Actually, I've never had any issue with the available optimizations in the GCC for the PPC architecture. This may be, in part, due to my understanding of those features though. The PPC doesn't necessarily need all the "optimization features" that the x86 line has, partly due to being a more robust architecture. It's much like the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" strategy. x86 just needs a little more help. It's more out of need that it has more optimization options than PPC than out of any failing of the PPC or the gcc team to provide optimizations for PPC.
Forgive me, since I am a regular pot smoker, and to tell the truth, I'm a little high right now, but you've mentioned "heavy-duty side effects" and a DSM-IV addiction citation, neither of which you can find. I can find plenty of reputably conducted studies on marijuana which show both sides of the argument, and it didn't take much searching to find the DSM-IV criteria for determining addiction.
I'm failing to see why your post was modded as informative, as it didn't provide any concrete information (and it's okay for me not to at this point, since I'm editorializing and not attempting to be informative). It constantly irks me that people enter into a discussion and use "it's in some study somewhere about something that I read sometime but can no longer find and apparently no one else can either" as an argumentative device. I'm sorry, but you do more to discredit your cause (even if you are right) than to help it in my opinion by employing that.
Now for some anecdotal evidence:
I've been a daily pot smoker for a few years now. I have not suffered any signs of physiological or psychological dependence on it. I do it because I enjoy it, and I do it when I choose to enjoy it. Consequently, this happens to be every day, but in a moderated amount and at a time of my own choosing (typically before going to sleep, and never when it would interfere with any other obligations that I have). So far, it hasn't cut into anything yet, but that's not saying that it can't, and it's only me. I will also admit that under the DSM-IV, my habits qualify as substance abuse.....then again every time I read the DSM-IV, I think I have some condition listed in it. I think it's the way it's written, but that is entirely off topic, for which I apologize.
What a good point you make! You are certainly correct, that one data point doesn't indicate any sort of trend whatsoever.
Now that we have established this, let's look at this discussion in the context of the history of the earth. There is a natural occurrence of global warming in our history (completely independent of random periods of sun spots or people...no....really, I mean it!). Given the incredibly short duration of the statistics that you mentioned to illustrate your point with respect to geologic time, I'd have to say that your statistics don't even form a full data point.
Face it, this kind of stuff happens. We may be responsible for part of it, but I think that after reviewing the evidence of global warming existing before our species (and being worse at some points) I'd have to say that it's a little bit of hubris to think that we, as a species, could be responsible for this. I'm not saying we shouldn't clean things up and take better care of the place (I advocate that, don't get me wrong), but I believe our motivation should come from the fact that we need to maintain our environment, not from the irrational fear that we are capable of burning up the planet by driving our SUVs (and yes, I have one. It hauls more people so we only have to take one vehicle instead of two small ones and frankly its just damned convenient).
Yes, you are correct, it is a rapid (geologically speaking) and large process. However, it isn't the fastest we've ever experienced a warming event in our history. I also think that it's interesting to note that nearly all of our previous warming events either predate our species or at least predate our technology. Thankfully this isn't a topic of who is to blame for climate change, so forgive me for straying slightly off topic to mention that.
What I would like to mention is that I am really loving the increasing levels of CO2. It's a perfect compliment for all of the free oxygen we're getting out of the deal. Think about it: oceans warm, ice melts, algae grows in the now exposed and warmer waters and is further fed by the growing levels of CO2. We can see evidence of this happening many times (rock flowering is one such source). Geologists have known that this seems to happen to our planet, largely of its own volition, from time to time, and to tell you the truth: we haven't been worried. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Oh, no, the average global temperature is going up by a degree Celsius over the course of half a century due to the millions of tons of carbon output we have as a species. Yeah, well, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, it released enough ash to lower (bear in mind, this is with global warming working against it) the average planetary temperature by one degree Celsius for two years. We also won't go into the random releasing of tons and tons of methane that was compressed as ice under the oceans quite a long time ago which fried the crap out of the planet. Now THAT was global warming. The planet itself spontaneously released more greenhouse gases than we as a species have since our inception. Oh, the things nature does when no one is paying attention. Honestly, someone should lobby against random acts of nature which are harmful to....nature.
I'm just going to kick back and enjoy the benefits of this naturally occurring process. I'm really okay with more oxygen, and better beach locations popping up around the world that haven't been exploited as such, what with the past temperate spell we've been having (glad to see we're not stuck in that anymore).
On another note, I believe this may encourage a healthier life style for people in general. We've all known for a long time that fat people don't do well in the heat. This is just a little incentive from nature (in small part helped by humans) and I welcome it.
I have no designs on making any sort of race related commentary, but I do have to touch on this topic for a moment. I happen to come from a very low income, absolutely uneducated (read: I'm the first to finish high school in my direct family history), yet I have turned out with a high IQ score and have done quite well academically. My parents never pushed me toward it, and my redneck-middile-of-nowhere school didn't either. This was done completely on my own, and was only slightly complicated by my impoverished upbringing. It did make things difficult, but I motivated myself to overcome it. The same is not true, however, for my two younger siblings.
