 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The technical term for that is a 'hidden variable theory'; the variable
> has a value except we don't know it. Bell has shown that if the universe
> can be described by a hidden variable theory some measurable quantities
> have different values than if the variable has no value until measured.
> Alain Aspect has shown that nature is incompatible with a hidden
> variable theory. So Darren is right, and you, Einstein, Podolsky, and
> Rosen are proven wrong. Nothing to be ashamed of, I'd say.
Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's
not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a
> bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations
> of fruit flies are the same species. What exactly has to be in the genetics?
I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend anything.
"Two groups of animals are of different species if they have a different
fur coloring."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> OK, but that was my point, it could be controlled by something
> *impossible* for us to find out.
If the result is determined by something that exists before you measure it,
you won't get the results we get. The whole point of the experiment is to
figure out if there's something unmeasurable that is controlling the
results. The answer is "no".
> The same way as an artificial brain
> simulation running on one of our computers would find it impossible to
> find out about our universe.
Except the brain would get different results for the Bell Inequality tests
than we do. Because there would be hidden variables making the determination
of what result to produce.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's
> not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?
It means that there isn't some "value" that exists before we measure it.
It's possible that the super-universe is simulating ours, but if so, that
super-universe also has purely random interactions in it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
>
>> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a
>> bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations
>> of fruit flies are the same species. What exactly has to be in the genetics?
>
> I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
> animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
> because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
> incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
>
> You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
> give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend anything.
I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking you what your definition is. You say
"it's genetics", but that isn't enough. You're treating my question as if
I'm saying "you're wrong." I'm happy to be shown you're right, but you
haven't done that yet.
*You* are the one asserting it's genetics and can't be just behavior. *You*
are saying *I* am wrong. But you're not supporting that. You're just saying
it louder.
I'm happy to be shown wrong, but the way to show that isn't to say "you
don't get it". The way to show me wrong is to provide a *better* definition
than "these creatures would never have fertile offspring if humans hadn't
invented artificial insemination."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:49:42 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, the reason both sides make the argument is that its correct. If
> you don't enforce absolute moral codes
The world is shades of grey, not just black and white.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:07:59 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/01/2011 11:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:52:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote: ...
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Mornington Crescent! :-P
>>
>> It's about time! :-)
>>
>>
> How many words?
All of them, of course.
Listened to Episode 3 last night. Was good to hear "One Song to the Tune
of Another" - it's been too long. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:37:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its this thinking, and the inadvertent support for it, which makes the
> national day of prayer a problem. For them, it *does* endorse it, and
> they quite clearly do not think that "endorsing" religion, even their
> own, is a problem, only denying others their own (save, again, for any
> conflicts in expression, in which case their own overrides the "wrong"
> one).
So if even one nutjob thinks that something the government does is an
endorsement of religion, then it is?
I think I see why we have gridlock if we have to be careful of what any
one of "x" million people in the US could possibly result in them
thinking that the government endorses a particular religion.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 5:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Mornington Crescent!:-P
>>> >>
>>> >> It's about time!:-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> > How many words?
> All of them, of course.
>
LOL
> Listened to Episode 3 last night. Was good to hear "One Song to the Tune
> of Another" - it's been too long.:-)
Which one was that?
We might be out of step. :-(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> Listened to Episode 3 last night. Was good to hear "One Song to the
>> Tune of Another" - it's been too long.:-)
>
> Which one was that?
> We might be out of step. :-(
The one from last Monday.
I'd find it hard to believe you haven't been listening since they started
up 3 weeks ago. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 7:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The one from last Monday.
>
I missed it. :-(
> I'd find it hard to believe you haven't been listening since they started
> up 3 weeks ago.:-)
>
I know, I've been listening to them offline. I've just downloaded it.
ipdl.exe has stopped working and I'm using "Web PVR Manager" to record
things. It is not the easiest interface I have used.
I thought that I had listened to it but it must have been S54 e2 the one
with the Swanee Kazoo.
So Wheesht while I get on with it ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:08:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 7:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The one from last Monday.
