Jihad needs scientists

[Daniel Mandic]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

I mentally separate it. That is because I "see" the sciences as being
about understanding shared reality. About nature, in other words.
Mathematics is a universe of its own, a place where you can disappear
into and discover whole new territories unrelated to anything else.
Some mathematicians (many, really) believe that this space is not only
as real as nature, but fundamentally real in its own right. And that
conformance of nature to it is no accident. But that's another
discussion.

Surely my baddest, but.

That's too bad. It's one of my few loves of life.

No, it's my weakest. :-|


Math teaches us, the planar and to three direction expanding Nature
(Information), aswell the orbits of our Neighbours (Planets, Stars
etc...) to keep tab on.

It is just an Interface. Human to Nature, like Assembler and
Machinecode...



But the 'Arameaic Numbering' (ours, as we know it) is limited.
Otherwise, Mathematic is not limited to a numbering system, it stands
over that and I dare to say, even over the Human itself.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 17:02:26 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <t1msj214ga0dem1ntfhb5p3kq8cf52v0dn@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:



Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?
Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are
somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about
macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past
creations at this level "predictable" after the fact?

Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system.



Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with
extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the
precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In
most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is
extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can
still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors
have predictable statistics.

But there is no exact solution. Therefore, we do not understand the movement
of 3 bodies and we cannot model it. Weren't those your complainst about
evolution?

Just because there is no universal closed-form solution for the 3-body
problem doesn't stop anybody from modeling a given case. And only a
tiny minority of delicately-balanced cases don't model fairly, or
very, well, and even then we know *why* they don't model well.
Earth-moon-sun is a 3-body system, and people were predicting eclipses
pretty well a thousand years ago.

Evolution, because it's mostly a qualitative theory, is not very
testable, which is I suppose why people stake such dogmatic positions
on so little hard evidence. That seems contrary to me: the less hard
evidence for a phenom, the more range there should be for speculation.
The very soft sciences, psychology and nutrition and such, are known
for having wild faddish swings of dogma; remember when stress caused
ulcers? remember when hydrogenated margarine was the healthier
substitute for butter?

John

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy
presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It has
lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking about
how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to
solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It is
brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered
that it will never work (*).

"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns
out it actually can't work.

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example...

LOL @ Habshi.

His ideas of using electricity CO2 and H2O to make petroleum are good for a
laugh at least.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:47:42 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eh5es8$8b4$6@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?


OK, so we know God was lazy.

You don't know shit.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Ppl were starving when Hitler got started. The support for far right wing
organisations across Europe is quite small, fragmentary and disorganised.

The BBC report did not imply this. They covered an organized
demonstration whose goal was to force the German government to
free some Nazi rock star. That tells me that the youth is
getting organized. Isn't that how Hitler got started?

No.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:13:49 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You really do not have the language skills to engage in a
USENET debate with anything other than pointless insults and vague threats.

The fucktard is calling me a nazi, and you think I am supposed to
"debate" with the retarded fuck? You really are lost, you stupid,
know nothing twit!

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

So where's le Pen now ?

Well 2002 wasn't long ago. If the Right Wing nutters get more than half a
percent of the vote something is wrong.

It is not just Europe. In the UK we have BNP members getting reasonable
votes in local elections. This is wrong.

I agree ( up to a point - feel free to probe ) but last time I checked BNP
membership was ~ a scary 6,500.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.

Indeed.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed from the very
beginning.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On 19 Oct 2006 12:20:10 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.



Melted hmhm, with a flame burner. (Napalm)

You're a goddamned idiot.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:41:33 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:inlej292cqo45b4n02fm0vjcquf5rrge41@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

It's still quite mad.
^^ You spelled "I'm" incorrectly, DonkTARD.

Good point. He should have said you were quite mad. That would have been an
accurate comment of his.

Anything else you want to admit to now?

When did you get out of the fifth grade? That was about as mature

as a million "terrible two" year old brats all crying at one time.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:18:56 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:gemej2l094ii7nl694ggtq53liq3netvta@4ax.com...


