Most news papers are written at the 8th grade level or below, which was why I stopped reading most of them in 9th grade. Of course, comics take so damn long to download.
Ultimatly, though, I don't think it's going to be about what people want. Radio used to be an open medium like the internet. Radio got bought out by corporations. Television then became a way for people to reach out across distances, but now corporations own it. Now polititians are pushing for a less 'open' internet to curb the recent rash of internet 'attacks', whoever they might have been caused by.
So the net will go the way of radio and television, and to hell with what people want.
You can make people eat shit and they won't complain, just as long as you don't let them know that not everything tastes like shit.
Here's somthing strange. I decided to look at another political candidate's pages to get a sense of perspective.
I chose Mccain.
His Senate webpage has links to some very legnthy, detailed speeches which explain specificaly how Mccain has fought 'pork'. i.e. by opposing monetary expenditures which didn't receive congressional approval- often regional requests for educational grants or research funding.
The web page for his presidential campaign is far more stark. Any theories on why the difference in demographics? Apparently a senator can be much more explicit than a congressman can.
There's no such thing as an 'unbiased opinion'. "Intellegence is the selective loss of information (kurzwell). " and the selective loss of information is bias.
And of course if they tell you that Windows works fine when it's used by qualified people there's a simple response. Just ask them why they didn't use qualified people on their own hotmail servers when all of their mail accounts were opened up to public view.
As a senior in college with a life sciences background I'd like to provide a little info on the current state of evolutionary theory. No, it's not possible to demonstrate macro-evolution of humans in a lab environment using humans. (obviously, to the delight of creationsists). And yes, there are some differences between micro and macro evolution. Since there seems to be a case of too few words chasing too few facts, I'd like to try and provide a breif outline of the state of evolutionary theory, why it exists, and how it is incomplete.
It's important to review the evidence occasionaly. Just because most science textbooks try to make an 'argument from authority' (which I hate) dosen't mean that anyone who argues is automaticaly an authority. I've tried to outline the scientific standpoint here as clearly as possible without getting bogged down in jargon. There are, of course, some supporting arguments not listed.
For starters; Any good scientific theory is predictive. It's possible to justify absolutly anything in the world after the fact. You can say, for instance, that objects fall to the floor because the sky is pushing them away, but once you traveled out into space, you'd have to change your explanation. A good theory predicts the results of an experiment before the experiment is performed. Darwinian evolution suggested that each individual had a fixed hereditary code which can't be changed by the environment as Lemark and later lysenko suggested. This was confirmed by the discovery of DNA, which is such a code.
Darwinian evolution also suggests that animals thought to be decended from one another would demonstrate similarities in their genetic code. Analysis of genetic phenomenon such as single nucleotide polymorphisms corroborate this. So the theory of Darwinian evolution did manage to predict the scientific framework under which future discoveries would fall, beating out competing scientific theories. It is predictive, in that sense.
Unfortunatly, the theory of evolution could be more predictive than it is
Black moths can suddenly come to dominate a population over the course of a few decades because the gene that allows it already existed as a recessive mutation in the population. This is not the same as creating a new and complex gene from scratch.
While you can't see humans evolving in the laboratory, bacteria and viruses are a different story. Since some bacteria can conjugate (bacteria sex) this should be a decent demonstration that new genes can evolve.
Some bacteria, if memory serves, can experience a few hundered thousand years worth of human evolution over a few decades real time.
Of course, there are still problems with the theory of evolution. While we can predict that animals will evolve, but it's still an open question as to just what they're going to evolve into or when, or even what causes them to change. Do they change suddenly with stable periods in between or do they change slowly and gradualy?
