicked the whole evolutionary process off somehow, that's another issue, and one I'm not particularly inclined to argue about. I can't prove there was no creator (nobody can, which is why it is scientifically inadequate), but I can certainly point out that your skepticism that dogs and lobsters could share a common ancestor is logically inconsistent with your claim to buy into genetic change over time.
I believe that you can add 1 and 1 together and get 2. And that you can add 1 to that result to get three, and so on. What I'm skeptical of is that those minor changes could ever add up to a million, or to integers as diverse as 32 and 13429, or a prime number. I just doubt that math has that great a range of potential change.
Yes, right you are. I was going to include a sentence about how the Gregorian Calendar came into existence after several of the "end of the world" dates describable with it had already passed, but I couldn't remember when exactly it was invented and didn't want to look it up. Besides, it seemed somewhat sidereal to my point.
The Mayan Long Count calendar does not even "end" on that date, it merely reaches a point where an additional significant digit is needed to write it.
Saying that the world will end because the calendar ends is foolish enough, but it's worse than that. The people who believe that seem to think that a calendar ends whenever the number of significant digits changes. By that logic, our Gregorian calendar will end on January 1st, 10000 A.D -- and already HAS ended on Jan 1st 1000 A.D., Jan 1st 100 A.D., and Jan 1st 10 A.D.
There is no need for the "IV." Bill O'Reilly mark One was built with a vacuum flux power core that will last for billions of years. It is true that the alloy from which his nanomesh brain is constructed will decay with time, driving him more and more insane, but fortunately this does not adversely impact performance of his primary functions.
I get where you're coming from, and we're on the same side in this debate, but "normal" just isn't the word you want. It is properly defined to denote what is commonplace. You want to use it as a word for the way things should be, as a synonym for rightness. . . and that just isn't the world, amigo.
To invoke a slashdot cliche, I don't think it means what you think it means.
If you want "normal" to mean the same as "the right thing," don't accomplish it by changing the definition of the word -- let's focus on making it commonplace to do the right thing.
people can adapt to accept absolutely everything as normal, as long as there's lots of it everywhere around us.
Isn't that the definition of normal?
Hi,
I am writing to inform you of an accounting error in your recent slashdot post. The post makes it clear that you intended to disburse 2 cents worth of opinion, but I received 6 cents worth. Please find enclosed the excess 4 cents worth of opinion, which I am returning to avoid prosecution.
Zenaku
1) Futurama is a great program.
2) My friend K. has a sweet ass.
3) The Wayans Brothers should be legally barred from making films.
4) Tacos rule.
Hmm. . . on re-reading your post I now realize that you brought it up as both an advantage and a disadvantage, and I am questioning my own reading comprehension skills.
I better go get some caffeine.
You make it sound as though reading your opponent is entirely a matter of observing his body language, and without it you are SOL. I'd say you've watched one to many poker movies themed on the premise that "everyone has a tell."
;)
While a person's body language can certainly give them away, it's only one piece of information that you use to determine whether he has a hand. If a guy looks nervous and uncomfortable like he's trying to get away with something, he might be trying to look like he's bluffing, or he might just be afraid his wife is going to catch him playing poker again.
Their current and prior game behavior is just as if not more important -- What does he usually bet, what does he usually fold, what hands does he like to chase, how does he usually act when he's in a given position. And you still get all of that from a computer opponent.
In fact, I would even suggest that since body language is out of the equation, the computer would be easier to read -- you will have to focus on its style of play, and won't be distracted by less significant factors like how it eats an oreo.
Were you sent here by the devil?
A bear and a human are locked in a fight to the death, and you happen along with a gun, who do you shoot?
Nobody. The bear doesn't need my help, and shooting it OR the person will just alert it to my presence. I back away slowly and quietly, and go back the way I came. Then I tell local authorities where they can recover the poor bastard's remains.
I don't disagree. I was just pointing out that monetary penalties can't be enforced unless you're willing to put the person in prison if they haven't got the cash, and that means that a monetary penalty can never be an alternative to a more physical form of punishment, such as confinement. The confinement becomes the real punishment.
If the fine itself was the real punishement, and the confinement only a means of extracting payment from those who can't pay up front, then you just wind up with a system where the rich can afford to commit crimes and pay the fine whenever they get caught, and the poor go directly to jail.
The system, in my opinion, ought to punish people equally according to the crime, and fine them solely for the purpose of recovering their ill-gotten profits.
There is a huge problem with "Pay X amount of dollars" as a punishment for crime, especially punishment for an intentity theft sort of crime. Usually the perp hasn't got the money, and you can't take away what they don't have.
Nor can you really monitor them and sieze any money they make in the future, because there would be no reason for them to make any, except for what they can continue to make illegally and get away with.