They bought in to the poor, white trash culture that we grew up in, and that's how they are to this day, along with the rest of my family. I love them to death, but we all had the same genetic stock to come from, the same upbringing, and the same schooling, but we turned out like we were from different worlds.
To say that it is economic conditions are a governing factor in determining human intelligence is, in my opinion, grossly overstating that influence. It's more about culture and motivation to overcome your circumstances, and a curiosity about the world and its workings. I can say comfortably that intelligence is not determined by race. Race, however, does have a huge impact on culture and expectations for emerging individuals into that culture. Asian cultures tend to place a lot of emphasis on doing well in all that you do, and using what you have to its full potential. We find that to lesser degrees in other cultures, and it does seem to show through in the end result. Those of European extraction typically have an advantage when it comes to good conditions, both geographically and economically, but as we can see from my personal case, that is not always true.
I honestly do believe that the link is more cultural than strictly genetic. Once in a while we do have a naturally born genius in our midst in any race or culture, but I would be more likely to attribute the bulk on intellectual outcomes to culture.
Just my opinion.
I don't have a problem differentiating chromatic pitches either. It's just a half step interval after all. Tuning I'm fairly good on by ear, though I tend to be a few cents flat by ear, but nothing bad. I find this to be true on all of the instruments I play also, as well as when I try to sing pitches (I may have a terrible singing voice, but I can sing the correct pitches).
I have pretty good pitch (not sure if you'd qualify it as "perfect"). Tuning to A (440 Hz) didn't really distort this ability though while I've been a musician. I do have a set of "reference pitches" that I can internalize and I can determine pitches relative to them. A440 is one of those pitches, but not the first one I use for reference, even though it is the "universal" tuning note. Could have something to do with it not being one of the notes I tuned my instrument to,and that I had a transposing instrument relative to concert pitches though.
I'm sorry, strike David Hume from that last posting, as that is a total discredit to his empirical nature. I had his work on my mind when I was thinking of inductive reasoning in the previous posting (as he was against its logical admissibility) and I ended up typing his name instead. Please replace "David Hume" with "Archbishop Usher" if you will and ignore my previous slip.
Your use of "theory" is somewhat incorrect as it relates to science. You are using it in a sense where you have an idea that sounds plausible, though there is nothing to back it up, but you will be attempting to back it up at some point. In science, a theory is a collection of hypotheses which have been shown to be supportable by verifiable data. Also, the methodology you advocate may be a "valid" methodology, but that is not science by definition.
Science follows a process which can be described thusly:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
This must also be done objectively and without bias. To start with the conclusion (differing from a hypothesis in that a hypothesis is a "might be" and a conclusion is a "must be") is to introduce bias.
The process you are describing, where one starts with a conclusion which is not supported by any evidence and then seeks to find the evidence which supports the conclusion is not science, but rather pseudoscience as it relies on confirmation rather than refutation. It may seem to work, and you may be able to get a lot of people to buy it, but that doesn't make it science. What that would be is inductive reasoning at best, and if you'd like to stay on that ship you are more than welcome. David Hume will be your captain and you may feel free to sail about the flat Earth. Mind the edges though, the drop can be rather nasty.
There is a slight difference in the methodologies between general/special relativity in the case you speak of and the genetic variance which was being determined by these researchers. When Einstein was developing his theories of general/special relativity, he could largely use mathematical modeling to construct a system under which it could be initially proven, with later, more concrete applications to back up the formulaic approach from the modeling. In this manner, we could determine HOW genetic variation occurs, and build statistical models of how populations could likely vary given particular parameters and arrive at a model this way. This has been done already, which is why we have the two theories of single point and multi-regional origins. Much in the manner that you described where general relativity accurately predicted the orbit of Mercury, so did other competing models at the time. This is the stage that we are at with the two theories of origin which are being discussed. The researchers mentioned in the original article, with a hypothesis and the previously done statistical modeling, set out to find the "hard" evidence which would further substantiate the findings in their models. I am sure that the multi-regional folks have done the same, however, Mr. Hawkes has no mention (that I have found thus far) of "hard" evidence of the type gathered by the research team in the original article to substantiate his claims.
I am not incorrect per se that science doesn't work from the conclusion backward. I should further clarify perhaps, that GOOD science runs from hypothesis to data gathering, testing, and conclusion, while POOR science starts with the conclusion, then gathers evidence, rarely tests (or does not test rigorously enough, or only tests certain applications in which the original conclusion would prove to be true while avoiding or dismissing other testing which might find flaw with it). You are right, it does happen all the time, but that doesn't make it good, correct, or inclusive.