Paul Ewald recently published a book entitled 'the evolution of infectious diseases' which pointed out certain conditions under which diseases would become more virulent (harmful to their host). Cases involved frequent lateral bloodborne transmission or trasmission through another fluid medium (like diarrhea(sp?) contaminating the water supply) and other cases. This argued against Burnette and White's hypothesis, based on airborne pathogens, that diseases evolve to harmlessness since hosts become resistant and diseases don't want to 'kill the hand that feeds them'. Likewise, David Raup published "Extinction" which argued that species don't become extinct due to competition, but because they encounter a sudden stress that they hadn't evolved to handle. Without getting too boring or technical, I hope this provides some insight into the current state of evolutionary theory, why it's the most predictive theory to date, and how it needs to be improved. It's not that scientists are looking for a godless cause for the creation of life. It's just that bibicaly based creationism has proven to be very non-predictive.
Here's somthing that I've wondered about that I hope someone with the proper background in physics can respond to. What exactly does it take to cause the probability wave of a quantum event to collapse? I realize that a lot of people here have asked 'what is consciousness'. Could the solution to this question provide an answer. I know Kurzwell(sp?) suggests somthing similar to this in his book.
Here's somthing that I've wondered about that I hope someone with the proper background in physics can respond to. What exactly does it take to cause the probability wave of a quantum event to collapse? I realize that a lot of people here have asked 'what is consciousness'. Could the solution to this question provide an answer. I know Kurzwell(sp?) suggests somthing similar to this in his book.
I took a course on Biotechnology last year, and unless somthing has changed since that time, here's what's screwy about patenting genes.
Normaly you patent somthing for a particular use. Genetic patents are, effectivly speaking, on the genes themselves rather than a use to which a gene is put. When Celera hoped to get a few thousand patents by completing the Human Genome Project before the various government agencies involved it wasn't saying "we'll use this gene we discovered to cure alzheimers and patent the cure" they just said "we'll patent a bunch of genes and charge those people who want to use them".
You should be able to patent a process to build a log cabin. You shoudn't be able to discover a pine tree and patent 'cutting down a pine tree with a chainsaw'.
There should be enough money in use patents to satisfy corporate interests. And if a company can't make money off of use patents, then they don't deserve to make moeny.
Would there be any way to send a false signal to SETI? Not that I'm going to try, but i'm wondering if that could be part of SETI's concern re; open sourcing their program.
Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net.
If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at the
Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net. If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at this url
While the current pace of the biotech industry is astounding, it seems like a lot of people, even a lot of researchers, fail to realize that they're increasing the quantity of information but decreasing the quality. Genome databanks on the net were great, but without the process of peer review to filter out mistakes, a lot (roughly 10%) of this info is just plain/wrong/ . (p447 Science October 15th) DNA probes used as part of DNA tests have been found incorrectly listed as part of a genome in hundreds of cases, or partialy sequenced genomes are listed as fully sequenced.
Add to this the process of 'bioinformatics' which matches protein structures and tries to deduce similar functions from similar structers. Experiments to confirm the original data are rarely done, and so mistakes can multiply and are difficult to trace.
That's not the only way that bioinformatics, when used without thinking, can screw things up. Lets say you have two protiens whose Amino Acid sequence you've determined. (Since genes make protiens, the structure of one gives clues to the structure of the other and vice versa)
Now lets say that these proteins each have two functions (that I completly pulled out of my ass). Protein 1 attaches to your intestine wall and acts as an alcohol dehyrdogenase.
Protein 2 attaches to your intestine wall and helps break down proteins (acts as a protease).
Bioinformatics could recognize the similiar structure that both proteins used to attach to the intestine wall, and if it knew that protein 1 was an alcohol dehyrogenase, might very well assume that protein 2 was the same. The extensive use of bioinformatics can again multiply errors when humans refuse to test, think, or double check.
There's been a lot said about the internet's ability to increase the flow of information. But information isn't the same as facts. The internet has dramaticaly increased the number of Urban legends and stray rumors that we've had to deal with, and its doing the exact thing now in the field of genetics.
We'd be well to question a lot of the 'late breaking news' that comes from the biotechnology front.
