Bike Touring was Re: Racial and Gender bigotry
On 30/10/2008, at 7:20 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Where did you tour on your bicycle? Charlie Some Experience Of Human Powered Travel Maru New Zed in '87 89. I hitched all over Aus and had all kinds of adventures. I am thinking about building a bike and doing the South Island and Stewart Island. Nice. I'm still thinking about doing NZ on my trike. What sort of bike would you build? C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
On 25/10/2008, at 8:10 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Rob said: Last I knew, Heroes was tracking within a week of original views here to over there. (As best I recall) I miss the days when we got Battlestar Galactica a long time ahead of the US. I was somewhat amused by the fury I heard expressed in some parts of the internet about that, as if it were against all the laws of God and Man. Of course, it was co-funded by a UK television company so... Babylon 5 too - we got the last few episodes of each season before the US. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
On 25/10/2008, at 10:01 AM, xponentrob wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20235213,00.html?iid=top25-20081024-%27Heroes%27%3A+Five+ways+to+fix+it Heroes used to be the most surprising show on TV. Now it's become painfully predictable. Huh? snip spoiler ROB Leave some spoiler space! Some of us don't get to see this stuff 'til quite a while after it's on in the States. Even though it's fasttracked and shown only a couple of weeks after the US airdate these days, I'm a full season behind 'cause I missed a load through work running late and I hate picking up a season half way through. And the UK - forget it, 'cause if you don't have satellite TV or cable, and many don't, it takes a year or more to appear on terrestrial tv. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Racial and Gender bigotry
On 25/10/2008, at 6:00 AM, Ray Maree Ludenia wrote: I have been lurking on this mailing list for several months reading the posts and discussing the ideas with my husband (a list member for many years, albeit one who hasn't posted in a while). Muahahaha. You have been assimilated. Hi Maree!!! I still owe you guys dinner, and if you're in Melbourne for a show or whatever and don't want to drive home that night, you're more than welcome to use our spare room. How long are you travelling for? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
On 25/10/2008, at 10:48 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: You could watch it on-line. We could, but... You're assuming fast, inexpensive, uncapped broadband. We have ADSL1 with a total usage cap. To get a decent amount of data at a decent speed, we'd be paying double what we are for the ability to watch pants quality legal stream, or torrenting. Or you could leave a spoiler warning. ;-) C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No more feeding the troll (was Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker )
On 20/10/2008, at 9:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote: Do you think it is reasonable that someone should participate in a discussion they are also moderating? In a public forum or in a democracy, no. But this is a private forum, on a private server. It's entirely reasonable for the host to both partake in the conversation and to express displeasure at behaviour deemed disruptive. And that's the last feeding I shall do. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: monotonous posting
On 20/10/2008, at 10:50 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Sometimes some folks have problem spotting the troll. Yep. Sneaky at times, them trolls. And there's a subtle difference between someone trolling purely maliciously, and someone yanking a chain in order to hold a mirror up to someone else's arguments, if you'll forgive me the mixed metaphor... Me, WYSIWYG. I like a good debate. I occasionally get caught up in things and need to back out earlier than I do (but this tendency has decreased since working for someone else, as I can no longer spend 2 - 3 hours a day writing email and definitely don't post with beer in me as often!!!). But I don't have an online persona. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ouch (crosspost).