My name is not especially common, but there is another person with the same first and last name as me, who is also from the same hometown as I am, and is 8 or 9 years younger than me.
I first became aware of him when I was in high-school -- his drawing of a ninja turtle was published in the children's section of the newspaper, with my name under it. I got teased. Then a short while later I endured some more razzing when he called the local radio station (and got on air) to request a song that I hated.
I've heard about him numerous times over the years, just because of wires getting crossed. A friend will tell me that they met someone else who knows me, only it will be someone I have never met. My sister will get asked if she is related to me, say yes, and then get a follow up question about how I'm doing that makes no sense, because the person is really asking about the other guy.
I figure he must be about 21 now. God help me, I hope he doesn't have a myspace page.
Like almost all Start Trek technology, the pseudo-science principle used to justify it is pretty malleable, and can be changed by the writers to fit the situation as needed.
The way I remember it, a subject is physically broken down to a molecular level and the actual particles of which he/she is composed are then sent through "subspace." So the subject is in fact transported, not replicated. If the transporter simply transmitted data describing how to build a copy of the person, then 1) there would be no transporter accidents, because you could simply delay disassembling the original until the person had arrived safely, and B) there would be no limitations about "beaming through shields" since their pure communication technologies obviously work through shields. Also, 3) nobody would ever die, since they could always be restored from a "backup copy" using the transporter.
How this explanation, which I recall as the official one, jives with certain episodes like the one with two Rikers is a mystery to me. The beauty of technobabble.
It is true that "Star Trek style Transporters" are used to send Data, but it is with a capital "D" and they can send other crew members too.
Misleading summary. Minus 100 points.
Spoilers may follow.
I'll gladly recant if I'm wrong, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that Starbuck is the 5th of the final five, so we've seen them all.
And I think that sucks. Having 4 to 5 major characters (Okay, so Tory is not a major character and Anders is debatable) suddenly turn out to be cylons smacks of retcon to me, and it renders all their previous development with these characters flat and uninteresting. I'm mostly referring to Tigh's callous and unflinching bigotry towards the "Toasters," and the relationship between Tyrell and Sharon (Boomer/Valeri, not Athena/Agathon).
If I were to go back and watch season one and two again, this lame Shyamalanesque twist will have already polluted my perception, and those stories will seem meaningless, overpowered by the blunt graceless irony of "but HE'S A CYLON!"
I thought the end of season two was bad, but this is worse. It retroactively ruins parts of the series that were previously good.
How's this for disturbing? If you are male and you did want to clone yourself, and I mean clone in the sense of the word where the resulting organism has exactly the same DNA as you, it would require that the egg cell used for the cloning process come from your sister, mother, grandmother, mother's sister, sister's daughter. . . somebody with whom you share a matrilineal blood-line.
This is because you have DNA in the mitochondria in your cells, which you got from your mother, and they are not replaced by the cloning process, which merely replaces the nucleus of the donor cell.
I was disturbed when I realized this, as it means creating my army of clones to bring about my total domination of the globe would require the cooperation of my mom, who probably wouldn't approve.
The article (or at least the interactive thingy) specifically discusses the techniques that image spammers use to confuse OCR and render it ineffective. So, short answer is: filters already do this, and it doesn't work.
That's not my argument at all. My argument is:
All systems of belief that are based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements are religions.
Scientology is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements.
Christianity is based on accepting the truth of clearly impossible statements.
Therefore, both Scientology and Christianity are religions.
It is you who is making an "innocent by association" argument, suggesting that Christianity is somehow a "more true" religion, because of the presence of history in its sacred text and because it's been around longer, and I am arguing solely to refute that notion.
While it is true that I think both are ridiculous, it is not because they are associated with each other. It is because both present fairy tales as fact.
I will admit that as a historical text, the bible contains accounts of many people, places and events that did exist/occur, and records them in a way that is not completely divorced from what actually happened. Considered in this regard, as a history, it is vastly superior to the works of L. Ron Hubbard.
But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.
But as pertains to this discussion, it is the religious aspects that seem relevant to me -- Christians, if they are truly believers, do not go to church and worship Jesus on the grounds that he existed and was mentioned in a historical document that can be partially verified. They worship him on the grounds that he is GOD.
The fact that the unverifiable "miraculous" parts of the bible are embedded into a real history doesn't buy them any credibility as a doctrine. It just makes the fact to bunk ratio more favorable. Clearly, the fact that Jesus existed and was executed by Rome has little bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was God. Similarly, it has no bearing on the veracity of the claim that he was a God who drove a Volkswagen. Or the claim that he was a God and rode around in silver chariot drawn by flying dolphins.
The bible absolutely contains more true statements about the history of civilization than Scientology does -- but the "real religion" cred of both is on equal footing.