Theories may be well tested and substantiated, and we must accept them until at which point another substantiated theory or model is developed which describes not only the original observations, but either describes them in greater detail or with greater accuracy (as in the case mentioned above between Newtonian Mechanics and general relativity), or describes the previous observation set while managing to accurately describe other observable data not previously described by the last prevailing theory on the subject.
Thus far, the research team mentioned in the original article are doing a good job of holding to this by providing a theory which is able to be substantiated, and accurately describes observable data. Mr. Hawks, and other multi-regional origin theorists are lagging behind at this point. This does not mean that those researchers in the article are right, and Mr. Hawks and his camp are wrong, but as of this time, the researchers from the article have done more to substantiate their theory of a single point of origin. For now, owing to the nature of science and rational though, this is the theory which must be considered to be the most complete and correct.
any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.
In which case, as this order is a designed as a tool to facilitate peace, economic stablity, etc in Iraq, in effect, by protesting you are committing an act which undermines the purpose of the order. Pay attention to where the "or" falls...
I wouldn't quite consider what Mr. Hawks is doing to be "tearing the research to pieces". Mr. Hawks is a researcher with a competing viewpoint. Furthermore, the viewpoint that is expressed (and this may be largely due to the interviewer, and may not be the fault of Mr. Hawks in all fairness) doesn't give much in the way of evidence to support his viewpoint (note "I'm really thinking just the opposite of this paper," is about as strong as it gets in the article. www.johnhawks.net has a bit more). Mr. Hawks seems to be carrying on the research of his doctoral advisor, Milford Wolpoff, who strongly advocates the multiregional idea. It seems here that we have a researcher who started with a conclusion and is trying to find data to support it, rather than starting with a hypothesis, gathering data, and forming a conclusion (some things can work backward...science isn't one of them). Mr. Hawks seems to be a little ruffled now that someone has published research (which went the right way up the scientific method) which doesn't seem to jive with his view.
If you want a great overview of evolution explained in a great manner, grab some books by Stephen Jay Gould (or read up at http://www.stephenjaygould.org./ By far, one of the greatest in the field of Paleontology (co-developer of the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is quite important to this discussion. A shame that Mr. Hawks doesn't seem to be very familiar with this concept). More than worth the read for anyone interested in the subject.
I cut my teeth in role playing on the old West End Games Star Wars d6 system. I played the d20 and truth be told, spent the entire time missing the d6 system and material. I'd take the old standby d6 any day over what WotC put out. The real shame was not the original d20 version from Wizards meeting product death, but rather the West End Games version doing the same. I finally found all of the d6 material at a used bookstore and coughed up the cash to rescue it, so it couldn't be lost to me and my small collective of friends who miss the real classic Star Wars role playing experience.
As an avid fan of White Wolf's World of Darkness games (all LARP, former Camarilla storyteller and the like) I'm kind of saddened to see everyone (or at least from what I've read thus far) hyping up just the potential Vamire aspect of it. The World of Darkness has many other things to offer, from mortals to Mages to Werewolves to Prometheans, all of which would be equally fun to play in my opinion. It would be nice to see at least some of the other elements included for play, rather than the standard Vampire aspect (which don't get me wrong, I love playing LARP....yey for fake political backstabbing). But given the choice, I'll take a Mastigos any day of the week as my character......complete with "reality"'s favorite bitch-slapping tool: paradox. That would be awesome concept to see in an MMORPG that we have not seen before really, and it would be annoying, but oh so much fun at the same time.
I'll be interested to see what comes out of all of this. Either way, we have a long time to wait and in the mean time, I'll be keeping busy with the Camarilla and good old WoD LARP.
We must also remember that OpenOffice looks like a tool (it is, and a very good one I might add), and that Microsoft Office looks like a toy (pretty paint on the outside, choking hazard on the inside). The average user, especially those who are still slightly intimidated by computers (like my father) prefer the look and feel of Microsoft products. People like my father just need to create a spreadsheet, they don't necessarily need to create a GOOD spreadsheet. Microsoft Office came with his computer and that's where he's staying. Personally, I prefer OpenOffice. It gives me better quality on every platform I need it to run on.
I'm a Linux systems engineer for a company here in Austin, Tx and thankfully I was allowed to load whatever I wished for an OS on my personal workstation, with no pressure to even dual boot with Windows. While some of our programs (for instance a billing program for our time spent working for clients) are based solely on Windows, I find that I can always slide over to someone else's workstation and borrow it for a couple of minutes to make the entry, and no one seems to mind. Aside from that one particular application, I haven't hit any roadblocks yet. The company I work for realizes that I am more productive on Linux and leaves me be. The other Linux/UNIX guy runs two workstations, one Windows and one Linux, just out of personal desire to have one of everything we use at his fingertips.
Our developers develop on and for the Windows platform, or develop net based apps, so they really only need to use Windows (that and they are comfortable with it) and really have no need to learn another OS and make the switch. I do find it satisfying that nearly every other computer they interact with on our network is UNIX based. Since I started working there, those who work in my department have been expressing a desire to learn Linux/UNIX at home. With the Monodevelop project, our programmers were pleased to find they can do.NET stuff under Linux.