Take Dolly for example. A lot of people believe that shrinking telomeres cause aging. And there was a big collective sigh in the biotech community when it was announced that Dolly's telomeres looked that of a 6 year old sheep- as old as the sheep that she had been cloned from. This seemed to indicate that she'd inherited her mother's years. But this dosen't make any sense. An organism goes through 90% of its cellular replication, and therefore loses 90% of it's telomeres, while inside the womb. If Dolly really had inherited her 'mother's' worn telomeres she should look 66 years old, not 6. (Gina Kolata, the road to Dolly and the Path Ahead)
What we need now isn't more freedom of information. What we need is a way to review the information that we already have, so that we can separate the signals from the noise.
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays. Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks. or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays. Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks. or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
"History is a selective interpertation of events intended to justify those currently in power. Memory is the same thing on an individual scale"
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays. Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks. or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
This whole ordeal just goes to point out the stark contrast between the ethics guiding the hardware and the software industries. Hardware is expected to fix known bugs and it does. Software on the other hand, has virutally all the factors which could reform it removed. You can't sue a software manufacturer due to all those in package liscense agreements (not alwasy enforcable, though if UCITA is passed, they'll be quite a bit more so). MS has gotten the government to agree to make laws protecting them, claiming that software can't be perfect, all the while raving about how secure its products are. So as repulsive as this lawsuit is, I'm glad that we have them. Because so far its lawsuits like this (along with a reasonable level of industry competition) which has kept the industry producing stuff that actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
Most news papers are written at the 8th grade level or below, which was why I stopped reading most of them in 9th grade. Of course, comics take so damn long to download.
Ultimatly, though, I don't think it's going to be about what people want. Radio used to be an open medium like the internet. Radio got bought out by corporations. Television then became a way for people to reach out across distances, but now corporations own it.
Now polititians are pushing for a less 'open' internet to curb the recent rash of internet 'attacks', whoever they might have been caused by.
So the net will go the way of radio and television, and to hell with what people want.
You can make people eat shit and they won't complain, just as long as you don't let them know that not everything tastes like shit.
Here's somthing strange. I decided to look at another political candidate's pages to get a sense of perspective.
I chose Mccain.
His Senate webpage has links to some very legnthy, detailed speeches which explain specificaly how Mccain has fought 'pork'. i.e. by opposing monetary expenditures which didn't receive congressional approval- often regional requests for educational grants or research funding.
The web page for his presidential campaign is far more stark. Any theories on why the difference in demographics? Apparently a senator can be much more explicit than a congressman can.
There's no such thing as an 'unbiased opinion'.
"Intellegence is the selective loss of information (kurzwell). "
and the selective loss of information is bias.
There's no such thing as an 'unbiased opinion'. "Intellegence is the selective loss of information (kurzwell). " and the selective loss of information is bias.
And of course if they tell you that Windows works fine when it's used by qualified people there's a simple response. Just ask them why they didn't use qualified people on their own hotmail servers when all of their mail accounts were opened up to public view.
(... in the process of learning linux)
This is like saying "if two chefs are equally talented, then they both must cook the exact same kind of food".
Oh no! i can hear it now. "sniffing packets is hard!" Although if they do make a hacker barbie, they may want to downgrade her tan a few shades.
As a senior in college with a life sciences background I'd like to provide a little info on the current state of evolutionary theory. No, it's not possible to demonstrate macro-evolution of humans in a lab environment using humans. (obviously, to the delight of creationsists). And yes, there are some differences between micro and macro evolution. Since there seems to be a case of too few words chasing too few facts, I'd like to try and provide a breif outline of the state of evolutionary theory, why it exists, and how it is incomplete.
It's important to review the evidence occasionaly. Just because most science textbooks try to make an 'argument from authority' (which I hate) dosen't mean that anyone who argues is automaticaly an authority. I've tried to outline the scientific standpoint here as clearly as possible without getting bogged down in jargon. There are, of course, some supporting arguments not listed.