Yesterday I took part in the Around The Bay in a Day ride. Here's the route. Length of about 210km (130 miles). http://www.bv.com.au/map/gmap/atb2008/?slct1=2 I was on the bike for 8h 10m (and on a standard road bike rather than my recumbent...). I was in a fair bit of pain at the end. Better this morning, much better. If I were riding Le Tour, I'd need to do this again 20 more times... ouch. But at least I wouldn't have had to stop for traffic lights... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: monotonous posting
On 20/10/2008, at 11:11 AM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: I've always loved the quote from Abraham Lincoln: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. If it was indeed Lincoln that penned it. It's also been attributed to Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde and a host of others. So it may well have been a piece of old-wive's advice that was repeated by quite a few eminent folks. :) I also like the one that goes One has two ears and one mouth, and should use them in that proportion. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No more feeding the troll (was Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker )
On 20/10/2008, at 1:12 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 20 Oct 2008, at 03:07, Nick Arnett wrote: I'll stop feeding him now and perhaps ponder just how much disruption the list managers should tolerate. A lot, of course, but sheesh... I really don't think you are fit to be list manager. You should do the decent thing and quit. Are you the kind of guy who goes to the zoo and pokes his fingers through the cage despite the signs saying Caution: Animals May Bite and then will blame someone else when they do? 'cause at the moment, you know you're irritating Nick (apparently for no other reason than it amuses you), and are continuing to do so despite Nick expressing his irritation. It's as if you're daring him to ban you, and if he does, you'll blame him for intolerance or overstepping his authority or some such. Are you THAT bored? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Two Weeks To Go
And then we find out if the US will continue its slide into theocracy and demagoguery, or if there's at least a glimmer of hope in turning what should be one of the world's great citizen nations back from the brink. I know there's not been a lot of election chatter this time round. I suspect that's 'cause the last two have been so utterly disappointing in terms of the way they panned out (not the result per se, that's a different story, but the manner of the campaigns and the bad taste from the Florida and Ohio debacles). And with the bizarre VP choice by McCain and the pretty much totally negative campaign his team have run, it's been a bit disturbing watching from across the water. Charlie Who Can't See Russia From His House But Used To Be Able To See Gunfire From Warships Off Beirut Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Two Weeks To Go
On 20/10/2008, at 4:24 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: But how amazing would it be if Obama does win? I'd have told you a year ago that there was no way in hell that an African American could compete for the presidency, let alone be the favorite with a few weeks to go. The unfortunate thing is that the country is so f**ked up now that it really will take a superman to have any appreciable success in one term. The good thing is that I think we get a lot of respect back from the other nations of the world just by electing him. And more so if it's an umambiguous landslide. Yes, you're absolutely right. Anyway, I just thought I should say that despite the lack of onlist chatter, some of us abroad are watching closely (I watched the first two debates in their entirety, and highlights of the third, and the roast from the dinner the other night - how come the McCain that was delivering such good lines in the roast doesn't seem to be the same one that's running for President??). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gotta get me a digeridoo
On 10/10/2008, at 1:14 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Considering how much people gripe about the dust in their tents, I kinda thought it was camping Is this camping? www.trikeabout.org/images/camping.jpg Charlie. Somewhere In Oz Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gotta get me a digeridoo
On 10/10/2008, at 2:39 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: I like hearing a Theremin. There's nothing in the world quite like waking up to a little blues group that includes a theremin. Especially when you can't remember letting them in the house. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Post Turtle
On 06/10/2008, at 11:12 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who's hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Palin and her bid. The old rancher said, Well, ya know, Palin is a 'Post Turtle'. Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'Post Turtle' was. The old rancher said, When you're driving down a country road you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'Post Turtle'. The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. You know she didn't get up there by herself, she don't belong up there, she don't know what to do while she's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to begin with. ...and the only way she can get down is a fall... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Channeling...
