Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Klaus Stock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, wait. Little evidence of city life and was clearly at the heart of an extensive trading network appear contradictory to me. Well, at least when I consider other historical examples of how trading opportunity and/or activity lead to the appearance and/or growth of settlments and/or cities. There certainly is a lot about Chaco Canyon that we don't fully understand. What we do know: 1) Many of the buildings at Chaco Canyon do not show signs of habitation - for example, heart remains, smoke stains on the walls and ceilings, trash middens, and artifacts of household goods. 2) To a rough approximation, in the Ancestral Puebloan world, all roads lead to Chaco. The Ancestral Puebloan road system almost seems to radiate out of Chaco Canyon to other settlements. Now remember, these roads weren't totally practical - they maintained nearly straight lines over whatever obstacles were in the way. There is also archeological evidence of goods at Chaco that were traded from as far away as Mexico, the Pacific, and the Great Plains. My favorite interpretation of this evidence is that Chaco Canyon was a religious/spiritual center, that was home to perhaps an annual or biannual major festival, accompanied by a large trading market. Other interpretations of the evidence are certainly possible, however - and the National Park Service emphasizes that we certainly don't have all the evidence needed to make a completely convincing interpretation of just what Chaco Canyon was like. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
I don't know if this has already been suggested, but I have recently learned the programming language R, and it seems that it's exactly what you would like to use to teach your kids how to use a computer: (a) it's free and available for _all_ systems [M$, Linux, Mac] (b) it's simple to use (c) it's powerful enough to treat numerical data For example, if you want to show the plot of a point, you just start R and type: plot(10, 10) and it plots a small ball at coordinates (10,10). If you want then to add another point, just type: points(12, 12) and the plot will be updated, showing the two balls. [notice that the first plot fixes the size of the graphic window, so points will only show points inside the picture]. Of course, rtfm and you will see that _much_ more can be done - it took me 1 hour to learn how to implement the visualization of the theorem of the eight points and the cubics [given 8 random points in the plane, there is a 9th point such that every cubic that passes through the 8 must pass through the 9th], based on a previous program I had written for Matlab/Octave. The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
I don't know if this has already been suggested, but I have recently learned the programming language R, and it seems that it's exactly what you would like to use to teach your kids how to use a computer: (a) it's free and available for _all_ systems [M$, Linux, Mac] How about the good olde Apple ][, C64, or some other prehistoric computers? Wouldn't Logo be a better choice? OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. (b) it's simple to use Logo's simple to use as well. Smalltalk even simpler, especially if it comes to debugging. (c) it's powerful enough to treat numerical data Hm, never trated large amounts of numerical in Logo. Bit boring for children, no? Smalltalk, OTOH, can treat numerical data (even arbitrary fraction with no rounding errors, or arbitrary precision FP data), and it can do even _fully_ object-oriented! Ok, if you want complex arithmetic built-in, Python might be an option as well. For example, if you want to show the plot of a point, you just start R and type: plot(10, 10) That's overkill. For such simple tasks, I use a pencil. Don't teach your children how to perform stupifyingly simple takes with the aid of technological overkill! and it plots a small ball at coordinates (10,10). If you want then to add another point, just type: points(12, 12) For the price of a computer, I could buy a room full of balls! and the plot will be updated, showing the two balls. [notice that the first plot fixes the size of the graphic window, so points will only show points inside the picture]. Yup, the balls in the room would also be visible from the outside, though the window. Of course, rtfm and you will see that _much_ more can Balls often come without manuals, but they also can be used for a multitude of activities, including soccer, basketball, smashing of windows, attacking penguins, thwrowing at apples, whatever! Best regards, Klaus ;-) _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Klaus Stock suggested: OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk Because of that the meaning of Smalltalk expressions using binary messages can be different from their traditional interpretation: 3 + 4 * 5 is evaluated as (3 + 4) * 5, producing 35. No, I don't think Smalltalk is a good teaching device :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:02 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then
the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}...