>>
> I missed it. :-(
That's what "Listen Again" is for (but you knew that <g>).
>> I'd find it hard to believe you haven't been listening since they
>> started up 3 weeks ago.:-)
>>
>>
> I know, I've been listening to them offline. I've just downloaded it.
> ipdl.exe has stopped working and I'm using "Web PVR Manager" to record
> things. It is not the easiest interface I have used. I thought that I
> had listened to it but it must have been S54 e2 the one with the Swanee
> Kazoo.
>
> So Wheesht while I get on with it ;-)
I found a link to the WMA files and have been converting them to MP3 to
listen to. Quality's not quite so good (I really wish they'd make it
available as a podcast), but we can listen to them.
The weird thing is that on my computers, I can listen on "listen again",
but apparently the iPhone link (which iplayer_dl uses) hasn't been
updated with the files. But if I try to listen on my phone (using the
built-in web browser or the installed Firefox browser I put on it a few
weeks ago), I get a message saying that I can't listen to it because I'm
not in the UK.
But on my PCs (all of them), it plays from those same links.
So the first episode, we actually hooked a laptop up to the clock radio
in the bedroom.
What I've taken to is using mplayer to dump the audio from the WMA stream
to a WAV file and then converting that. Messy, and if it times out I
have to start over (and it has to play through the entire programme
rather than just downloading it), but as a guy I used to work with used
to say, "if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid". <g>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 8:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But on my PCs (all of them), it plays from those same links.
As you were!
I liked “Hit me with your Battle Hymn” and the “House of the Rising 16”.
{One of the best I can remember was Willy Russell singing “I Belong To
Glasgow to the tune of Deutschland Uber Alles” (s5 e2). That was a good
programme as it also had, “I Feel Pretty to the tune of Beethoven's 5th
Symphony”. “The Hokey-Cokey to the tune of As Long As He Needs Me” and
“Where Did You Get That Hat? to the tune of The Dambuster's March”. I’ve
got a copy if you want (13 Meg)}
I’m surprised you can get it with a non UK IP address but fair doos if
you can. To save you hassle why don’t you try get_iplayer it saves them
as mp3/AAC. It is quick and runs under Linux.
http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:34:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 8:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But on my PCs (all of them), it plays from those same links.
>
> As you were!
> I liked “Hit me with your Battle Hymn” and the “House of the Rising 16”.
> {One of the best I can remember was Willy Russell singing “I Belong To
> Glasgow to the tune of Deutschland Uber Alles” (s5 e2). That was a good
> programme as it also had, “I Feel Pretty to the tune of Beethoven's 5th
> Symphony”. “The Hokey-Cokey to the tune of As Long As He Needs Me” and
> “Where Did You Get That Hat? to the tune of The Dambuster's March”. I’ve
> got a copy if you want (13 Meg)}
Yes, I particularly liked "Hit me with your Battle Hymn", but they all
were outstanding. :-) It's rare for that game not to be good, unless
Jeremy's involved. ;-)
It's funny that you mention Beethoven's 5th, because we've started
listening to ISIRTA again as well, and as you know, that's a regular
feature of that show.
Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"? I
probably have it already (I've got what I *think* is a complete
collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before <G>).
> I’m surprised you can get it with a non UK IP address but fair doos if
> you can. To save you hassle why don’t you try get_iplayer it saves them
> as mp3/AAC. It is quick and runs under Linux.
> http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer
I'll give that a try, thanks!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, I particularly liked "Hit me with your Battle Hymn", but they all
> were outstanding.:-) It's rare for that game not to be good, unless
> Jeremy's involved.;-)
>
Oh! No! Jeremy's great.
> It's funny that you mention Beethoven's 5th, because we've started
> listening to ISIRTA again as well, and as you know, that's a regular
> feature of that show.
No I didn't. I listened to ISIRTA live when it was broadcast. And that
was a long time ago.
>
> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"? I
> probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>
S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
is a bit iffy on some of them.
s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-1-2011 18:13, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's
>> not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?
>
> It means that there isn't some "value" that exists before we measure it.