For starters; Any good scientific theory is predictive. It's possible to justify absolutly anything in the world after the fact. You can say, for instance, that objects fall to the floor because the sky is pushing them away, but once you traveled out into space, you'd have to change your explanation. A good theory predicts the results of an experiment before the experiment is performed. Darwinian evolution suggested that each individual had a fixed hereditary code which can't be changed by the environment as Lemark and later lysenko suggested. This was confirmed by the discovery of DNA, which is such a code.
Darwinian evolution also suggests that animals thought to be decended from one another would demonstrate similarities in their genetic code. Analysis of genetic phenomenon such as single nucleotide polymorphisms corroborate this. So the theory of Darwinian evolution did manage to predict the scientific framework under which future discoveries would fall, beating out competing scientific theories. It is predictive, in that sense.
Unfortunatly, the theory of evolution could be more predictive than it is
Black moths can suddenly come to dominate a population over the course of a few decades because the gene that allows it already existed as a recessive mutation in the population. This is not the same as creating a new and complex gene from scratch.
While you can't see humans evolving in the laboratory, bacteria and viruses are a different story. Since some bacteria can conjugate (bacteria sex) this should be a decent demonstration that new genes can evolve.
Some bacteria, if memory serves, can experience a few hundered thousand years worth of human evolution over a few decades real time.
Of course, there are still problems with the theory of evolution. While we can predict that animals will evolve, but it's still an open question as to just what they're going to evolve into or when, or even what causes them to change. Do they change suddenly with stable periods in between or do they change slowly and gradualy?
Paul Ewald recently published a book entitled 'the evolution of infectious diseases' which pointed out certain conditions under which diseases would become more virulent (harmful to their host). Cases involved frequent lateral bloodborne transmission or trasmission through another fluid medium (like diarrhea(sp?) contaminating the water supply) and other cases. This argued against Burnette and White's hypothesis, based on airborne pathogens, that diseases evolve to harmlessness since hosts become resistant and diseases don't want to 'kill the hand that feeds them'. Likewise, David Raup published "Extinction" which argued that species don't become extinct due to competition, but because they encounter a sudden stress that they hadn't evolved to handle. Without getting too boring or technical, I hope this provides some insight into the current state of evolutionary theory, why it's the most predictive theory to date, and how it needs to be improved. It's not that scientists are looking for a godless cause for the creation of life. It's just that bibicaly based creationism has proven to be very non-predictive.
Here's somthing that I've wondered about that I hope someone with the proper background in physics can respond to. What exactly does it take to cause the probability wave of a quantum event to collapse? I realize that a lot of people here have asked 'what is consciousness'. Could the solution to this question provide an answer. I know Kurzwell(sp?) suggests somthing similar to this in his book.
-
-------------------------------------------------
Here's somthing that I've wondered about that I hope someone with the proper background in physics can respond to. What exactly does it take to cause the probability wave of a quantum event to collapse? I realize that a lot of people here have asked 'what is consciousness'. Could the solution to this question provide an answer. I know Kurzwell(sp?) suggests somthing similar to this in his book.
I took a course on Biotechnology last year, and unless somthing has changed since that time, here's what's screwy about patenting genes.
Normaly you patent somthing for a particular use. Genetic patents are, effectivly speaking, on the genes themselves rather than a use to which a gene is put. When Celera hoped to get a few thousand patents by completing the Human Genome Project before the various government agencies involved it wasn't saying "we'll use this gene we discovered to cure alzheimers and patent the cure" they just said "we'll patent a bunch of genes and charge those people who want to use them".
You should be able to patent a process to build a log cabin. You shoudn't be able to discover a pine tree and patent 'cutting down a pine tree with a chainsaw'.
There should be enough money in use patents to satisfy corporate interests. And if a company can't make money off of use patents, then they don't deserve to make moeny.
Would there be any way to send a false signal to SETI? Not that I'm going to try, but i'm wondering if that could be part of SETI's concern re; open sourcing their program.
Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net.
If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at the
center for democracy and technology.
