Re: Religion poll
At 11:35 PM Monday 9/25/2006, pencimen wrote: David Hobby wrote: Type A is authoritarian, metes out punishment, and is highly involved in world and personal affairs (the view of about 31 percent). Type B is benevolent, also active in the world and individual lives, but more forgiving (23 percent). Type C is critical, not engaged but still passing judgment - which individuals will discover in a later life (16 percent). Type D is distant, neither active nor judging - but a force which set the laws of nature in motion (about 24 percent). How about type E, the Marty Feldman look-alike with a magnifying glass and various insidious impliments (borrowed from the Bush administration no doubt) and taking great delight in making as many of us as miserable as possible. So what one-word-description-beginning-with-the-letter-E do you suggest that type be called? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shirley not!
== TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS -- SCIENCE http://www.littlefivers.com/science == September 26, 2006 The Top 9 New Solar System Planetary Mnemonics 9 More Vivacious Eateries Mean Juicy, Slippery, Uncooked Noodles. 8 More Voracious Eating Means Junior Should Use Napkins. 7 Mary Vehemently Extracts My Jejunum, Snipping Unique Notches. 6 Motor Vehicles Emit Many Juicy Substances Under-Neath. 5 Most Volcanos Erupt Mari-Juana Smoke Until Nightfall. 4 Many Very Egregious Men Just Screwed Up mNemonics. 3 My Valentine, Emma, Mopes Jealously. She Understands Nothing. 2 Many Vulcans Enjoy Munching Jam Sandwiches Utterly Naked. and the Number 1 New Solar System Planetary Mnemonic... 1 My Very Enticing Mom Just Solicited Uncle Nick. [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White] [ http://www.topfive.com ] == Selected from 16 submissions from 5 contributors. This week's list authors are: -- Mike Davis, San Antonio, TX -- 1, 9 Kevin Van Houten, The Colony, TX -- 2, 3, 5, 6 (Eureka!) James Rice, North Tustin, CA -- 4 Brandon Eldridge, St. Louis, MO -- 7 Matthew Van Opens, Kenosha, WI -- 8, Topic Larry Baum, Hong Kong-- List Moderator == [ TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS ] [Top 10 lists on a variety of subjects ] [ http://www.littlefivers.com ] == [ Copyright 2006 by Chris White All rights reserved. ] [ Do not forward, publish, broadcast, or use ] [ in any manner without crediting TopFive.com ] == [ To complain to the moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ Have friends who might like to subscribe to this list? ] [Send them to: http://www.littlefivers.com/subscribe.html] == ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion poll
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:35 PM Monday 9/25/2006, pencimen wrote: ... How about type E, the Marty Feldman look-alike with a magnifying glass and various insidious impliments (borrowed from the Bush administration no doubt) and taking great delight in making as many of us as miserable as possible. So what one-word-description-beginning-with-the-letter-E do you suggest that type be called? Ronn-- I know it doesn't square with the Marty Feldman look, but I'd go with Evil. What's described above seems to go beyond classic trickster gods like Loki. ---David There ain't no Devil, just God when he's drunk. Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oy.
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Victoria's Secret is selling Uplift Jeans. Why should boobs and dolphins be the only things that benefit from technology? True, that I didn't know my butt needed it as badly as my boobs do. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oy.