On the other hand, there seems to be a much stronger tradition of
Democratic candidates actually campaigning in Churches, than of
Republicans. Of course, these are in historically African-American
Churches, and for whatever reason it doesn't seem to generate much
outrage every four years.
JDG
Sure. Pot calling the kettle black, heh?
Do the ends really justify the means for so-called Conservatives?
As I stated, both situations are worthy of critical review.
In this particular, as I recall, a huge swath of that ONE B-B-B-BILION
PUBLIC DOLLARS went to black churches. Out of, or into, this mulligan
stew of faith-based emotions, gyrating prejudices, and
our-side-can't-be-wrong... came such lovely testaments to brotherly
love as graphic flyers of a black man on his knees to a white man with
messages about gay marriage - just the thing for retrograde southern
demographics whichever color the audience skin!
Karl Rove was humming over that one.
What has changed over the last few decades is the wholesale intermixing
of the tax-free religious machinery with the monster money raising
juggernauts that stalk the landscape now. The scale alone ought to
give one pause. Not content to rig markets, now the monied are fixing
religion firmly to the civic processes directly - to short-circuit the
basic notion of democratic rule. Churches have had a sheltered tax
life under certain constrictions they are ever-more willing to
transgress. They appear just as power-crazed as the political
operatives they champion. Some would call this tax evasion {what's Pat
Robertson worth now, a $ billion?}, while some call it politics. How
about calling it bankrupt morally and fraud prone?
What we see in this Republican-Christian axis is a fine-tuned
demographic slicing machine geared to shave a few points off my
demographic here, add a few more to yours there, playing into their 50%
+1 vote methodology for winning. In fact, I think if Democrats don't
get off their asses soonest, the Republican savants will win again this
fall. Forget actually governing - it's all about winning. And
carrying big sticks. And don't bother us with the facts because our
minds are made up. One wonders just what contextual frame Rove's gay
father puts all this. Supposedly they get along well - belying his own
church propaganda that gay-ness is incompatible with family. That
moral leaders are so willing to glad-hand Karl Rove and the tactics
he embodies makes a mockery of rose-tinted claims to superiority these
churches espouse - and those people outside the stained glass see this
clearly for what it is.
We all lose when a minority rules a majority through chicanery and this
hardly makes for a stable structure.
A big wag of the finger at Americans for sitting still for all this so
long.
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On 9/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the eve of the 2004 election, a liberal Christian pastor in Pasadena preached (what is reportedly) a highly political anti-war and anti-poverty sermon with the result that the IRS is threatening to take away the church's tax-exempt status. I haven't read the entire sermon, but it is available on the NPR web site for anyone who is interested. The text of the sermon is here: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/pdf/(10-31-04)%20If%20Jesus%20Debated.pdf#search=%22regas%20sermon%22 Non-profits are not prohibited from being political, not by any means. They are *only* prohibited from endorsing candidates. They can endorse laws and policies. I see no endorsement of a candidate in that sermon. In fact, although he is more critical of the administration's policies, he certainly challenges Kerry along with Bush. The scenario is a debate among Jesus, Bush and Kerry... and the winner is Jesus, so that's where his endorsement goes. I suppose that the IRS could accuse him of endorsing an undeclared, illegal (since he isn't a U.S. citizen) candidate named Jesus, but that would be truly ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with pastor saying, Here are some things to think about before deciding who to vote for, which is what this one did. I think the IRS is way out of line. I would hope that more pastors would be willing to challenge their members' thinking about war and poverty.. and the Americanized hijacking of Christianity by the religious right. Our pastor did so a couple of weeks ago and caught some grief for it from some of our members... but more power to him. Imagine a country in which churches and other non-profits are not free to speak out against war, poverty and other social ills. That's hardly what our Constitution describes and not a system in which I would want to live. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
