One hypothesis is that domestication of the modern dog came about partially as a result of our ability to cook food.
Another recent hypothesis is that dogs were domesticated for food. If you look at the genetic diversity of dogs, it is highest in southern China where dogs are still eaten. Archaeological evidence also suggests that the oldest dog bones in the area were butchered.
Now, drag out all the charts, graphs, and politically-motivated reports you want, for and against; the only actual modern large-scale experiment that gives us any proof regarding human impact on temperature was the week after 9/11.
The complete lack of aircraft over the US had a SIGNIFICANT effect on high and low temperatures immediately.
Three days is far too short a time period to say anything conclusive about climate. You might as well argue that the sustained low temperatures last winter are a sign that the world is cooling...
Couple that with this current evidence that a single shuttle launch can apparently impact cloud formation over the Antarctic, and I'd say that's a far-more-tangible red flag than the supposed connections made over CO2 or other 'global warming' gases.
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
You mean like this? Judging from this and the rest of your comments, you really need to get out more...
Think of all the funding they would lose when it turns out that it will only cost a million or so dollars a year for the right to pick a global mean temperature and achieve it.
Fixing atmospheric carbon takes about as much energy as was generated when it was first dumped into the atmosphere in the first place. So if you can generate all the fixed carbon that the world currently uses for power generation at a cost of USD1e6 pa then you my friend have a serious business plan and the goons from Exxon will be taking you out any day now.
(In fact, this is what some of the algae biodiesel plans could be used for, but I doubt their operating costs are anything like that low.)
More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle's response (to be pedantic--the universe's response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.
If the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus, then their actions are not "determined" by the entire previous history of the universe. The experimenter is part of the universe near the particle...
If insurance companies went too far everybody would take their business elsewhere.
And where exactly would that be? I ask because they have already done that, yet no magical solution seems to have appeared. But maybe we should all just go back to Linus' pumpkin patch and keep waiting...
What did you do when the nation health went too far?
It's not nearly as clear-cut as that. That result was obtained by examining the mitochondrial DNA, which is only inherited from the mother. All it shows is that all modern humans have a common female ancestor but Neanderthals were not descended from her.
It says nothing about the nuclear DNA, of which half comes from the father.
Similar things can be done with Y chromosomes. Anyone know if this has been done yet?
I also want to recommend Men of Mathematics by E. T. Bell.
I'll anti-recommend that book. It is sexist and not at all subtle about it. Bell also made up some of the stories (certainly the material about Galois).
He has a nasty tendency to fawn all over the Nazis too...
I've never understood why Christians are so afraid of finding life on other planets or why atheists are so adamant that it will prove the Christians wrong.
But it really isn't startling at all. It's the only way it can be. Physics cannot violate mathematics -- because that's like saying physics might contradict 1 + 1 = 2. Or that physics might somehow cause having 10 bananas, adding 2 bananas, and winding up with 13 bananas.
This is actually an assumption: You are assuming that your logical system (forgot the technical term, sorry, don't have Enderton in front of me) of arithmetic is the same as your model (remembered that one at least;-) ). Which may or may not be true.
One of Penrose's conclusions was that any attempt at artificial intelligence is necessarily incomplete, so it won't be possible
That wasn't what I got out of it at all.
Penrose is a physicist who is interested in quantum gravity. His point was not that artificial intelligence is impossible, but rather that we are probably missing the physics needed for it. In Shadows of the Mind he describes four positions on AI and like many of his critics, you have reduced this list to two i.e. "B" (AI indistinguishable from us is possible with known physics) and "D" (Mysticism) and applied a false dichotomy argument to accuse him of mysticism. In fact, Penrose is a proponent of position "C" (intelligence is a physical phenomenon, but requires unknown physics) and goes on to argue that what is missing is related to quantum gravity. You don't have to agree with him, but please don't misrepresent his position.
Once again, why? Why isn't postulating that such an event must exist nothing more than forcing the universe into a preconceived box, and as such no different from something like creationism?
Saying "there may be a way of generating this asymmetry dynamically, and if so we should look for it" is not forcing the universe into a pre-conceived box. It is the opposite view, that anything we measure should just be explained away as an initial condition of the universe ("that's just the way things started out"), that is closer to creationism ("it's just the way god created it").
But the model that you use to "generate the asymmetry dynamically" can be described as "that's just the way things started out" too, so I'm not sure what the distinction is here...