On 30/09/2008, at 6:24 PM, Curtis Burisch wrote: I demand to have some booze! 10 points to anyone who can determine which movie that comes from. Withnail and I, you terrible c**t. So, can you construct a Camberwell Carrot? Do you cover yourself in Deep Heat to stay warm? Have you gone 60 hours with the only solid passing your lips being a raw spud? Charlie. Too Easy Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $10
On 27/09/2008, at 4:17 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: In this case, Jon claims that John Williams is channeling erstwhile list-member Eric Rueter with his gruff posts. Dave i guess eric was before my time, but i am not the one who accused jw of channeling eric, i doubt jw is on that level. i do suspect that jw is using an alias. i wonder have much five pounds is in today's dollars? AU$11.05, US$9.14, S$13.07, BD3.45, BND13.26 Any other dollars you need to know about? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: $10
On 29/09/2008, at 7:37 PM, Curtis Burisch wrote: Zimbabwe dollars? Was changing too fast for me to give you a number. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming and new numbers
On 27/09/2008, at 10:23 AM, Dan M wrote: China is doing nothing that the UK, Australia, the US, etc. didn't do on the way up the economic ladder. So, I didn't mean to assess blame, just point out that global warming is becoming an issue that is outside the control of the West. Arguably China is doing more, as it was never a concern to the West until the middle of last century when various clean air legislations came in, and while the sheer volume of industry in China is clearly an issue, they've certainly at least made nods to efficiency and sustainability that Australia embarassingly hasn't. I wasn't really arguing, I just think a pure national total isn't as useful as a per capita measure. Ideally I suppose one would work out the total global emissions total, and then assign a limit based on a per capita basis to each nation, if each nation was agreed that emissions capping is the way to go. But clearly they're not. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming and new numbers
On 27/09/2008, at 11:34 AM, Dan M wrote: There are some radical new ideas (like right handed algae) ? Would this be algae that process carbon into sugar enantiomers that then couldn't be broken down organically? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming and new numbers
On 28/09/2008, at 12:11 AM, Dan M wrote: Would this be algae that process carbon into sugar enantiomers that then couldn't be broken down organically? snip and shuffle So, from what I know, the answer to your question would be no; it's algae that uses water, photosynthesis and carbon dioxide to produces complex hydrocarbons that we can burn as fuel, producing water and carbon dioxide as end products. Right, gotcha. I was thinking you were talking about sequestration rather than fuel generation, but that's cool too. According to folks involved, we now have left handed algae that can directly produced gasoline/jet fuel. The problem is that it is a lab curiosity because it is so sensitive to fungi attack that it cannot last in real world. That's a common problem with special bacterial cultures, especially where you have to introduce biological feedstock. It's less of an issue with, say, insulin producing bacteria as they basically mix the nutrient and culture medium up, sterilise it, and then introduce a measure of the bacteria which then go nuts until all the medium is used up and then the insulin is isolated from the broth at the end. Yeasts are also used in a similar technique. But when one is attempting to convert or produce industrial quantities of a substance like a fuel, then continuous feed/continuous extraction is preferable and this sort of productionisation can introduce issues that simply aren't relevant at the lab level. The idea is to make this right handed, so the fungi wouldn't recognize it. Based on this theory, we could not count on other organisms to interact with it to break it down unless we made them ourselves). One thing I asked about was accidental spreading, and suggested engineering in a dependence on X, which is not commonly found in nature. It turns out that already exists in the left-handed version. Yep. OK, so you were talking about chirality in surface antigens (interesting, not sure how hard), or possibly a completely enantiomeric biochemistry which is possible but quite hard, and is effectively the creation of a parallel life-form. Nutrient dependence (often a particular amino acid or vitamin) is pretty common in bioengineered organisms - your suggesting it was pretty good understanding for a lay-person but I'd be worried if they hadn't already thought of it. Interesting. I'm also interested in the idea of using algae to turn C02 into complex hydrocarbons for either sequestration purposes or for plastic feedstocks. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming and new numbers
On 27/09/2008, at 3:02 AM, Dan M wrote: 2007 numbers have just come out, and they confirm a disturbing trend. China in 2007 emitted 2 billion tons of carbon, compared to the US's 1.75 billion in second place. The US actually went up 2%, so China had to go up about 10% to get that far in the lead. Should be looking at per capita emissions, shouldn't we? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teleology
On 25/09/2008, at 6:19 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Yes, most of us know what teleology is. Why did you post a definitition of teleology in response to my descriptions of evolution as non-teleological? Charlie. I recall the term from philosophy 101, but that was over 40 years ago. I googled it to refresh my memory and didn't think it would cause any harm to save others the trouble. Pas de quoi Aha. Fair enough, I was just confuzzled then. On we go. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spore
On 25/09/2008, at 10:51 AM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who's playing? What are your screen names? I was planning on buying Spore, but the only 3 installations for a game you purchased deal is where I've drawn my line in the DRM sand. They've binned that policy now. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown
On 25/09/2008, at 10:31 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Requiring qualifications to express an opinion is demanding the acceptance of argument from authority, a poor place to situate foundations. Especially for those of us with enough understanding to form opinions of our own. The fact that I am not Somebody important shouldn't take away from the value of what I have to say, if the idea can stand on its own merits. :) Anyone can have an opinion, but surely it's better to at least agree that someone who has studied a field and has experience in that field might know more about that field than someone who just read the Wikipedia article. They might still, of course, be wrong. But it's more likely that they'll be nearer right than someone who did something entirely different. There are always exceptions. Some people are truly polymathic. Some people just have obscure hobbies that they're really really into. That'll come out in conversation, no doubt. But the truth is, everyone's opinion on a particular subject is *not* as valid as everyone else's. Which is why, to take a completely random example, I weigh Dan's and Rich's opinions on physics or the oil industry far higher than I do Dan's on biology or economics, or Rich's on modern warfare (say...), but give Rich weight on history of ancient civilisations 'cause I know he's a very keen amateur. It's just how it is. In general, people on this List are very well read and know a lot. But we don't all know the same stuff. Which it's why it's great to see people try to back up their opinions, and in the best discussions, see a mind changed here and there. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: PBS NewsHour report on bailout
On 25/09/2008, at 10:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:03 PM, John Williams wrote: We had AIG turn down three offers to buy the company because they thought they would get a better deal from the government. It turned out they didn't get the better deal from the government. Now the stockholders suddenly woke up and said -- the major stockholders said, We'd like to buy the company. Except they're not major stockholders anymore. Private ownership is onlt 20% of AIG's stock now, the Fed owns 80% and thus can veto any shareholder buyout if it wants to. (Unless that changed in the past few days and I missed it.) Yes. The irony of the party of small government effectively nationalising a company has not escaped me. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown
On 25/09/2008, at 11:45 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: Which is why, to take a completely random example, I weigh Dan's and Rich's opinions on physics or the oil industry far higher than I do Dan's on biology or economics, or Rich's on modern warfare (say...) I'm pretty sure that I know much more about modern warfare than I do about the oil industry! Oops, missed out a or Dan's on just before the oil industry... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 8:36 AM, John Williams wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Instead of mocking, why don't you try EXPLAINING. Instead of telling other people what you think they should do, why don't YOU explain whatever you believe needs explaining? Because I'm not the one mocking, and I know what I think. But you think different, and it would be nice to know why you think it, rather than you calling people idiots for not thinking as you do. But you don't seem to actually be interested in how this mailing list and discussion forum works, or how much some of the other people here actually do know about a fairly eclectic and esoteric range of knowledge. No, they disagree, so they're imposing their views on others. *shrug* It's your loss. The sad thing is, you'll never know what you're actually missing. Charlie. Very Close To Increasing My Killfile By One Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teleology
On 24/09/2008, at 9:29 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 23 Sep 2008, at 23:13, Charlie Bell wrote: Yes, most of us know what teleology is. Why did you post a definitition of teleology in response to my descriptions of evolution as non-teleological? He was repulsing a windmill full of strawmen? That would explain it, possibly. :) C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24/09/2008, at 9:12 AM, John Williams wrote:\ The only thing that would put my mind at ease would be for the people to have a strong distrust for leaders as well as a culture of not forcing ideals upon others. And the courage to fight if the leaders break the trust that was placed in them when they assumed power. Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By that I mean serving, rather than merely voting. Charlie. Does Not Have A Vote Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 1:16 PM, John Williams wrote: Sorry, I have much less confidence in politicians and people like you than I do in the collective self- interest and creativity of a large group of talented people to solve problems competitively. Tragedy of the Commons. Murray/Darling River system. Easter Island. There is such a thing (provably) as an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy that can lead to extinction, and I reckon the completely unregulated market is one of them. Charlie. Counterexample Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 2:34 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Me: Ah yes, because I'm definitely running for office right now. Come on, this is just tiresome. At least try to have a simple discussion without accusing everyone of bad faith. Yeah. Discussions can get heated, and occasionally blow up, with people you've been talking to for a long time, but to be consistently rude to people you don't know at all is a different thing entirely. Hello Gautam. Long Time No See. I seem to recall we were having a bit of an argument last time we spoke. Ah well, that was 5 years ago. Peace. Charlie. Older, More Travelled And More Tolerant Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 11:20 PM, John