I'm not sure that will necessarily help with the general levels of obesity. On the one hand, I know that being overweight is due to consuming more energy than you're using, but we've got god-knows how many generations of evolution fighting against our appetites.
Over the last year or so, I made an effort to reduce my weight a bit as I'd bought a nice new road bike and thought the most cost-effective way of increasing its speed/lightness was to reduce my own weight. Obviously, increasing energy output is an easy way to reduce weight as long as you keep an eye on what you're eating (it's so easy to justify eating a pack of biscuits if you've just burnt the equivalent calories, but it's not going to be the best for your health).
What has amazed me is the sheer amount of calories found in typical food. Food manufacturers are so busy trying to cram calories into us that it takes a continual, conscious effort to eat the appropriate level of calories. I think it's a matter of training your mind/body about the amount of food you consume, but once you get used to a certain level of nutrition, your appetite tends to normalise and you no longer feel hungry most of the time.
However, society puts a huge amount of weight on being thin and this means that most overweight people end up having a really poor self-image which doesn't help them fix the problem (if their weight is a problem to them). When you're food choices are governed by emotions rather than rational thinking, then you're going to opt for the low-fat, high-sugar, diet options out of guilt and the high-fat, high-sugar options due to wanting to feel good.
It doesn't make sense to make fat people feel worse about themselves in public as they'll then find it even harder to lose weight in private (eat salad for lunch, then eat a whole packet of chocolate biscuits every night).
If anything, we should start glorifying chubbies. We need to start having celebrities and catwalk models being a bit on the larger side of average to redress the balance. It seems ridiculous that the modern fashion is for an incredibly low body-fat when so much of socialising is based around eating and drinking.
The reason that "frontside" sensors are built that way round is due to limitations in the manufacturing method. The BIS sensors are a way to get the sensors pointing the right way round - basically by shaving off the silicon wafer that supports the sensors. Eyes don't have the same manufacturing limitations, so it makes more sense to build them in the correct orientation. Unless, of course, an accident of evolution has put the majority of retinas the wrong way round i.e. not intelligently designed.
That SPIE page does describe how the retina can avoid some of the problems of having the cells the wrong way round, but again, the only need for having a waveguide in front of the photoreceptors is because they are back-to-front.
I imagine that squids don't have a huge requirement for colour down in the ocean depths as they'd need to have a light source for colour to be of much use. You might as well ask why humans/primates don't have tetrachromatic vision like most birds do.
The big problem with ID is the complete lack of predictive power that it has. Is there any experiment you could conceive of that would differentiate between evolution and Incompetent Design?
The problem with the retina requiring lots of blood flow to protect from overheating is caused by the cells being back to front. The light sensitive layer is directly next to the pigment layer which is the layer that generates the heat, so if you wire them the right way around, you don't get the overheating problems and thus don't need the fast flowing blood to cool them down.
Honestly, look at the design of squid eyes and compare them to human eyes and it's quite obvious which is the better design.
I've just realised what you're saying - that it's different layers of cells in the retina to detect different wavelengths. Can you point to any diagram of how you think it works, as I was under the impressions that we have different cone cells in the retina which are sensitive to red, blue or green i.e. different cones in the same "layer" not different layers.
If I were designing an eye and I found that the retina cells were prone to overheating from ordinary daylight (which they aren't), then I'd be more likely to stick some kind of filter into the cornea rather than turning all the retinal cells back to front and then introducing wiring complexities and extra muscles to fudge it so that it works.
Richard Dawkins states the case quite clearly in The Blind Watchmaker:
My second example of an evolutionary progression that didn't
happen because of disadvantageous intermediates, even though it
might ultimately have turned out better if it had, concerns the retina of
our eyes (and all other vertebrates). Like any nerve, the optic nerve is a
trunk cable, a bundle of separate 'insulated' wires, in this case about
three million of them. Each of the three million wires leads from one
cell in the retina to the brain. You can think of them as the wires
leading from a bank of three million photocells (actually three million
relay stations gathering information from an even larger number of
photocells) to the computer that is to process the information in the
brain. They are gathered together from all over the retina into a single
bundle, which is the optic nerve for that eye.
Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would
point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards
the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might
point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side
nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate
retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire
sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over
the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the
retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve. This means
that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the
photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably
suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually
probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would
offend any tidy-minded engineer!).
I like the way you're thinking there, but I have a counter-example for the whole Intelligent Squid Designer philosophy:
Cephalod gills don't use a counterflow arrangement (where blood and water move in opposite directions) which would provide a maximum concentration gradient. However, the much more efficient counterflow system is used all over the place (e.g. lungs, fish gills, kidneys, penguin feet) but not in cephalopods.
It's almost as if Cthulhu came up with a great design and then decided to give all his children the retard version of it. Maybe he just hates his kids.
Slightly off topic, but how do IDers explain things like retinas being designed backwards and various other poor design choices for humans? Doesn't the idea become more like "Idiot Design" when considering how badly "designed" we are?
Unfortunately, you're right - that's the current state of patents.
The original idea of patents was to encourage sharing of ideas and that the patents should be written so that a person skilled in the relevant field could re-produce the process. Without patents, there's little incentive to share innovations with others on a business level.
I think the current state of patent law stifles innovation as you can't just invent something without infringing on multiple patents that you've never seen or knowingly used.
Slashdot Mirror
But, if the USians aren't distributing it, then they're not infringing copyright.
I saw that and had forgotten that it was Ridley Scott. That was one of the most boring films I've ever seen (I'd rather watch Satantango).
Mercerism?