> It's possible that the super-universe is simulating ours, but if so,
> that super-universe also has purely random interactions in it.
And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous. By
applying occam's razor the answer is therefore: yes. Surprising isn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous.
Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe might
be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants like c or q.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-1-2011 0:20, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous.
>
> Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe
> might be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants
> like c or q.
>
Only if these constants are free variables. I don't know if they are.
Actually for many constants we don't know why they have a specific value
(or even if they are constants at all). It may turn out that all of them
can be computed without reference to any measurements or that there are
a few free variables in this universe or perhaps that some depend on the
time since the big bang. Only if there are true free variables among the
constants you super universe could exist. Or actually if that is not the
case we might still find another way that that super universe might
exist. Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an
influence this universe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Or actually if that is not the
> case we might still find another way that that super universe might
> exist.
Sure. I'm sure none of us know enough cosmology to rule out whether this
universe could be simulated.
Heck, *you* could be simulated and I and all the scientists you've ever
heard of could be just part of the simulation.
> Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an
> influence this universe.
Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A wonderfully
fun bit of fiction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.
I’ll give that a try since you recommend it. I take it you’ve read
Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The
Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
>> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.
>
> I’ll give that a try since you recommend it. I take it you�
�ve read
> Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The
> Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?
>
The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't. Calculating God isn't abou
t
the universe being a simulation, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
And the synopsis looks OK.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
>
> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
I am looking for one even as we speak. :-) (It certainly explains why it's
not on the Kindle. ;-)
>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
>
> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
> And the synopsis looks OK.
As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty much
everything he has written is very, very thought provoking. I also am quite
enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 1:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
>>
>> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
>
> I am looking for one even as we speak. :-) (It certainly explains why
> it's not on the Kindle. ;-)
>
I've got a pdf copy in my collection if you can't find it (676 k).
>>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
>>
>> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
>> And the synopsis looks OK.
>
> As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty
> much everything he has written is very, very thought provoking. I also
> am quite enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.
>
I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.
Start with The Skinner. That's my favorite of the bunch. Lots of interesting
philosophy amongst all the plot.
(I did have to giggle at some of the weapons, like the anti-photon weapon,
or the full-spectrum laser.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 2:27 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything,
>>> and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything
>>> really useful.
>>>
>>> Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much.
>>> Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on,
>>> and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically
>>> "cleaner" genomes.
>
>> You are forgetting that you *still* have to copy all that extra stuff,
>> when ever you divide the cell, so there is still a cost to synthesize
>> all the copies, before the cell splits to form new cells.
>
> Yes, there is a cost. What I'm saying is that it's a very small cost.
>
>> Also, its not
>> a simple case of, "just ignore the stuff I don't use", something has to
>> run through the pattern, decide what needs to be unfolded, or folded,
>> jump past any stuff that is folded into an unusable state, etc.
>
> It's not like a computer, doing a linear scan of the entire genome
> looking for active genes. It doesn't work like that.
>
> As far as I know (and I'm not an expert on the subject), having extra
> inactive genes imposes very little penalty for transcription.
>
>> And, most of the code, unlike in multi-celled organisms, is going to be
>> "on". There is no reason to turn parts off, except for mitosis, and the
>> like, if you are not differentiating the cells
>
> False.
>
> Unicellular organisms might not build colonies of differentiated cells,
> but that does *not* mean that all genes are switched on, all the time.
>
> There are organisms that can metabolise both aerobically and
> anaerobically. That's two different metabolic pathways, involving
> different sets of proteins. Many if not most organisms can utilise more
> then one food source. That's different sets of proteins. Many organisms
> have a life-cycle more complex them just "grow, divide, grow, divide".
> That requires different sets of proteins. Some cells even signal each
> other, and undergo limited differentiation under certain conditions.
> More sets of genes. Then there are genes only used in response to attack
> or damage. And so forth.
>
> Seriously. Few if any organisms go around with *all* their genes
> switched on all the time.