Some people might disagree with me, but campaign finance reform as it relates to the internet (re: what has to be reported) is one issue currently up for discussion. There are some polititians who thing that the current FEC rulings on mass media such as television and radio should apply to the 'net. If you have somthing to say about the issue, the FEC apparently got a lot of flack from it's first version of the law which was pretty restrictive. It's currently taking suggestions at this url
While the current pace of the biotech industry is astounding, it seems like a lot of people, even a lot of researchers, fail to realize that they're increasing the quantity of information but decreasing the quality. Genome databanks on the net were great, but without the process of peer review to filter out mistakes, a lot (roughly 10%) of this info is just plain /wrong/ . (p447 Science October 15th)
DNA probes used as part of DNA tests have been found incorrectly listed as part of a genome in hundreds of cases, or partialy sequenced genomes are listed as fully sequenced.
Add to this the process of 'bioinformatics' which matches protein structures and tries to deduce similar functions from similar structers.
Experiments to confirm the original data are rarely done, and so mistakes can multiply and are difficult to trace.
That's not the only way that bioinformatics, when used without thinking, can screw things up. Lets say you have two protiens whose Amino Acid sequence you've determined.
(Since genes make protiens, the structure of one gives clues to the structure of the other and vice versa)
Now lets say that these proteins each have two functions (that I completly pulled out of my ass). Protein 1 attaches to your intestine wall and acts as an alcohol dehyrdogenase.
Protein 2 attaches to your intestine wall and helps break down proteins (acts as a protease).
Bioinformatics could recognize the similiar structure that both proteins used to attach to the intestine wall, and if it knew that protein 1 was an alcohol dehyrogenase, might very well assume that protein 2 was the same. The extensive use of bioinformatics can again multiply errors when humans refuse to test, think, or double check.
There's been a lot said about the internet's ability to increase the flow of information. But information isn't the same as facts. The internet has dramaticaly increased the number of Urban legends and stray rumors that we've had to deal with, and its doing the exact thing now in the field of genetics.
We'd be well to question a lot of the 'late breaking news' that comes from the biotechnology front.
Take Dolly for example. A lot of people believe that shrinking telomeres cause aging. And there was a big collective sigh in the biotech community when it was announced that Dolly's telomeres looked that of a 6 year old sheep- as old as the sheep that she had been cloned from. This seemed to indicate that she'd inherited her mother's years. But this dosen't make any sense.
An organism goes through 90% of its cellular replication, and therefore loses 90% of it's telomeres, while inside the womb. If Dolly really had inherited her 'mother's' worn telomeres she should look 66 years old, not 6.
(Gina Kolata, the road to Dolly and the Path Ahead)
What we need now isn't more freedom of information. What we need is a way to review the information that we already have, so that we can separate the signals from the noise.
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays.
Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks.
or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
Personaly, I've always wondered.
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays.
Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks.
or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
"History is a selective interpertation of events intended to justify those currently in power. Memory is the same thing on an individual scale"
Personaly, I've always wondered.
The thing that worries me is that everyone says that EM radiation is harmless unless it's strong enought to actually cook body tissue, yet it can be used to shut down a computer or a computer run car from long distance. And most cars use onboard computers nowadays.
Those detectors under traffic lights can even interfere with the breaks on pre ~1970 ford trucks.
or cause people to hear a low frequency hum.
Supposedly they've done a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and declared it 'safe'.
Personaly, I've always wondered.
This whole ordeal just goes to point out the stark contrast between the ethics guiding the hardware and the software industries. Hardware is expected to fix known bugs and it does. Software on the other hand, has virutally all the factors which could reform it removed. You can't sue a software manufacturer due to all those in package liscense agreements (not alwasy enforcable, though if UCITA is passed, they'll be quite a bit more so). MS has gotten the government to agree to make laws protecting them, claiming that software can't be perfect, all the while raving about how secure its products are. So as repulsive as this lawsuit is, I'm glad that we have them. Because so far its lawsuits like this (along with a reasonable level of industry competition) which has kept the industry producing stuff that actually works.