I also found it funny that our IS manager said that if it wasn't for our.NET development needs we'd all be using Macs if it were up to him personally. I was happy to find out that Monodevelp runs on Macs too now.
I'm glad that I do work in an environment that allows me direct access to the tools I need, without having to virtualize or being bound to one particular platform. If your a UNIX guy, you should be allowed to use UNIX, same if you are a Windows or a Mac guy. It just makes more sense.
Just thought I'd throw in my information.
This is a correct assumption in so far as I can tell. However, bottlenecking is still an issue. If the CPU and other associated hardware cannot handle the thoroughput straight from all four cards, you will see degredation in performance. It's much like the difference between a common garden hose and a pressure washer. Putting Quad SLI cards in with a normal CPU is like putting 3000 psi through a Wal-Mart garden hose.
Having all the power in the world at the source won't do you a bit of extra good if it can't get where it's going in an efficient manner.
And according to ATI Crossfired Radeon X1900 XTX cards are bottle necked by current CPUs. Does this mean that one ATI card is worth two NVIDIA after all, or is NVIDIA finally sweating to keep up with the performance users expect out of their hardware?
The reference to Plate wasn't meant to be a geology reference at all. It was actually in reference to a philosophy lecture I attended that dealt with Plato's "Cave". In it the professor noted that if one were to escape from the cave and see the world for what it truly was outside, he would most likely be killed when he went back inside to tell the rest. They would kill him out of fear, because what he said would scare them, by telling them everything they believed was false. Your example you provide is also quite on topic though, and I thank you for it. Perhaps I should have explained more rather than leaving a vague reference. Philosophy was never my strong point, but I do like to borrow from it. Afterall, science, the arts and philosophy all share the exact same purpose: to show us our true place in the universe.
Also it is interesting to point out that male bees share 1/3 the genetic material as their sister counterparts and are treated accordingly. They are allowed to die if given a choice between females and males, and on average they are 1/3 the size because they are fed 1/3 less. I still find that fascinating.
Alright, I conceed the math to you (wish I had the book in front of me so I could have stated it right the first time, but thank you for the timely correction). It was actually more the issue with the bees and the ants that I wanted people to read for and you did a remarkable job of pointing it out.
I think I may have an unfair advantage in this discussion over some, since I'm sitting here with Physical and Historical Geology courses (my major), Ahtropology, Paleontology, Botany and Zoology courses as well under my belt and forgive me, but I'm having a frustrated scientist moment.
Please check out the writings of Stehen Jay Gould to learn what evolution really is http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html
Please also understand the Hardy-Weinberg Principle when talking about population evolution (sorry about the spelling error before on that name) http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html
Lastly, on a seemingly offtopic note, but equally as frustrating: for those of you who keep bringing up gods, creationism, and intelligent design and may wish it in our schools or discussed, it already is at the college level. It is a philosophy course on the "Teleological Argument" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Sorry all. After reading all of these posts and making some of my own, I had to get that off my chest. I will probably suffer being moderated down for this, but I'm willing to take that. Kind of makes me feel like I'm a part of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" if it happens really. http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
Yes, science is a candle in the dark, please, don't hit it with your Bible.
As you brought up, more and more we are actively selecting for our traits when we reproduce, and these are not necessarily genetic traits. Since we have introduced this form of artificial selection upon ourselves, selecting for phenotype rather than genotype we have violated a basic assumption of the Hardy Wineburg Principle (for the love of science, please Google that if you don't know what it is). We are still continuing to evolove, in the sense that we are seeing shifts in allele frequency, and can't do anything about that. However, we are not so much evolving in the more natural sense anymore, due to our violation of one of the basic assumptions of the Hardy Wineburg principle. Just food for thought that may provide better insight into this discussion.
Finally, somone who speaks the truth here. If you want to gain insight into evolution, Stephen Jay Gould (rest his soul) is the perfect place to check. Perhaps you will be fortunate enough to find the essay on bees, ants and termites, which taught me that saving one of your siblings from death is a nice thing to do, saving two is breaking even, and saving three is just plain selfish, from an evolutionary stance. (In essense, one sibling shares roughly half of your DNA, two siblings share between them 100%, and three siblings share 150% between them, thus actually giving "your" genes a better chance of spreading if all three live and you die in the process). Thought I'd throw that out there. Gould really was a brilliant man.
Actually, if you will refer to Dr. Aubrey de Grey's work on Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/ you will find that this is not entirely true. Also I feel that what everyone seems to be overlooking in this discussion is that evolution is merely the change in genes over time within a population. It is not inherently adventageous to the organism. That train of thought is called a "teleological assumption" which is a very nasty thing to make in the Biology community. "Evolution" doesn't necessarily make it any easier for an organism to survive, but it surely can. Deleterious mutations, while usually weeded out can and do get passed along, and that is evolution too.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've never had any issue with the available optimizations in the GCC for the PPC architecture. This may be, in part, due to my understanding of those features though. The PPC doesn't necessarily need all the "optimization features" that the x86 line has, partly due to being a more robust architecture. It's much like the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" strategy. x86 just needs a little more help. It's more out of need that it has more optimization options than PPC than out of any failing of the PPC or the gcc team to provide optimizations for PPC.