In case anybody wants the wording of the IRS code: 'prohibits these organizations from participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.' It seems as though a lot of people stop reading at any political campaign. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Klaus Stock suggested: OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk Because of that the meaning of Smalltalk expressions using binary messages can be different from their traditional interpretation: 3 + 4 * 5 is evaluated as (3 + 4) * 5, producing 35. No, I don't think Smalltalk is a good teaching device :-P Yup, that's why I wrote that algebra works object-oriented 8as opposed to math-oriented). ;-) OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Yes, mathematical reality is nowadays defined as what the pocket calculator says. This is one more of the points where electronic assistence becomes a problem - kids don't really learn math with the assitance of computers, they are just drilled like a assembly line worker or a circus animal, just repeating the standard number entry trick they learned. Anyway, I meant Smalltalk not for teaching mathmetics, for for the teaching of object-oriented analysis and object-oriented programming (and, to some extent, also for OOD). Instead of drawing balls on a screen, kids could learn how to define a Ball class, how to add behavior and how to communicate with Ball instances (myball := Ball new. myball color: red. myball moveto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] myball bounce.). If someone could learn how to define reasonable and meaningful abstraction of given problems, we would have to endure a lot less of that crap which is programmed about everywhere. For example, Java, a language designed by someone who had not the slightest clue about object-orientation. Oh yes, there are things called classes and methods, but they are, in reality, mostly just modules and procedures. With the result that software development in Java takes as much time as it would in C++. Best regards, Klaus _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Hi brinellers! Glad to see you still in business! I am very sorry to have neglected you in favor of that darned, time-consuming blog. http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/ In part because the political issues are so important/urgent right now that I'll grab any influence where I can get it. Of course see news at http://www.davidbrin.com and watch out for my new History Channel show in November. As for the article that just appeared in Salon, whew! Let me append below my canned response after receiving HUNDREDS of emails (not including more hundreds that came into Salon Slashdot!) Thrive all! With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com = Yes, I got a LOT of mail about the Salon article. and that doesnt count the letters to both my blog and Salon itself! What shocked me was the degree of passion... no, bilious RAGE that my effrontery provoked. In comparison, mere politics and religion seem to have mild effects! Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. Indeed, the tiniest fraction seemed to grasp how valuable it once was (but no longer) for ALL kids to be able to easily type in little illustrative examples at the end of each math or physics chapters. Everyone seemed to think it could still be done. But it cannot. I repeat that. It cannot AND it simply, simply cannot be done. It does no good to preach what languages kids SHOULD have. Most dont. Period. Three solutions were offered that might plausibly address the problem in a practical way. 1) Somehow persuade Microsoft to care. In which case, with a fingernails effort, they could offer micro-implementations of Basic, python, scratch, etc in versions tuned precisely to be usable as classroom and homework demos, with launchpads to download expanded versions if the kids interest is sparked. 2) Some place with an historical interest in Basic (like Dartmouth) could create a slimmed version, along with maybe a hundred little 12-line programs that illustrate everything from statistics to galilean laws of motion to PONG, and offer this perfect turnkey download for text publishers to link to. (BTW, did you know that TrueBasic http://www.truebasic.com/ is still being offered? I didn't know myself until 30 seconds ago. 40 bucks for the dumbed down version. Includes some demo programs, apparently. Sounds like no solution, alas.) 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and I admit it seems to be the logical successor to BASIC. It allows simple syntax and direct expression of the algorith in sequential lines of code -- which would be highly compatible with the notion of collaborating with schools and textbook publishers. Indeed, an effort along these lines can be seen at: http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e/ Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If well-publicized, that may be all thats needed for everyone from Microsoft and Apple to textbook publishers to lift their pinkies (a minimal twitch) and make this happen. 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my sons) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of the free BASICs to do the computation. Retain the BASIC session between visits using cookies. This isn't too hard, it could be whipped up in a week or two. Some of the letters Ive received pointed out that JAVA is the one language so ubiquitous that maybe it might do. Only, alas, the syntax is so difficult and unfriendly to beginners that its just not help, after all. Unless... a coterie of Java guys created some plug-ins and maybe a few dozen sample programs that would accomplish dual goals (1) illustrate something cool from math/physics curricula or a classic game or moving pixels with math and (2) enticed with software elegance. Such a set of small programs might entice textbook publishers and teachers, in turn, to go along. And Javas universal distribution could then do the trick. (And yes, I admit TOTAL ignorance about both Java and Javascript... which are apparently VERY different... which shows how long this road may be.) Alas, from the majority of the responses I received, it seems that most of those who already know software see absolutely no problem arising from the fact that nearly all computers today lack a universally accessible beginners; language. Nearly all of them have