So arctic ice extent varies (seasonally) between about 4 and 13 MILLION square kilometers. I'm guessing it's at the minimum for the year (it is the end of summer after all) so lets say 4,000,000 km^2. Hmmm 100km^2.... what is that about 0.003%. Why is this news?
No, it is more subtle than that. Young children are not very good at abstract thinking (on average) but they are incredible at slurping up data. This is why certain kinds of "reform maths" curricula (e.g. "Everyday Math") are so deadly: they introduce first graders to statistical analysis and don't bother to make them learn basic arithmetic facts when the latter is what they are actually good at developmentally. We had to pretty much hack around this with my kids by making them learn their times tables by rote (hurrah for "Schoolhouse Rock"!) and not sweating the silly assignments in averaging the number of electrical outlets in the rooms of our house (no, I'm not making that one up...) My 9 year old is now quite comfortable doing long division - which is not even taught in some curricula, despite it being the first example of convergence that kids get to see. And once they get to about age 10 or so, you can start to introduce abstract reasoning on the solid foundation of all that knowledge they have absorbed.
Does this sound familiar? It ought to - it was how maths was successfully taught for hundreds of years! So all these attempts at reform have accomplished is to replace developmentally appropriate maths education with the latest fad and the kids are paying the price.
I was looking forward to hearing a coherent rebuttal of the singularity, because it seemed to make so much sense to me once I heard the theory completely laid out. It assumes that useable complexity can grow without bound under the physical laws of the universe?
No, you can be the one making broad, sweeping generalizations.
Go read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". The scary thing about this book is that to prove her thesis, all she had to do was document quotes from various neo-cons who had publicly stated that such looting was the goal (it was part of the prospectus if you will). Including the GP's observations about the looting of Russia. The only thing I would add is that Russia was one of the few places that was not looted by foreigners - Yeltsin was very careful about that. So the next time around the neo-cons were more careful...
Slashdot Mirror
One hypothesis is that domestication of the modern dog came about partially as a result of our ability to cook food.
Another recent hypothesis is that dogs were domesticated for food. If you look at the genetic diversity of dogs, it is highest in southern China where dogs are still eaten. Archaeological evidence also suggests that the oldest dog bones in the area were butchered.
Photosynthesis is still wasteful;
IIRC the actual number is about 12%. Worse than solar cells.
Yeah, but it all boils down to dollars...
Does that make the Euro the metric Dollar?!
Now, drag out all the charts, graphs, and politically-motivated reports you want, for and against; the only actual modern large-scale experiment that gives us any proof regarding human impact on temperature was the week after 9/11.
It was three days. Citation with reference here.
The complete lack of aircraft over the US had a SIGNIFICANT effect on high and low temperatures immediately.
Three days is far too short a time period to say anything conclusive about climate. You might as well argue that the sustained low temperatures last winter are a sign that the world is cooling...
Couple that with this current evidence that a single shuttle launch can apparently impact cloud formation over the Antarctic, and I'd say that's a far-more-tangible red flag than the supposed connections made over CO2 or other 'global warming' gases.
So why isn't there a significant, sustained effort to minimize air travel?
You mean like this? Judging from this and the rest of your comments, you really need to get out more...
Think of all the funding they would lose when it turns out that it will only cost a million or so dollars a year for the right to pick a global mean temperature and achieve it.
Fixing atmospheric carbon takes about as much energy as was generated when it was first dumped into the atmosphere in the first place. So if you can generate all the fixed carbon that the world currently uses for power generation at a cost of USD1e6 pa then you my friend have a serious business plan and the goons from Exxon will be taking you out any day now.
(In fact, this is what some of the algae biodiesel plans could be used for, but I doubt their operating costs are anything like that low.)
Science : Don't believe it. Do it.
OMG! You have inspired me to go out and build my own LHC!!
If the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus, then their actions are not "determined" by the entire previous history of the universe. The experimenter is part of the universe near the particle...
This is an assumption.
Please read Henry Stapp's Mindful Universe. And no, he is not a crank (although he does need an editor...)
If insurance companies went too far everybody would take their business elsewhere.
And where exactly would that be? I ask because they have already done that, yet no magical solution seems to have appeared. But maybe we should all just go back to Linus' pumpkin patch and keep waiting...
What did you do when the nation health went too far?