Well.. Ok, saying "all" may have been a bit inaccurate. What I meant is
you don't generally see, with a few exceptions, entire sets of genes
"off" all the time, once they have been used, such as developmental
precursors, etc. In any case, you assumption of what the cost may be is
precisely that, an assumption. My assumption is, based on the article I
linked to, that the costs *must* be higher than you are assuming.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:17 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
>>
>>> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that
>>> a bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two
>>> populations of fruit flies are the same species. What exactly has to
>>> be in the genetics?
>>
>> I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
>> animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
>> because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
>> incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
>>
>> You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
>> give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend
>> anything.
>
> I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking you what your definition is. You
> say "it's genetics", but that isn't enough. You're treating my question
> as if I'm saying "you're wrong." I'm happy to be shown you're right, but
> you haven't done that yet.
>
> *You* are the one asserting it's genetics and can't be just behavior.
> *You* are saying *I* am wrong. But you're not supporting that. You're
> just saying it louder.
>
The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior" is
genetic, but your counter example is not. Thus, it cannot represent
either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or otherwise
altered, without changing the genetics, or introducing, say, the right
pheromone on the female (which is just a short cut to altering *its*
genetics).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:49:42 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Well, the reason both sides make the argument is that its correct. If
>> you don't enforce absolute moral codes
>
> The world is shades of grey, not just black and white.
>
> Jim
I know this, you know this, they... often make the accusations like
"moral relativism", which is *literally* the statement that, "You treat
the world as shades of gray, but in *fact* its black and white!" If you
deal with the world based on trying to comprehend why things work, you
end up with a case of moral relativism, and uncertainty, where the
answer cannot always be known, or even suspected, merely because you
find the behavior questionable, but it fails to fit neatly into some
preexisting box.
In fact, in reference to an example already included, even the ones that
do, often turn out to have negative consequences only *because of* the
conditions they where tried in. I would argue, for example, that the
consequence for some girl playing naughty with her dog today might
*maybe* be having the dog taken away, and jail time. A few hundred years
ago they had the girl and dog burned to ash, and the ashes scattered,
to, "prevent anyone even thinking of such a thing ever again". Its even
a bit iffy as to whether or not something that can rip your throat out,
if angered, can't "consent", which is the core argument for even
requiring jail time, or removal of the animal.
But that is an example that "most" people still find objectionable
enough to demand it remain illegal. There are thousands of others, from
showing ankles, or marrying between "races" that we reject as invalid
things to disdain now. Why? Because a) the arguments against them where
invalid to start with, and based solely on either "ick", prejudice,
tradition, or religion, and b) every single imagine consequence of them
proved to be wrong. And.. While we get different hypothesis, based on
completely different sets of imaginary threats, both from the far left
and right, I would argue that, for the more "reality based" community in
the middle, the far lefts kind of crazy is *way* less accepted than the
right's. Why? Because the right's is religious, traditional, caters to
existing prejudice, perceptions of "ick" already in place, etc., while
the other side's is often foreign, if it is traditional some place, not
common place, or flat pulled out of their asses yesterday, not out of
someone else's 1,000 years ago or more.
This is why some crazy seems crazier than others, even when both are
supported *only* by rhetoric, wild hypothesis about consequences,
appeals to authority, and denial of contrary data and evidence.
In short, what you already believe is more likely to be true *seems*
more true, even when supported by the same level of complete absence of
actual facts, and even if confronted with those that directly imply that
it is wrong, flawed, or too generalized, in some fundamental way.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:37:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Its this thinking, and the inadvertent support for it, which makes the
>> national day of prayer a problem. For them, it *does* endorse it, and
>> they quite clearly do not think that "endorsing" religion, even their
>> own, is a problem, only denying others their own (save, again, for any
>> conflicts in expression, in which case their own overrides the "wrong"
>> one).
>
> So if even one nutjob thinks that something the government does is an
> endorsement of religion, then it is?
>
Not just the nut jobs. The problem is, the Overton Window has shifted so
badly, in some cases, to one side, than even the people that might
otherwise *not* be classified as nuts accept that it *is* a sort of
indirect endorsement, and that there isn't any real problem doing so.