Forgive me, since I am a regular pot smoker, and to tell the truth, I'm a little high right now, but you've mentioned "heavy-duty side effects" and a DSM-IV addiction citation, neither of which you can find. I can find plenty of reputably conducted studies on marijuana which show both sides of the argument, and it didn't take much searching to find the DSM-IV criteria for determining addiction.
I'm failing to see why your post was modded as informative, as it didn't provide any concrete information (and it's okay for me not to at this point, since I'm editorializing and not attempting to be informative). It constantly irks me that people enter into a discussion and use "it's in some study somewhere about something that I read sometime but can no longer find and apparently no one else can either" as an argumentative device. I'm sorry, but you do more to discredit your cause (even if you are right) than to help it in my opinion by employing that.
Now for some anecdotal evidence:
I've been a daily pot smoker for a few years now. I have not suffered any signs of physiological or psychological dependence on it. I do it because I enjoy it, and I do it when I choose to enjoy it. Consequently, this happens to be every day, but in a moderated amount and at a time of my own choosing (typically before going to sleep, and never when it would interfere with any other obligations that I have). So far, it hasn't cut into anything yet, but that's not saying that it can't, and it's only me. I will also admit that under the DSM-IV, my habits qualify as substance abuse.....then again every time I read the DSM-IV, I think I have some condition listed in it. I think it's the way it's written, but that is entirely off topic, for which I apologize.
What a good point you make! You are certainly correct, that one data point doesn't indicate any sort of trend whatsoever.
Now that we have established this, let's look at this discussion in the context of the history of the earth. There is a natural occurrence of global warming in our history (completely independent of random periods of sun spots or people...no....really, I mean it!). Given the incredibly short duration of the statistics that you mentioned to illustrate your point with respect to geologic time, I'd have to say that your statistics don't even form a full data point.
Face it, this kind of stuff happens. We may be responsible for part of it, but I think that after reviewing the evidence of global warming existing before our species (and being worse at some points) I'd have to say that it's a little bit of hubris to think that we, as a species, could be responsible for this. I'm not saying we shouldn't clean things up and take better care of the place (I advocate that, don't get me wrong), but I believe our motivation should come from the fact that we need to maintain our environment, not from the irrational fear that we are capable of burning up the planet by driving our SUVs (and yes, I have one. It hauls more people so we only have to take one vehicle instead of two small ones and frankly its just damned convenient).
Yes, you are correct, it is a rapid (geologically speaking) and large process. However, it isn't the fastest we've ever experienced a warming event in our history. I also think that it's interesting to note that nearly all of our previous warming events either predate our species or at least predate our technology. Thankfully this isn't a topic of who is to blame for climate change, so forgive me for straying slightly off topic to mention that.
What I would like to mention is that I am really loving the increasing levels of CO2. It's a perfect compliment for all of the free oxygen we're getting out of the deal. Think about it: oceans warm, ice melts, algae grows in the now exposed and warmer waters and is further fed by the growing levels of CO2. We can see evidence of this happening many times (rock flowering is one such source). Geologists have known that this seems to happen to our planet, largely of its own volition, from time to time, and to tell you the truth: we haven't been worried. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Oh, no, the average global temperature is going up by a degree Celsius over the course of half a century due to the millions of tons of carbon output we have as a species. Yeah, well, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, it released enough ash to lower (bear in mind, this is with global warming working against it) the average planetary temperature by one degree Celsius for two years. We also won't go into the random releasing of tons and tons of methane that was compressed as ice under the oceans quite a long time ago which fried the crap out of the planet. Now THAT was global warming. The planet itself spontaneously released more greenhouse gases than we as a species have since our inception. Oh, the things nature does when no one is paying attention. Honestly, someone should lobby against random acts of nature which are harmful to....nature.
I'm just going to kick back and enjoy the benefits of this naturally occurring process. I'm really okay with more oxygen, and better beach locations popping up around the world that haven't been exploited as such, what with the past temperate spell we've been having (glad to see we're not stuck in that anymore).
On another note, I believe this may encourage a healthier life style for people in general. We've all known for a long time that fat people don't do well in the heat. This is just a little incentive from nature (in small part helped by humans) and I welcome it.