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Although number one, M$oft, could be done with some public pressure - or Apple doing it first - my vote is Four: 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my son’s) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! “For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of the free BASICs to do the computation. Retain the BASIC session between visits using cookies. This isn't too hard, it could be whipped up in a week or two.” My first experience was editing a lunar lander game running in BASIC on a Commodore PET w/cassette tapes for off-line storage. This small beginning lead me to ever greater systems and although I rarely code much beyond CSS anymore it has been an invaluable stepping stone and gave me early insight into this industry. As an under-employed designer I'd be more than happy to begin developing this with a small team. Any takers or interested parties please GOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I can at least coordinate. END - Jonathan Gibson - On Sep 22, 2006, at 8:22 AM, David Brin wrote: Hi brinellers! Glad to see you still in business! I am very sorry to have neglected you in favor of that darned, time-consuming blog. http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/ In part because the political issues are so important/urgent right now that I'll grab any influence where I can get it. Of course see news at http://www.davidbrin.com and watch out for my new History Channel show in November. As for the article that just appeared in Salon, whew! Let me append below my canned response after receiving HUNDREDS of emails (not including more hundreds that came into Salon Slashdot!) Thrive all! With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com = Yes, I got a LOT of mail about the Salon article. and that doesn’t count the letters to both my blog and Salon itself! What shocked me was the degree of passion... no, bilious RAGE that my effrontery provoked. In comparison, mere politics and religion seem to have mild effects! Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. Indeed, the tiniest fraction seemed to grasp how valuable it once was (but no longer) for ALL kids to be able to easily type in little illustrative examples at the end of each math or physics chapters. Everyone seemed to think it could still be done. But it cannot. I repeat that. It cannot AND it simply, simply cannot be done. It does no good to preach what languages kids SHOULD have. Most don’t. Period. Three solutions were offered that might plausibly address the problem in a practical way. 1) Somehow persuade Microsoft to care. In which case, with a fingernail’s effort, they could offer micro-implementations of Basic, python, scratch, etc in versions tuned precisely to be usable as classroom and homework demos, with “launchpads” to download expanded versions if the kids’ interest is sparked. 2) Some place with an historical interest in Basic (like Dartmouth) could create a slimmed version, along with maybe a hundred little 12-line programs that illustrate everything from statistics to galilean laws of motion to PONG, and offer this “perfect turnkey download” for text publishers to link to. (BTW, did you know that TrueBasic http://www.truebasic.com/ is still being offered? I didn't know myself until 30 seconds ago. 40 bucks for the dumbed down version. Includes some demo programs, apparently. Sounds like no solution, alas.) 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and I admit it seems to be the logical successor to BASIC. It allows simple syntax and direct expression of the algorith in sequential lines of code -- which would be highly compatible with the notion of collaborating with schools and textbook publishers. Indeed, an effort along these lines can be seen at: http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e/ Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If well-publicized, that may be all that’s needed for everyone from Microsoft and Apple to textbook publishers to lift their pinkies (a minimal twitch) and make this happen. 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my son’s) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! “For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it's often used wrongly, to state that the probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain of some things. Hey, you have inspired a neologism. Creationism is probapolitically true. *snicker* Pleased to be of service... Now we have *two* words to express the same idea: this one can join truthiness, which means roughly the same thing. It's true because it /feels/ true to me. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Hi, WHILE we're on the subject of ancient programming languages AND their relative merits, we might as well dip into that deep well of wisdom regarding programming that poured forth from the nimble fingers of Edsger Dijkstra: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/ewd498.html) In which a number of ancient programming languages are given the acerbic treatment FOR which he was known. For those of you who are thinking about implementing an online BASIC interpreter, here's one that's already running: http://www.pachesoft.com/rockerferbasic/ Dave PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