That the real nut jobs would turn around and declare 90% of Christians
in the country as "false believers", and have stated as much in public
forums, is either ignored as unlikely, waved off as not a real threat,
or completely missed, by people who, never the less, if polled, would
insist that the NDoP is OK, and so is posting the Ten Commandments on
every building in the city.
When things get that far out of sync, "framing" things, so they are
supposed to be universally good for everyone, only benefits the people
that want to use that framing to shove the window even farther over.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior" is
> genetic, but your counter example is not.
What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?
> Thus, it cannot represent
> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or otherwise
> altered, without changing the genetics,
Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two
different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their
behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It would
seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't dictated
genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I didn't see
anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies were still
genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the fruit flies are
still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're not sufficiently
friendly with the other group any more or something.
I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if two
individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic." Yes, we
understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition is
wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for the
other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for someone to
claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong without actually
being able to specify what they think the definition is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:50:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, I particularly liked "Hit me with your Battle Hymn", but they all
>> were outstanding.:-) It's rare for that game not to be good, unless
>> Jeremy's involved.;-)
>>
>>
> Oh! No! Jeremy's great.
s/great/grate - fixed that for you. ;-) (Seriously, though, he's very
funny because he knows he can't sing and has fun with it - and that *is*
funny.)
>> It's funny that you mention Beethoven's 5th, because we've started
>> listening to ISIRTA again as well, and as you know, that's a regular
>> feature of that show.
>
> No I didn't. I listened to ISIRTA live when it was broadcast. And that
> was a long time ago.
:-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>
> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
> is a bit iffy on some of them.
That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
broadcast date on that one?
> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
well.
> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
reference to that site. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>
To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
Cleese.
>>> Which episode was "Where Did you Get That Hat" to "Dambuster's March"?
>>> I probably have it already (I've got what I*think* is a complete
>>> collection of all the shows, but I've been wrong before<G>).
>>>
>> S5 E2 Series 5 Episode 2
>> I've got a lot that were recorded and uploaded on The Goons Depository.
>> If you have any missing I may have them. Unfortunatly the sound quality
>> is a bit iffy on some of them.
>
> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they originated
> from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you know the
> broadcast date on that one?
>
Yes.
>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>
> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
> well.
>
Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>
> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
> reference to that site. :-)
>
Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 9:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior"
>> is genetic, but your counter example is not.
>
> What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?
>
> > Thus, it cannot represent
>> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was
> wrong in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond
> "it's genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same
> species.
>
>> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or
>> otherwise altered, without changing the genetics,
>
> Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two
> different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their
> behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It
> would seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't
> dictated genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I
> didn't see anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies
> were still genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the
> fruit flies are still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're
> not sufficiently friendly with the other group any more or something.
>
> I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if
> two individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic."
> Yes, we understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.
>
The distinction here would be, "Its genetic, but the genetics involve
purely 'behavior', not development." Obviously, the combination of
genetics from two individuals is a "developmental" issue, such that you
could have compatibility on that level, but not in the behavior level.
You could have the opposite (not terribly uncommon, despite the ick
factor) where the developmental aspects are 100% incompatible, but
behavior, for some reason, is driven wrong. For simpler species, which
could be a tiny flaw in a pheromone receptor, which suddenly "reacted"
to the wrong species. For complex ones, it can be a result of plasticity
in the behavior, resulting in what amount to false associations with the
target species. In either case, the "genetics" on the developmental
level simply won't allow it to work.
That behavior "can be" driven by genetics is not the key factor. It is
*if* the genetic driven characteristics actually result in changes
either behaviorally, or developmentally, which prevent cross breeding.
The fruit fly case is unusual, in that the deviation is purely, for now,
in the behavioral aspects, but it wouldn't take too many tweaks in the
rest of the genome, once trading of such changes no longer take place,
to make it *both* behavioral and developmental.