I have no designs on making any sort of race related commentary, but I do have to touch on this topic for a moment. I happen to come from a very low income, absolutely uneducated (read: I'm the first to finish high school in my direct family history), yet I have turned out with a high IQ score and have done quite well academically. My parents never pushed me toward it, and my redneck-middile-of-nowhere school didn't either. This was done completely on my own, and was only slightly complicated by my impoverished upbringing. It did make things difficult, but I motivated myself to overcome it. The same is not true, however, for my two younger siblings. They bought in to the poor, white trash culture that we grew up in, and that's how they are to this day, along with the rest of my family. I love them to death, but we all had the same genetic stock to come from, the same upbringing, and the same schooling, but we turned out like we were from different worlds. To say that it is economic conditions are a governing factor in determining human intelligence is, in my opinion, grossly overstating that influence. It's more about culture and motivation to overcome your circumstances, and a curiosity about the world and its workings. I can say comfortably that intelligence is not determined by race. Race, however, does have a huge impact on culture and expectations for emerging individuals into that culture. Asian cultures tend to place a lot of emphasis on doing well in all that you do, and using what you have to its full potential. We find that to lesser degrees in other cultures, and it does seem to show through in the end result. Those of European extraction typically have an advantage when it comes to good conditions, both geographically and economically, but as we can see from my personal case, that is not always true. I honestly do believe that the link is more cultural than strictly genetic. Once in a while we do have a naturally born genius in our midst in any race or culture, but I would be more likely to attribute the bulk on intellectual outcomes to culture. Just my opinion.
I don't have a problem differentiating chromatic pitches either. It's just a half step interval after all. Tuning I'm fairly good on by ear, though I tend to be a few cents flat by ear, but nothing bad. I find this to be true on all of the instruments I play also, as well as when I try to sing pitches (I may have a terrible singing voice, but I can sing the correct pitches).
I have pretty good pitch (not sure if you'd qualify it as "perfect"). Tuning to A (440 Hz) didn't really distort this ability though while I've been a musician. I do have a set of "reference pitches" that I can internalize and I can determine pitches relative to them. A440 is one of those pitches, but not the first one I use for reference, even though it is the "universal" tuning note. Could have something to do with it not being one of the notes I tuned my instrument to,and that I had a transposing instrument relative to concert pitches though.
I'm sorry, strike David Hume from that last posting, as that is a total discredit to his empirical nature. I had his work on my mind when I was thinking of inductive reasoning in the previous posting (as he was against its logical admissibility) and I ended up typing his name instead. Please replace "David Hume" with "Archbishop Usher" if you will and ignore my previous slip.
Your use of "theory" is somewhat incorrect as it relates to science. You are using it in a sense where you have an idea that sounds plausible, though there is nothing to back it up, but you will be attempting to back it up at some point. In science, a theory is a collection of hypotheses which have been shown to be supportable by verifiable data. Also, the methodology you advocate may be a "valid" methodology, but that is not science by definition.
Science follows a process which can be described thusly:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
This must also be done objectively and without bias. To start with the conclusion (differing from a hypothesis in that a hypothesis is a "might be" and a conclusion is a "must be") is to introduce bias.
The process you are describing, where one starts with a conclusion which is not supported by any evidence and then seeks to find the evidence which supports the conclusion is not science, but rather pseudoscience as it relies on confirmation rather than refutation. It may seem to work, and you may be able to get a lot of people to buy it, but that doesn't make it science. What that would be is inductive reasoning at best, and if you'd like to stay on that ship you are more than welcome. David Hume will be your captain and you may feel free to sail about the flat Earth. Mind the edges though, the drop can be rather nasty.
There is a slight difference in the methodologies between general/special relativity in the case you speak of and the genetic variance which was being determined by these researchers. When Einstein was developing his theories of general/special relativity, he could largely use mathematical modeling to construct a system under which it could be initially proven, with later, more concrete applications to back up the formulaic approach from the modeling. In this manner, we could determine HOW genetic variation occurs, and build statistical models of how populations could likely vary given particular parameters and arrive at a model this way. This has been done already, which is why we have the two theories of single point and multi-regional origins. Much in the manner that you described where general relativity accurately predicted the orbit of Mercury, so did other competing models at the time. This is the stage that we are at with the two theories of origin which are being discussed. The researchers mentioned in the original article, with a hypothesis and the previously done statistical modeling, set out to find the "hard" evidence which would further substantiate the findings in their models. I am sure that the multi-regional folks have done the same, however, Mr. Hawkes has no mention (that I have found thus far) of "hard" evidence of the type gathered by the research team in the original article to substantiate his claims.
I am not incorrect per se that science doesn't work from the conclusion backward. I should further clarify perhaps, that GOOD science runs from hypothesis to data gathering, testing, and conclusion, while POOR science starts with the conclusion, then gathers evidence, rarely tests (or does not test rigorously enough, or only tests certain applications in which the original conclusion would prove to be true while avoiding or dismissing other testing which might find flaw with it). You are right, it does happen all the time, but that doesn't make it good, correct, or inclusive.