On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:14:15 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

I assume the US is about to invade lots of other countries then.

So what? I can think of a few that need "correction" action taken
on them.

Shh, child. Adults are talking. You go back to your Ghost Recon game.

You're an idiot, and you can't figure out why you *do* need a

knuckle sandwich, yet you whimper pussified crap like that. I bet you
think yourself modern. Yet I know that your pussy ass is gonna come
back crying "threat". You don't deserve a threat. You don't warrant
that much effort, little boy.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:33:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

The US armed forces are quite
racially diverse, and we purged racism from our ranks decades ago.

Yeah, *decades* ! Big deal.

Yeah, you're an idiot. No big deal.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:34:42 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

But, please, don't let a little data stand in the way of your jingoism.

Eric Lucas

The cotton gin, 1794.

You retarded fuck.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:05:07 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:90d58$4539615e$49ecfc2$30941@DIALUPUSA.NET...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehacl6$8qk_008@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Here's a hint to you, hon. I've scratched off the ones that you
have used to build a wall around you.

No walls here.

Eric Lucas

You're pretty good at meaningless denials then?

Meaningless statements require nothing more than meaningless denials.

You are a master at generating both. One, due to brainlessness, the
other, because that's all you can muster.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas?

By *thinking* about them!

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

John

 

[JoeBloe]

On 24 Oct 2006 06:32:01 -0700, "Radial" <radisha00@hotmail.com> Gave
us:

I got a response. Firstly, I had to id names of people I knew who were
in the security services. They wanted to check my connections, my
validity and legitimacy. Nationality was not important though country
of operation and area of expertise clearly was. There is someone at
the other end who is playing a joke but also being serious.

The joke is on you. You ARE the joke.
What a joke, you are.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

Graham

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f@4ax.com...

My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to
optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of
that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some
interestingly hostile reactions.

Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the
mechanism for that. Evolution is so passive, that it's hard to imagine any
form of active control. There are two possible points of control that I
see--the mutation rate, and the survivability advantage due to any
particular mutation. As I understand it, mutations are based on 3 general
chemistries: 1) photochemistry of nucleobases, 2) O2 (and other
free-radical) chemistry of nucleobases, and 3) simple mis-transcription. I
do not know in what proportions these mix. It's not clear how the first two
can be manipulated without a sweeping change, for example to other
nucleobases besides ACGT. All three are subject to repair mechanisms in the
body of the lifeform, and this might be one point of active control over the
rate of evolution. Finally, it's not clear how evolution would exert any
control over the survivability advantage of a particular mutation, since the
mutations are supposed to be, by definition, random.

However, it is possible that evolution has already selected for some sort of
optimum rate of evolution. Considering there are probably billions of
mutations for every one mutation that is "productive", and considering that
a mutation probably has a far, far greater chance of causing damage than
good, there will be a limit to how fast productive mutations can crop up,
without having so many catastrophic mutations that the species simply cannot
survive. If an organism mutates at too rapid a rate, it simply won't even
survive one generation because it will likely encounter so many destructive
mutations. This may be how we have evolved a DNA repair mechanism, and the
evolved need to have some rate of uncorrected mutations may have set limits
on the effectiveness of that repair mechanism. This then sets an upper
limit on the rate of "productive evolution". In order to assess this
against the actual rate of evolution, it would take some serious attempts at
estimating the productive mutation-to-total mutation ratio, as well as the
destructive mutation-to-total mutation ratio. Both of these would probably
also have to take account of the *degree* of constructiveness or
destructiveness of a particular mutation--so that a mutation that instantly
kills the organism is counted as being far more influential than one that
slightly decreases the chances that an offspring several generations hence
will reach child-rearing age. Considering, however, that I believe current
thought is that evolution happens by punctuated equilibrium, it would be
difficult to assess the long-term average rate of productive mutations to
assess any such attempt to quantitate the "maximum plausible rate of
evolution."

Anyway, it is an interesting thought, and one that I have not heard
biologists address.

Eric Lucas

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:23:00 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas?

By *thinking* about them!

When given some reason to.

Jon