Its still "genetics driven", either way. Its just more.. reversible, of
other factors in the developmental process itself do not yet derail
cross breeding. I would argue things like Ligers and the like, do not
qualify the two species as "same", since the result can't produce more
of its own, or of either of its parent species. The developmental code
has changed sufficiently that even if the behavior can be overcome, the
other aspects *cannot*. But, there was certainly, at some stage, a point
where this wasn't true, or where it was only true for a larger
percentage of offspring than it was successful.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 10:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition
> is wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for
> the other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for
> someone to claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong
> without actually being able to specify what they think the definition is.
>
Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
definition can get fuzzy, since some might argue that producing "any"
offspring, sterile or not, makes for the same species. Others that this
isn't any where near sufficient.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of
> what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the
> definition can get fuzzy,
Yes. That's what I'm saying. That seems to be what Warp is denying. Hence my
question to him.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
> in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
> genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
gender and whatnot.
The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
incompatible?
You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-1-2011 9:27, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong
>> in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's
>> genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.
>
> No, that's actually your claim. I'm talking about genetics. You are
> talking about everything else other than genetics, including behavior,
> gender and whatnot.
>
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
There is no universal acknowledged definition of species, nor can there
be. As working 'hypothesis' both the behavioral and the your more
restricted definition are used.
The fact that we now have 3 species of elephant is because the African
forest species did not interbreed with the savanna one for millions of
years even though it genetically still can*. The definition of species
is part of what is behind the still raging discussion. See also the wiki
pages on elephant and african elephant.
> Let me put it this way: Why are dogs and horses different species?
> Is it because they simply won't mate because of behavioral and physical
> differences, or is it because even if you tried to fertilize a horse
> ovum with a dog sperm, nothing will happen because they are genetically
> incompatible?
>
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
I am sure you are aware that you have not answered his question. Even if
there is no universal accepted definition of species, for the sake of
the discussion you could still provide him with yours.
*) yet on the African Elephant page there is also 'but hybrids between
the two species commonly occur.' If that happened and the offspring is
fertile the genetic pool should be mixed, yet it apparently isn't.
Consult your resident elephant expert for more information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Also, just as an aside, I'm not sure that the behavior of the fruit flies
isn't genetic. I didn't see anything in any of the descriptions I've read
where the scientists later tried to do artificial insemination to see if it
worked. You're jumping to conclusions that because there's only 16
generations between the two sets of fruit flies that it isn't enough to
cause a genetic incompatibility.
> You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
No, I never said anything like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:29:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 8:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> :-D I've listened to them all once already, we're on our second go-
>> around with ISIRTA. Haven't yet got to them singing the Angus Prune
>> song, it's just instrumental at this point.
>>
>>
> To be honest, I find ISIRTA dated now and I’ve never been a fan of John
> Cleese.
It is fairly dated, but we find it interesting because of that.
With Cleese, I'm kinda "on again/off again" as a fan. Some of his stuff
is really good, other bits, not so much.
>> That may be where I found the recordings myself, or where they
>> originated from. radioarchive.cc is a good resource as well. Do you
>> know the broadcast date on that one?
>>
> Yes.
Do you want to share it? ;-)
>>> s01e04 had Tim, Graeme, Bill Oddie and John Clease
>>
>> Always a good combination, esp. since Bill and John were in ISIRTA as
>> well.
>>
> Have you sceen "do not adjust your set" or "At lat the 1948 show"?
I haven't. :-)
>>> Do you know Radio Archive? It is a good source.
>>> http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>>
>> LOL, I hadn't seen this part of the message when I wrote the above
>> reference to that site. :-)
>>
> Just to make sure you read to the end :-P
>
> 1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball
>
> :-D
Of course I read to the end. Just not when I'm composing (as you can
probably tell <g>). I don't seem to have anything from 1976 in my
collection <shame>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Simulacron 3
I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't been
turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie. (I had
already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to turn
into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:21 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Simulacron 3
>
> I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't
> been turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie.
I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
hardly remember anything about it other than the plot. I agree that it
would make a good film but SF films in those days were either “cowboys
in space” or horror movies like “The Thing”.