Theories may be well tested and substantiated, and we must accept them until at which point another substantiated theory or model is developed which describes not only the original observations, but either describes them in greater detail or with greater accuracy (as in the case mentioned above between Newtonian Mechanics and general relativity), or describes the previous observation set while managing to accurately describe other observable data not previously described by the last prevailing theory on the subject.
Thus far, the research team mentioned in the original article are doing a good job of holding to this by providing a theory which is able to be substantiated, and accurately describes observable data. Mr. Hawks, and other multi-regional origin theorists are lagging behind at this point. This does not mean that those researchers in the article are right, and Mr. Hawks and his camp are wrong, but as of this time, the researchers from the article have done more to substantiate their theory of a single point of origin. For now, owing to the nature of science and rational though, this is the theory which must be considered to be the most complete and correct.
In which case, as this order is a designed as a tool to facilitate peace, economic stablity, etc in Iraq, in effect, by protesting you are committing an act which undermines the purpose of the order. Pay attention to where the "or" falls...
I wouldn't quite consider what Mr. Hawks is doing to be "tearing the research to pieces". Mr. Hawks is a researcher with a competing viewpoint. Furthermore, the viewpoint that is expressed (and this may be largely due to the interviewer, and may not be the fault of Mr. Hawks in all fairness) doesn't give much in the way of evidence to support his viewpoint (note "I'm really thinking just the opposite of this paper," is about as strong as it gets in the article. www.johnhawks.net has a bit more). Mr. Hawks seems to be carrying on the research of his doctoral advisor, Milford Wolpoff, who strongly advocates the multiregional idea. It seems here that we have a researcher who started with a conclusion and is trying to find data to support it, rather than starting with a hypothesis, gathering data, and forming a conclusion (some things can work backward...science isn't one of them). Mr. Hawks seems to be a little ruffled now that someone has published research (which went the right way up the scientific method) which doesn't seem to jive with his view. If you want a great overview of evolution explained in a great manner, grab some books by Stephen Jay Gould (or read up at http://www.stephenjaygould.org./ By far, one of the greatest in the field of Paleontology (co-developer of the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is quite important to this discussion. A shame that Mr. Hawks doesn't seem to be very familiar with this concept). More than worth the read for anyone interested in the subject.
I cut my teeth in role playing on the old West End Games Star Wars d6 system. I played the d20 and truth be told, spent the entire time missing the d6 system and material. I'd take the old standby d6 any day over what WotC put out. The real shame was not the original d20 version from Wizards meeting product death, but rather the West End Games version doing the same. I finally found all of the d6 material at a used bookstore and coughed up the cash to rescue it, so it couldn't be lost to me and my small collective of friends who miss the real classic Star Wars role playing experience.
As an avid fan of White Wolf's World of Darkness games (all LARP, former Camarilla storyteller and the like) I'm kind of saddened to see everyone (or at least from what I've read thus far) hyping up just the potential Vamire aspect of it. The World of Darkness has many other things to offer, from mortals to Mages to Werewolves to Prometheans, all of which would be equally fun to play in my opinion. It would be nice to see at least some of the other elements included for play, rather than the standard Vampire aspect (which don't get me wrong, I love playing LARP....yey for fake political backstabbing). But given the choice, I'll take a Mastigos any day of the week as my character......complete with "reality"'s favorite bitch-slapping tool: paradox. That would be awesome concept to see in an MMORPG that we have not seen before really, and it would be annoying, but oh so much fun at the same time. I'll be interested to see what comes out of all of this. Either way, we have a long time to wait and in the mean time, I'll be keeping busy with the Camarilla and good old WoD LARP.
We must also remember that OpenOffice looks like a tool (it is, and a very good one I might add), and that Microsoft Office looks like a toy (pretty paint on the outside, choking hazard on the inside). The average user, especially those who are still slightly intimidated by computers (like my father) prefer the look and feel of Microsoft products. People like my father just need to create a spreadsheet, they don't necessarily need to create a GOOD spreadsheet. Microsoft Office came with his computer and that's where he's staying. Personally, I prefer OpenOffice. It gives me better quality on every platform I need it to run on.
I'm a Linux systems engineer for a company here in Austin, Tx and thankfully I was allowed to load whatever I wished for an OS on my personal workstation, with no pressure to even dual boot with Windows. While some of our programs (for instance a billing program for our time spent working for clients) are based solely on Windows, I find that I can always slide over to someone else's workstation and borrow it for a couple of minutes to make the entry, and no one seems to mind. Aside from that one particular application, I haven't hit any roadblocks yet. The company I work for realizes that I am more productive on Linux and leaves me be. The other Linux/UNIX guy runs two workstations, one Windows and one Linux, just out of personal desire to have one of everything we use at his fingertips. Our developers develop on and for the Windows platform, or develop net based apps, so they really only need to use Windows (that and they are comfortable with it) and really have no need to learn another OS and make the switch. I do find it satisfying that nearly every other computer they interact with on our network is UNIX based. Since I started working there, those who work in my department have been expressing a desire to learn Linux/UNIX at home. With the Monodevelop project, our programmers were pleased to find they can do .NET stuff under Linux.