For those of you who are thinking about implementing an online BASIC interpreter, here's one that's already running: http://www.pachesoft.com/rockerferbasic/ This is a great idea. But need to make a list of attributes that such an implementation would need. 1. A good welcome page that gave extremely simple instructions for use, just clicking a button and beginning to type in the code from, say a textbook. But with links that can lead to tutorials and other info, if students want. 2. tested with some of the more common textbook examples, to be sure they work, with a minimum of steps. 3. link to a LIBRARY of cool games and short demo programs... with a method for people to inload their own contributions. 4. A very easy to use graphics pop-up screen, that shows pixels moving in response to the program. 5. Something I think would be great. a button that lets you iterate the value of n each time you press it, instead of just letting the program zoom ahead. Great for students who want to watch the algorithm gradually change in time. 6. A list of cooperating institutions and text publishers. Obviously if you add my laundry list. This starts to look like a substantial project. The good news is that a version that works basically could then lead to a grant to finish it... ...But I am more an instigator than finisher. Alas, now I must go on to hurl OTHER grenades! PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC Kewl! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Dave Land wrote: PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC Hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BASICaction=history ... who is Dland? :-) Now do the proper homework and increase the list of planets in the Uplift Universe :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 22 Sep 2006 at 8:22, David Brin wrote: Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. If the examples are writtern in modern BASIC, then why not? That'll with with a range of modern BASICs up to and including FreeBASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBASIC If it's not writtern in modern BASIC, then I have no sympathy. People don't number lines anymore. People don't use goto's. Teaching a chuld the wrong fundermental basics of coding is not a good idea. Actually, personally I'd recommend Pascal, especially for dyslexic children - the syntax is considered far more natural by many. http://www.freepascal.org/ 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and Personally I detest it. I'm a scriptor, not a coder. I have some Pascal skills, but i've mostly worked with Lua and varients, as well as visual scripting languages (partial and full), the powerful and propriatory SRealmsScript and so on. I don't like the useage of indenting it uses, it misses a lot of libraries I've used with php and it doesn't do automatic garbage collection (I admit that one usually bites me, Lua and SRealmsScript spoilt me in that regard). Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If Can't be just python. It doesn't compile natively, and has no native GUI. Something to keep in mind, anyway. If Lua ever gives up on being a scripting language and becomes a fully fledged programing language, then frankly it has just the potential you want to see. It's very powerful, free-as-in-free (it's used in a number of high profile commercial games for scripting) and the syntax is easy to learn for coders and non-coders alike print Hello, world http://www.lua.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_programming_language AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:47 PM Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The similarity is a fact. The progression is a fact. The analysis that therefore all creatures are descended from common ancestors is very close to certain. I'd call fact, because there has been no other explanation that stands up to scrutiny. How it happened this way, that's theory. I note that you introduced data. Yes, on the simplest level data is facts and analysis is theory, but as you say: The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection or is that a theory? After all the data to support natural selection as a mechanism (maybe not the only mechanism but a mechanism) is extremely solid as well. It comes from many disciplines and can be direcltly proven in experiments on organisms with short generetatiion times (bacteria viruses). To me natural selection is a proven mechanism of evolution. Steven Pinker has stated that it is the only explanation for the presence of adaptations in the world. But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore or dismiss it entirely. These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories. They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 10:11 AM Friday 9/22/2006, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Funny, that's exactly the example many books used 30-odd years ago to illustrate why round-off error is a problem programmers have to keep in mind, as mathematically division by three and multiplication by three should be inverse operations, so X = 1 Y= X/3 Z = 3*Y IF (Z=X) THEN GOTO 10 PRINT (Z IS NOT EQUAL TO X) GOTO 20 10 PRINT (Z IS EQUAL TO X) 20 END would always return something like 0.99 IS NOT EQUAL TO 1 so if you expected X and Z to be equal (as it would be in mathematics or infinite-precision arithmetic) and were testing for that, it would never be equal. (In FORTRAN¹, it would be even worse if you forgot the difference between integer arithmetic and real arithmetic, as I = 1/3 would set I = 0 and then J = 3*I would make J = 0.) _ ¹Yes, this dates me to the same era as Himself. (Even though I recently re-installed the Fortran 90 package on this machine.) I probably still have some boxes of cards from those days somewhere in the storage shed . . . another benefit (?) of inheriting the house you lived in back then from your parents . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 22 Sep 2006, at 10:21PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore or dismiss it entirely. These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories. They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time That's one of the evils of religious thinking. To protect religion from scrutiny the advocates of all religions attack rational thought and arguments based on facts and evidence. The Emperor is naked Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection or is that a theory? After all the data to support natural selection as a mechanism (maybe not the only mechanism but a mechanism) is extremely solid as well. It comes from many disciplines and can be direcltly proven in experiments on organisms with short generetatiion times (bacteria viruses). To me natural selection is a proven mechanism of evolution. Steven Pinker has stated that it is the only explanation for the presence of adaptations in the world. Pinker is overstating it a bit. Natural selection is a specific mechanism that explains a lot, and it's the foundation of selection theories, but in recent years its being discovered that there's a lot more going on (like organisms modulating their *own* transcription error rates in response to environmental stress). That natural selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain. But there's way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual selection, allopatric/ synpatric speciation. We're discovering some amazing processes by which differential survival rates are maximised. These are all natural explicable processes, though. That natural selection is no longer considered the only selection criterion in no way means that evolutionary theory is a theory in crisis, or that there's any doubt among honest scientists that life on Earth as we see it today evolved from common ancestors right back to prokaryotes. These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories. They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time Yep. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 09:02 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 9/22/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) Alberto Monteiro I hate to play the pedantic resident Wikipedia expert here, but it's actually at [[R (programming language)]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28programming_language%29), like it should (since programming languages' whose name are ambiguous are supposed to be disambiguated rather than be at [[R programming language]], which could be misleading). Now, [[GNU S]] and [[GNU-S]] do indeed redirect to the actual article, but that's not the same thing as the article being at those names... ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
... Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) Ronn-- I believe it avoids decimal approximations unless they are specifically asked for. Rational numbers would always be represented internally as pairs of integers. And this continues; almost everything is represented symbolically. So (1 + sqrt(2))^2 is exactly 3 + 2*sqrt(2), etc. ---David As one would expect from the name, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 10:14 PM Friday 9/22/2006, David Hobby wrote: ... Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) Ronn-- I believe it avoids decimal approximations unless they are specifically asked for. Rational numbers would always be represented internally as pairs of integers. And this continues; almost everything is represented symbolically. So (1 + sqrt(2))^2 is exactly 3 + 2*sqrt(2), etc. ---David As one would expect from the name, Maru I thought it was something of the sort, but I figured someone else here might know better than I do. (I've been a good little boy and not attempted to reverse engineer the copy I have here. :P As to finding the book in all this stuff, I'm not sure I'd have an idea where to start more exact than the room it's most likely in . . . :( ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bïrn: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 10:01 PM Friday 9/22/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: On 9/22/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) Alberto Monteiro I hate to play the pedantic resident Wikipedia expert here, but it's actually at [[R (programming language)]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28programming_language%29), like it should (since programming languages' whose name are ambiguous are supposed to be disambiguated rather than be at [[R programming language]], which could be misleading). Now, [[GNU S]] and [[GNU-S]] do indeed redirect to the actual article, but that's not the same thing as the article being at those names... ~maru So we now have R which comes from S, and C which comes from B. Anyone starting to miss the good old days when the name of a programming language actually stood for something? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