Williams wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, they disagree, so they're imposing their views on others. *shrug* It's your loss. The sad thing is, you'll never know what you're actually missing. If what I'm missing is being told what to do, I hope I miss it. No, you're simply being informed that this group has lasted as long as it has (at least 13 years, I think?) because the vast majority of members agree to be polite when discussing. You can choose not to be, but if your goal in life is to simply be contrary and any guidelines at all suggested by others are bad simply because they are suggested by others, then many members of this group will just ignore you. If that's imposing their will, then so be it. But I'm done trying to persuade you. I thought you might have something interesting to say, but you're too busy telling everyone they're ignorant, wrong, in love with the government, or just stupid to bother telling anyone why your point of view has any merit, brief glimpses to the contrary aside. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just saying that your actions have consequences, and so far the consequence is to make me think that you're arrogant and uncouth. Like I said, your loss if you don't want to talk on a level. *plonk* Charlie Killfile Plus One Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wahh! (was Re: Meltdown)
On 24/09/2008, at 11:55 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:45 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If I do not want to do something that someone forces me to do, that is by definition NOT my prerogative. Show of hands -- who else found themselves instantly thinking teenager when they read this sentence? I've been wavering between teen and retiree, depending. Both groups contain intransigents who know-it-all. But being an arse is age- independent really, so who knows. The phrase, You can't make me! came to mind instantly. Because I don't WANT to wasn't far behind. Yah. Anyway. I can't be bothered with trolls, so I've solved the problem. Charlie. Self-Help Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is dependant on the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. But yes. Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 23/09/2008, at 1:27 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: The general SEC requirement had been to limit it to 12X. An exception was made in 2004 for 5 companies - Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley. None of which exist today in the form they did five years ago. D'oh. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote: Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is dependant on the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc. Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. But yes. Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 24/09/2008, at 3:11 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Olin Kind of. Was horse-trading in the parliament that got him the Chancellorship as part of a coalition, even though the National Socialists were a minor party. He'd already been imprisoned in the '20s for his part in an attempted coup. Not exactly the best example of democracy in action... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teleology
On 24/09/2008, at 4:27 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there is no teleology in evolution. which is why I am an atheist... If I did, I was paraphrasing much greater thinkers than I. But yes. Evolution is a drunken walk. Or a moth in a disco. Charlie. Teleology: 1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. 2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena. 3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. Yes, most of us know what teleology is. Why did you post a definitition of teleology in response to my descriptions of evolution as non-teleological? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 6:40 AM, John Williams wrote: Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. LOL! Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too? Instead of mocking, why don't you try EXPLAINING. 'cause all I see you do is say Ha ha, how could you be so stupid or words to that effect, without explaining why. Again, this is a DISCUSSION LIST, where we discuss many things. There are many points of view and opinions, and if yours are different, try arguing the point. Right now, all you're doing is being rude. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
On 24/09/2008, at 6:21 AM, Dan M wrote: The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. That sounds implausible. Someone knew. It's what level they were at and what they choose to do with the knowledge that's important. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Farm subsidies
On 21/09/2008, at 1:58 PM, Euan Ritchie wrote: NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than the U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). Rainforest isn't all tropical or sub-tropical, it's just that's the best known. Rainforest is based on rainfall, not latitude. F'rex, south-east and south-west Victoria have a mix of temperate forest and temperate rainforest (Mainly the Otway Ranges on the Great Ocean Road, and far south-east Vic past Orbost and Cann River, and into NSW). The rainforest is characterised by dense undergrowth, thick hanging mosses and lichens, and some of the largest trees in the southern hemisphere (not far behind parts of Tasmania and southern Western Australia, as well as, of course, the monsters in South America). Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land, and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the South Island. Apart from that, as you were. :) Charlie List Biologist Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 12:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? There is at least one problem with best that strikes me immediately -- the environment is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is best at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Species, and fitness, are both snapshots in time. There are various analogies that are used to picture the wider possibilities over time and space - adaptive landscape is one, morph space is another. But really, species is a description of a population at a particular period in time, and fitness is a relative measure of success at a particular period in time. Biologists take all this as a given - the fuzziness and the continuous nature of biology is just the way it is, and understanding this and seeing nature as a snapshot, looking at broader timescales while observing a moment, is something that once learned changes one's perspective. (It's not how it's always been, as biology started as pigeon-holing). Geologists and cosmologists see things similarly. Good post. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 2:16 AM, John Williams wrote: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't try to force his will on others with mistakes like that! It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 6:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Ack! I'll never earn a living this way! Heheh! Seriously, it's a good point you made, but it's more philosophy of biology (as species concepts are) than practical biology, as when one's in the field (which I've not been in the research sense for a looong time) one just knows this is a snapshot in time. Even walking into a woodland and looking around, one can see different stages at once - the different successions in a clearing that eventually culminate in old-growth oak woodland, and so on. Charlie. Off To Work Now Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 19/09/2008, at 11:08 AM, Dave Land wrote: It was an urban legend and a filthy lie that a certain kind of politician used to smear fine people in the 1980s, and I doubt very much that actual welfare mommies of the kind you describe ever existed. I'm sure that they do exist having seen such exposed in the UK and in Australia, but I'm also sure that, like any other total bludger living entirely on welfare (or supplementing meagre welfare with drug dealing), they're also very rare and such a tiny drain on the system that they're an irrelevant distraction. Like IMMIGRANTS!!! and TERROR!!! and ATHEISTS!!! and ELITISTS!!! they're tools of the demagogue pandering to lowest-common denominator fears. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On 17/09/2008, at 8:52 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Deciding who does and does not get to have children (or deciding how many they're allowed to have) is in the same class of problems as deciding who lives or who dies. But noting that in affluent, educated societies, birth-rates fall (and children are born later) provides a way of solving the problem emergently. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HI Tech Utopia
On 18/09/2008, at 9:13 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:12 PM Wednesday 9/17/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i like the idea of living in arcologies under the earth, oceans, and ice caps, so the planet can revert to habitats for plant and animal species. Humans are not adapted to living in warrens any more than most other large animal or plant species. You need to read Stephen Baxter's Coalescent. :) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 18/09/2008, at 11:32 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I for one would particularly like there to be a simulation environment that could be used to catch unintended consequences like these, as well as alpha and beta test environments with some degree of user acceptance testing and feedback, before social-policy bills are signed out of Congress. Never happen, and I'm probably too much of an engineering-type geek for even thinking about it, but it's an appealing thought nonetheless. The UK has such a test environment. It's called Scotland. Charlie Not Entirely Serious, Not Entirely Joking Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vasectomy
On 17/09/2008, at 8:14 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 04:17 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I am single now, but if I met the right woman and she wanted to have a child, I would not rule it out. Isn't that pretty much how we got to have approaching 7 billion people in the world? It's not the first or second, it's the 4th, 5th, 6th and onwards, when infant mortality has plummetted and life expectancy soared. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
On 17/09/2008, at 8:05 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that approaching 7 billion (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is too many people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? How about - let's try to lower the birth rate, rather than increase the death rate? Hmmm? As education and life expectancy and SoL increase, birth rate plummets. As has been pointed out, if we can raise living standards world-wide without the gross overconsumption of Australia or the US then we may be sustainable in the long run. Right now, we're not. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BOOKS
On 13/09/2008, at 7:11 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: I did! I did!! Unfortunately when I asked several months ago on this list and the Culture list* I seemed to be rather unique in being able to make that claim. Took a while to arrive was the problem. I liked it. Not his best, but a worthy addition to the series. _ *BTW, I haven't heard anything from them in awhile . . . unlike a few years ago when that was a quite active list . . . It's pretty active at the mo. Goes through phases. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BOOKS
On 13/09/2008, at 3:37 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Of the culture books, Matter was probably my least favorite. Many consider A Player of Games the best, but I prefer Consider Phlebus. If you like action, CP's the ticket. CP is great. My favourite is PoG, but I think Excession's probably the best. Use of Weapons is regarded as the best by many, but I don't think it stands up to a re-read as well as E, CP or PoG. Inversions I liked a lot better on my recent pre-Matter re-read of the whole lot than I did first time round, and Look to Windward I enjoyed more the second time. I think Matter will be the same. Slow burn. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On 12/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a good income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and vulnerable, you're almost certainly breaking the law. It's called tax evasion. Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs and basic support for society. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