Um, the ballot box?
Come on, evil? Really? Exactly what is the scientific definition of evil?
I don't know, but I bet Dawkins' next book will tell us...
It's not nearly as clear-cut as that. That result was obtained by examining the mitochondrial DNA, which is only inherited from the mother. All it shows is that all modern humans have a common female ancestor but Neanderthals were not descended from her.
It says nothing about the nuclear DNA, of which half comes from the father.
Similar things can be done with Y chromosomes. Anyone know if this has been done yet?
I also want to recommend Men of Mathematics by E. T. Bell.
I'll anti-recommend that book. It is sexist and not at all subtle about it. Bell also made up some of the stories (certainly the material about Galois).
He has a nasty tendency to fawn all over the Nazis too...
I've never understood why Christians are so afraid of finding life on other planets or why atheists are so adamant that it will prove the Christians wrong.
Neither did C. S. Lewis. See his essay "Religion and Rocketry".
Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.
Just what kind of nerd are you anyway?
Would this be fun with your new pets?!
But it really isn't startling at all. It's the only way it can be. Physics cannot violate mathematics -- because that's like saying physics might contradict 1 + 1 = 2. Or that physics might somehow cause having 10 bananas, adding 2 bananas, and winding up with 13 bananas.
This is actually an assumption: You are assuming that your logical system (forgot the technical term, sorry, don't have Enderton in front of me) of arithmetic is the same as your model (remembered that one at least ;-) ). Which may or may not be true.
One of Penrose's conclusions was that any attempt at artificial intelligence is necessarily incomplete, so it won't be possible
That wasn't what I got out of it at all.
Penrose is a physicist who is interested in quantum gravity. His point was not that artificial intelligence is impossible, but rather that we are probably missing the physics needed for it. In Shadows of the Mind he describes four positions on AI and like many of his critics, you have reduced this list to two i.e. "B" (AI indistinguishable from us is possible with known physics) and "D" (Mysticism) and applied a false dichotomy argument to accuse him of mysticism. In fact, Penrose is a proponent of position "C" (intelligence is a physical phenomenon, but requires unknown physics) and goes on to argue that what is missing is related to quantum gravity. You don't have to agree with him, but please don't misrepresent his position.
I remember the original version of this story.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing, but I was thinking of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" ;-)
Once again, why? Why isn't postulating that such an event must exist nothing more than forcing the universe into a preconceived box, and as such no different from something like creationism?
Saying "there may be a way of generating this asymmetry dynamically, and if so we should look for it" is not forcing the universe into a pre-conceived box. It is the opposite view, that anything we measure should just be explained away as an initial condition of the universe ("that's just the way things started out"), that is closer to creationism ("it's just the way god created it").
But the model that you use to "generate the asymmetry dynamically" can be described as "that's just the way things started out" too, so I'm not sure what the distinction is here...
Maybe now the ending scene in Total Recall makes some more sense? I'll have to rewatch it and see...
No, that won't help...
So arctic ice extent varies (seasonally) between about 4 and 13 MILLION square kilometers. I'm guessing it's at the minimum for the year (it is the end of summer after all) so lets say 4,000,000 km^2. Hmmm 100km^2.... what is that about 0.003%. Why is this news?
Because it is not an isloated event.
Milton Friedman is pretty smart.
Says who?
This is a black/white problem unfortunately.
No, it is more subtle than that. Young children are not very good at abstract thinking (on average) but they are incredible at slurping up data. This is why certain kinds of "reform maths" curricula (e.g. "Everyday Math") are so deadly: they introduce first graders to statistical analysis and don't bother to make them learn basic arithmetic facts when the latter is what they are actually good at developmentally. We had to pretty much hack around this with my kids by making them learn their times tables by rote (hurrah for "Schoolhouse Rock"!) and not sweating the silly assignments in averaging the number of electrical outlets in the rooms of our house (no, I'm not making that one up...) My 9 year old is now quite comfortable doing long division - which is not even taught in some curricula, despite it being the first example of convergence that kids get to see. And once they get to about age 10 or so, you can start to introduce abstract reasoning on the solid foundation of all that knowledge they have absorbed.
Does this sound familiar? It ought to - it was how maths was successfully taught for hundreds of years! So all these attempts at reform have accomplished is to replace developmentally appropriate maths education with the latest fad and the kids are paying the price.