Another good story of his is “Dark Universe” but that would have made a
better radio play than a movie.
> (I had already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to
> turn into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
>
They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but you
are probably right.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:12 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Do you want to share it?;-)
A list of the Series 5 episodes that I have:
1976-03-06 - s05e01 - Footballers Ball 11,150,312
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball 13,483,870
1976-03-20 - s05e03 - Astronomers Ball. 12,735,844
1976-03-27 - s05e04 - Geographers Ball. 10,838,435
1976-04-03 - s05e05 - Electrical Goods and Allied Ind. 12,793,629
1976-04-10 - s05e06 - Tailors Ball 26,607,153
Here are the series 1 episodes. Farmers' Ball only has one song to the
tune..
1972-04-11 - s01e01 - Dr Finlays Casebook 12,726,325
1972-04-18 - s01e02 - Plumbers Ball 27,906,884
1972-04-25 - s01e03 - Clothing Manufacturers Ball 25,472,818
1972-05-02 s01e04 Zookeepers' Ball 14,127,516
1972-07-04 - s01e13 - Geographical Society Ball 23,535,199
X-1972-05-16 s01e06 Farmers' Ball 2,472,576
I’ve got 6 episodes from series 2, 1 from series 3 and 6 from series 4.
If you let me know what you want I can send them to you. BTW I’ve lost
your email address so you can use mine in the header.
"Do not adjust your set" and "At last the 1948 show" were TV shows,
precursors to Monty P. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band were the resident
group on "Do not adjust your set". I may have something there too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
it isn't.
Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
(even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly. A group of humans
deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
species.
The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
behavior.
> > You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> > other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> > of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
> No, I never said anything like that.
You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
role of behavior in the definition of "species".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it tha
t I can
> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie, wi
th
both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical overtones.
> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The S
entinel” but you
> are probably right.
Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
fun
movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
Fair enough. You said it so confidently that I thought you had better
definition in mind.
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
I disagree. The definition of "species" that I'm familiar with is "two
populations are distinct species if they can not or normally would not
interbreed." So even if tigers and lions *could* have fertile offspring,
they'd still be different species because they're in different habitats.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
But the study I pointed to said nothing about the genes of the fruit flies.
You're *assuming* it's merely "instinctive behavoir" that didn't affect the
genes.
If your genes tell you not to interbreed, even if artificial insemination
would work, are you a different species? What if a fertile offspring could
be produced, but only if humans put the embryo in a completely artificial
environment? I.e., if the mother could not bring the offspring to term
naturally?
Plus, of course, we can't really look at genes and tell whether the result
will be fertile offspring. Maybe in theory that's true, but in practice,
while it's pretty easy to tell when the species are far apart, it might be
very difficult to tell if the species is very close together.
> You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
> role of behavior in the definition of "species".
And to me, you seem to be completely disregarding the role of behavior. I'm
not overemphasizing it except compared to you, perhaps. I'm just thinking
that if human technology has to get involved to create offspring, chances
are good they're different species. If I did genetic engineering to create a
creature that's half human, half ape, that wouldn't make humans and apes the
same species. And if I stick insulin-producing genes into a bacteria, does
that mean I have a new species or what?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> BTW I’ve lost
> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 6:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW I’ve lost
>> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
>
> Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
>
Got it :-D
I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2011 16:46, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
>
>> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
>> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
>
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
>
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
No, and I am surprised that you still dare say that without any backup
sources.
> A group of humans
> deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
> species.
Not if it is just for one or a few generations. And it depend on the
reason why.
Note that this remark is either inconsistent or an open door as we would
not call both groups humans if it were different species.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
Perhaps in a universe where all species were independently created, but
not in this one. Sometimes I wonder why the whole world has to conform
to your ideas of how it should be. Why can you not just simply admire
its complexity?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 5:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
>> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
>
> It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie,
> with both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical
> overtones.
Too bad he died young. :-(
>
>> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but
>> you are probably right.
>
> Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
> fun movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
>
Yes they made a novel out of a short story.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