I also found it funny that our IS manager said that if it wasn't for our .NET development needs we'd all be using Macs if it were up to him personally. I was happy to find out that Monodevelp runs on Macs too now.
I'm glad that I do work in an environment that allows me direct access to the tools I need, without having to virtualize or being bound to one particular platform. If your a UNIX guy, you should be allowed to use UNIX, same if you are a Windows or a Mac guy. It just makes more sense.
Just thought I'd throw in my information.
This is a correct assumption in so far as I can tell. However, bottlenecking is still an issue. If the CPU and other associated hardware cannot handle the thoroughput straight from all four cards, you will see degredation in performance. It's much like the difference between a common garden hose and a pressure washer. Putting Quad SLI cards in with a normal CPU is like putting 3000 psi through a Wal-Mart garden hose. Having all the power in the world at the source won't do you a bit of extra good if it can't get where it's going in an efficient manner.
And according to ATI Crossfired Radeon X1900 XTX cards are bottle necked by current CPUs. Does this mean that one ATI card is worth two NVIDIA after all, or is NVIDIA finally sweating to keep up with the performance users expect out of their hardware?
The reference to Plate wasn't meant to be a geology reference at all. It was actually in reference to a philosophy lecture I attended that dealt with Plato's "Cave". In it the professor noted that if one were to escape from the cave and see the world for what it truly was outside, he would most likely be killed when he went back inside to tell the rest. They would kill him out of fear, because what he said would scare them, by telling them everything they believed was false. Your example you provide is also quite on topic though, and I thank you for it. Perhaps I should have explained more rather than leaving a vague reference. Philosophy was never my strong point, but I do like to borrow from it. Afterall, science, the arts and philosophy all share the exact same purpose: to show us our true place in the universe.
Also it is interesting to point out that male bees share 1/3 the genetic material as their sister counterparts and are treated accordingly. They are allowed to die if given a choice between females and males, and on average they are 1/3 the size because they are fed 1/3 less. I still find that fascinating.
Alright, I conceed the math to you (wish I had the book in front of me so I could have stated it right the first time, but thank you for the timely correction). It was actually more the issue with the bees and the ants that I wanted people to read for and you did a remarkable job of pointing it out.
I think I may have an unfair advantage in this discussion over some, since I'm sitting here with Physical and Historical Geology courses (my major), Ahtropology, Paleontology, Botany and Zoology courses as well under my belt and forgive me, but I'm having a frustrated scientist moment. Please check out the writings of Stehen Jay Gould to learn what evolution really is http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html Please also understand the Hardy-Weinberg Principle when talking about population evolution (sorry about the spelling error before on that name) http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html
Lastly, on a seemingly offtopic note, but equally as frustrating: for those of you who keep bringing up gods, creationism, and intelligent design and may wish it in our schools or discussed, it already is at the college level. It is a philosophy course on the "Teleological Argument" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Sorry all. After reading all of these posts and making some of my own, I had to get that off my chest. I will probably suffer being moderated down for this, but I'm willing to take that. Kind of makes me feel like I'm a part of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" if it happens really. http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
Yes, science is a candle in the dark, please, don't hit it with your Bible.
As you brought up, more and more we are actively selecting for our traits when we reproduce, and these are not necessarily genetic traits. Since we have introduced this form of artificial selection upon ourselves, selecting for phenotype rather than genotype we have violated a basic assumption of the Hardy Wineburg Principle (for the love of science, please Google that if you don't know what it is). We are still continuing to evolove, in the sense that we are seeing shifts in allele frequency, and can't do anything about that. However, we are not so much evolving in the more natural sense anymore, due to our violation of one of the basic assumptions of the Hardy Wineburg principle. Just food for thought that may provide better insight into this discussion.
Finally, somone who speaks the truth here. If you want to gain insight into evolution, Stephen Jay Gould (rest his soul) is the perfect place to check. Perhaps you will be fortunate enough to find the essay on bees, ants and termites, which taught me that saving one of your siblings from death is a nice thing to do, saving two is breaking even, and saving three is just plain selfish, from an evolutionary stance. (In essense, one sibling shares roughly half of your DNA, two siblings share between them 100%, and three siblings share 150% between them, thus actually giving "your" genes a better chance of spreading if all three live and you die in the process). Thought I'd throw that out there. Gould really was a brilliant man.
Actually, if you will refer to Dr. Aubrey de Grey's work on Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/ you will find that this is not entirely true. Also I feel that what everyone seems to be overlooking in this discussion is that evolution is merely the change in genes over time within a population. It is not inherently adventageous to the organism. That train of thought is called a "teleological assumption" which is a very nasty thing to make in the Biology community. "Evolution" doesn't necessarily make it any easier for an organism to survive, but it surely can. Deleterious mutations, while usually weeded out can and do get passed along, and that is evolution too.