Radio Free Albemuth has already been filmed and there's a kickstarter campaign running to get it published:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elizabethkarr/radio-free-albemuth-theatrical-release/
I haven't seen the film myself, but the reviews are good from the dick-heads that have seen it. (Crossing fingers that the campaign will get funded).
I'd posit that the movie that most qualifies for not needing a sequel, it'd be Donnie Darko.
Locking files all the time and not making it easy to see who or which process has locked them.
Also, why are most dialog boxes in windows not resizable?
Maybe it's like cactus: Doofi.
Yes, but in this example, CP stands for Crap Programs.
EOC - Eventually On Canon?
I'm not sure that will necessarily help with the general levels of obesity. On the one hand, I know that being overweight is due to consuming more energy than you're using, but we've got god-knows how many generations of evolution fighting against our appetites.
Over the last year or so, I made an effort to reduce my weight a bit as I'd bought a nice new road bike and thought the most cost-effective way of increasing its speed/lightness was to reduce my own weight. Obviously, increasing energy output is an easy way to reduce weight as long as you keep an eye on what you're eating (it's so easy to justify eating a pack of biscuits if you've just burnt the equivalent calories, but it's not going to be the best for your health).
What has amazed me is the sheer amount of calories found in typical food. Food manufacturers are so busy trying to cram calories into us that it takes a continual, conscious effort to eat the appropriate level of calories. I think it's a matter of training your mind/body about the amount of food you consume, but once you get used to a certain level of nutrition, your appetite tends to normalise and you no longer feel hungry most of the time.
However, society puts a huge amount of weight on being thin and this means that most overweight people end up having a really poor self-image which doesn't help them fix the problem (if their weight is a problem to them). When you're food choices are governed by emotions rather than rational thinking, then you're going to opt for the low-fat, high-sugar, diet options out of guilt and the high-fat, high-sugar options due to wanting to feel good.
It doesn't make sense to make fat people feel worse about themselves in public as they'll then find it even harder to lose weight in private (eat salad for lunch, then eat a whole packet of chocolate biscuits every night).
If anything, we should start glorifying chubbies. We need to start having celebrities and catwalk models being a bit on the larger side of average to redress the balance. It seems ridiculous that the modern fashion is for an incredibly low body-fat when so much of socialising is based around eating and drinking.
The reason that "frontside" sensors are built that way round is due to limitations in the manufacturing method. The BIS sensors are a way to get the sensors pointing the right way round - basically by shaving off the silicon wafer that supports the sensors. Eyes don't have the same manufacturing limitations, so it makes more sense to build them in the correct orientation. Unless, of course, an accident of evolution has put the majority of retinas the wrong way round i.e. not intelligently designed.
That SPIE page does describe how the retina can avoid some of the problems of having the cells the wrong way round, but again, the only need for having a waveguide in front of the photoreceptors is because they are back-to-front.
I imagine that squids don't have a huge requirement for colour down in the ocean depths as they'd need to have a light source for colour to be of much use. You might as well ask why humans/primates don't have tetrachromatic vision like most birds do.
The big problem with ID is the complete lack of predictive power that it has. Is there any experiment you could conceive of that would differentiate between evolution and Incompetent Design?
Yes, yes it is correct.
The problem with the retina requiring lots of blood flow to protect from overheating is caused by the cells being back to front. The light sensitive layer is directly next to the pigment layer which is the layer that generates the heat, so if you wire them the right way around, you don't get the overheating problems and thus don't need the fast flowing blood to cool them down.
Honestly, look at the design of squid eyes and compare them to human eyes and it's quite obvious which is the better design.
I've just realised what you're saying - that it's different layers of cells in the retina to detect different wavelengths. Can you point to any diagram of how you think it works, as I was under the impressions that we have different cone cells in the retina which are sensitive to red, blue or green i.e. different cones in the same "layer" not different layers.
Here's a couple of helpful diagrams: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-i-foundations/simple-anatomy-of-the-retina/
If I were designing an eye and I found that the retina cells were prone to overheating from ordinary daylight (which they aren't), then I'd be more likely to stick some kind of filter into the cornea rather than turning all the retinal cells back to front and then introducing wiring complexities and extra muscles to fudge it so that it works.
Wouldn't that mean that they'd benefit more from a decent concentration gradient as the copper can't carry as much oxygen as iron?
I like the way you're thinking there, but I have a counter-example for the whole Intelligent Squid Designer philosophy:
Cephalod gills don't use a counterflow arrangement (where blood and water move in opposite directions) which would provide a maximum concentration gradient. However, the much more efficient counterflow system is used all over the place (e.g. lungs, fish gills, kidneys, penguin feet) but not in cephalopods.
It's almost as if Cthulhu came up with a great design and then decided to give all his children the retard version of it. Maybe he just hates his kids.
Slightly off topic, but how do IDers explain things like retinas being designed backwards and various other poor design choices for humans? Doesn't the idea become more like "Idiot Design" when considering how badly "designed" we are?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I didn't think that you had to apply for copyright - it's automatic.
An abandonware law would be nice - we could get hold of the source code for previous Windows versions and have a good laugh.
Is that like if a tree falls in a forest and there's no-one to hear it?
If you don't get caught, then surely you haven't technically broken any law (until you get caught and found guilty).
Nope: I misread it as "Pubic Clown"
Yes, but then you'll also be removing the heat output and possible out-gassing of the components as variables as well.
Unfortunately, you're right - that's the current state of patents.
The original idea of patents was to encourage sharing of ideas and that the patents should be written so that a person skilled in the relevant field could re-produce the process. Without patents, there's little incentive to share innovations with others on a business level.
I think the current state of patent law stifles innovation as you can't just invent something without infringing on multiple patents that you've never seen or knowingly used.