Julia Thompson wrote: Victoria's Secret is selling Uplift Jeans. Why should boobs and dolphins be the only things that benefit from technology? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion poll
On Behalf Of pencimen Type A is authoritarian, metes out punishment, and is highly involved in world and personal affairs (the view of about 31 percent). Type B is benevolent, also active in the world and individual lives, but more forgiving (23 percent). Type C is critical, not engaged but still passing judgment - which individuals will discover in a later life (16 percent). Type D is distant, neither active nor judging - but a force which set the laws of nature in motion (about 24 percent). How about type E, the Marty Feldman look-alike with a magnifying glass and various insidious impliments (borrowed from the Bush administration no doubt) and taking great delight in making as many of us as miserable as possible. The first thing I thought of was type G. The George Burns Oh God! type. Or would that be type B?? - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Earworm: Point of Views
With the recent upsurge in earworm infections on Brin-L, and given my desire to turn away from self-righteousness and conspiracy theories, I thought the following, returned to my consciousness through the good offices of Billy Joel's Millennium concert cd: I believe I've passed the age Of consciousness and righteous rage. I've found that just surviving is a noble fight. I once believed in causes, too. I had my pointless point of view, And life went on no matter who was wrong or right. Not the worst earworm a guy could have. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 2:46 PM Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?) Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Nick Arnett Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think that you are still missing the point, so let me try it again. Let me start with one example: Gautam's dad. He's a structural engineer. I think it is fair to say that one of the first instincts that a technical person like him or myself when faced with something like this is trying to understand it. In particular, when one's own area of expertise is involved, using that expertise to understand is all but instinctive. snip I have absolutely no experience in structural engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but I'm just going to toss out one medical example of well-educated folk in the field being wrong: _Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic ulcer disease. One researcher (from Australia, IIRC) posited and studied this; the vast majority of gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it was finally shown to be true. Took years. My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time, even when specialists' opinions do not concur. My gut about this administration is that it spins 'truth' like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy. About the towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?). But this is a different situation. The discovery that ulcers were caused by helicobactor was a typical breakthough in medicine and science where previously held beliefs are found to be incorrect and an old theory is replaced by a new and better theory (think Einstein and Newton). The point being made in this case is not that there is faulty science but that the facts that exist cannot be explained with the theory that the buildings that were brought down by a the planes. People with both knowledge and experience in such matters see no significant inconsistencies and as far as I can tell those that exist are of the type that are always present in complex real life circumstances. Those arguing against the planes did it theory are not arguing that there are features of structural engineering theory are incorrect thus explaining the conspiracy they are arguing that the structural engineers are incorrect in the standard use of their theories and knowledge. 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: Quantum Leakage (was: 9/11 conspiracies)
snip Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what science is all about. Even when the suggestions are as..odd..as the one from m-theory that our universe has no inherent gravity, it gets it via leakage from another universe nearby in m-space, hence why it's so weak... Another version is that gravity is weak because it is on different brane than the other particles and forces This by the way is not string theory per see although it borrows from string theory; 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: Week 2 NFL Picks
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip -Why do you want a pony, instead of, say, a puppy? A kitty would be preferable to either, given that we live in a very, very, very fine house, with two cats in the yard (offered as a cure to your earworm). Do two cats in the barn count? (OK, they also inhabit the house and the meadow (no real yard).) :) -Will you be able to ride said pony? I rather doubt it, at least not to the satisfaction of someone with your horsey credibility. grin Well, there's riding, and -um- *riding*... -Did that last make you think of a song? Thankfully, no. Do the words Mony, Mony (sp?) ring a bell? Debbi who likes the pony-in-a-boat silliness, and used to get all choked up over lost Wildfire __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
On 9/22/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- 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. I haven't read Diamond's book, and I'm certainly not a Chaco Canyon expert, but... Several years ago I had the pleasure of attending a presentation in Kansas City made by an archeologist who had been doing research in Chaco Canyon. His theory was that there were major religious festivals between one and three times per year, and that the canyon was eventually abandoned, but instead of heading north to Mesa Verde as in the theory you mention, JDG, he suggested there was a major split in the civilization with some going north but many, perhaps a majority, heading south, perhaps a few hundred miles or more south. It was a long time ago, but I remember him presenting some evidence that trade with cultures in what we now call Mexico had been on the rise, and he suggested that might have caused a cultural rift. I think he may have also suggested that the Mesa Verde people might have actually come from farther north and interbred with people of the Chaco Canyon civilization, so you have this culture in the middle -- whether they lived or just worshipped in Chaco Canyon -- caught between a northernizing of their culture on the one hand and a southernizing on the other. So instead of, as you put it, extensive trading increas[ing] the population pressures on the Canyon, pushing it to unsustainable levels, this researcher suggested that the extensive trading caused cultural pressures that caused a divide within the culture itself. In other words, they may not have abandoned the canyon because it had become unsustainable -- it appears to have been sustained primarily from the outside already from 1000 to the 1300s, reaching the peak as you stated in the 1100s. Instead, the increasing cultural divide may have caused them to give up on their extraordinary effort they had sustained for centuries. Imagine if the Palestinians, Jews, Christians, etc. suddenly decided all the ruckus over Jerusalem wasn't worth it, and all sides abandoned the city. I'm now sure how closely that supports or contrasts what is in the book, and JDG, you are probably more current than I am, since you recently visited there. But I remember hearing that theory and thought I'd throw it in there for whatever it's worth. -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ 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] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:39 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of assumption that you are arguing. Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions about peer-review in science? What is the assumption? That one must always question authority or that peer review has is based on consensus and not open to new data? The assumption is not that experts are always right, and not that new data should not be the basis of a revaluation of the present consensus. Rather, it is that the consensus of the professionals in the field represents our best understanding of the available data and analysis. The essence of peer review has to do with assessment of evidence. Most reviewers try to be fair even when they don't agree with the results of the paper. It is an imperfect process but it does better than most other ways of deciding things. We agree substantially here. The point of my post is to answer the question of what is the assumption. JDG, of course, can correct me if I'm wrong. I see the question as what provides our best understanding of the available information? Peer review is based on the assumption that the scientific community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic or political basis. While new ideas may not initially get all the credit they might objectively deserve, the fact that additional data tends to support the correct theory results in the consensus shifting towards good new ideas. I think it might be helpful to look at several examples before reapplying this principal to the 9-11 conspiracy theories. These examples will be listed in increasing confidence in the scientific consensus. They are: 1) Global Warming 2) Cold Fusion 3) Young Earth 1) Global Warming Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete. We have not verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic systems. The various models have assumptions built in. Different models have different results because they are based on slightly different assumption sets. We do not have a complete set of data. Our data sets from before 1850 are incomplete, and depend on some assumptions concerning the properties of layers of ice that have been recovered from glaciers. Our recent surface temperature measurements suffer, to some extent, from the heat island effect. Until recently, there was a significant discrepancy between the satellite data and the surface data. Yet, given all these uncertainties, a consensus has formed, and is improving. About 5 years ago, it was generally agreed that the human induced global warming would have a -0.5C to 4.5C effect over the next century. Now, there is general consensus that the effect is 1.0C to 3.0C effect. However, there are professionals who are outside of the consensus. Some folks still think the effects will be next to zero or very high (=5C). They site different difficulties with data sets, different unknowns, etc. These folks should not be considered crackpots. Rather, I'd see them as holding several sigma positions on the spectrum of scientific understanding. Do I think that their views are influenced by their political beliefs? Yes, that's my opinion. Yet, I don't think that they hold impossible positions. The chance that the consensus may move one way or another to include their positions within the limits of the consensus is small, in my opinion, but not close to zero. 2) Cold Fusion When Ponds and Fleischman made their claims 15+ years ago, I was very skeptical from the start. Not one, but two previously unseen laws of physics would have had to manifest themselves at a fairly high level...at least compared to the levels we have been observing by that time. Now, after 15 years of their inability to either provide a recipe for duplication of their observation, or duplicate the work themselves in a well controlled environment, the scientific consensus that this was a spurious report is all but universal. IMHO, Ponds and Fleishman do deserve the title crackpots. First, if validated, their results would have required overwhelming changes in the theory of physics that would have dwarfed the changes made with the advent of QM, Special