On 04/09/2008, at 6:19 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ok, but, above, you only list the _preys_. Where are the big predators? There ain't no big predators in North America except Man. Puma, several bear species, wolves, alligators... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 02/09/2008, at 2:41 PM, John Williams wrote: My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous people, with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their politicians. I'm neither of those. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking, but this List is far more dimensional than that. Recently some voices have been louder, but there is a genuine breadth of opinion here (of course, most of it's wrong, but they'll agree with me one day ;) ) Personally, I put my faith in evolution, both biological and economical. I don't. Evolution exists, but I hope we can rise above mere evolution, and direct ourselves rather than being shunted about by the harsh mistress of selectional forces and mere survivability being the criterion for our future. Humans are fallible, and politicians are human. Putting greater responsibility (power, expectations, etc.) in the hands of politicians means that their failures will be greater disasters. Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. Partially agree. By small government, I think we need more participatory government. We need rules and regulations to make an even playing field for business, employment, education and opportunity, but we don't need government interference in our personal lives. Not putting our politicians on a pedestal is a good thing, 'cause people are people. If the gene-pool of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will find better solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If the gene-pool is not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for government to encourage greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that relies on politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. Beyond that, they should be as minimal as possible (and that means minimal subsidies and tarriffs too). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 02/09/2008, at 11:18 AM, Dan M wrote: Now, IIRC, Charlie had some quibbles with do onto others as you would have them do unto you. He noted, correctly, that others may want and need things differently from your own needs and wants. (Reminds me of the old story of the monkey who killed a fish while saving it from drowning). Indeed. But, that's not my central point here. My central point is that the Golden Rule is an axiom; inherently unprovable. The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's not provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of God we must love one's neighbor as oneself. Or because it is written in letters 20 miles high on the third moon of Bukabobul Six. Or any other story. Sorry, but I don't know, therefore God is simply not a reasonable proposition 'cause it leaves even more questions, not one of them answerable. Why are you even *trying* to prove the Golden Rule? It's just an aphorism. You might as well try to prove that a stitch in time saves nine. Discussing how to best treat each other is a human question. To say that being nice to each other requires a god (a god who is pretty unpleasant in the Old Testament, no less) is just hand- waving, and it's plain anachronistic. It may still seem reasonable to many in the world, and that's up to them, but I don't need a god to tell me that being empathetic to others and asking what they want and need. And here among adults who are big enough to face criticism of their own ideas, I'll say that I not only find it strange that human adults still believe this stuff, but that I used to too, well into adulthood. Well, that wasn't as long as I feared. So, let me end with some general questions. Who here accepts the Golden Rule (even with some quibbles) as valid in at least one of its forms? How many folks are true post-modernists, who think there is no better, no worse, just personal desire and politics? I accept a variant of the golden rule, I just don't accept that it's anything other than a personal and social contract. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 02/09/2008, at 11:40 PM, William T Goodall wrote: The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's not provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of God we must love one's neighbor as oneself. Or it could be a social contract. OK, jinxed. That'll teach me to not read ahead! Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 12:50 AM, John Williams wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. I don't understand the yes, since what follows the yes does not agree with what I wrote. Yes it does. It only doesn't if you're ideologically tied to the idea that there should be no regulations at all. And given the differences in standard of living between say the USA and the Scandinavian countries, I'd say that a free market doesn't and shouldn't mean NO regulations, just a level playing field. Given the power of lobbyists in the States, I'd say that the American free market is an illusion anyway. Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and reduced by politicians. In the simplest terms it can. And environmental damage has become trendy for politicians to talk about, but the cures they propose are invariably more harmful. Really? So allowing a logging company to clear fell an entire forest, rather than only taking a percentage of trees, is fine in a free market? So, No, not Yes. I would probably agree with a carbon tax or similar measures that forces carbon-emitters to bear the costs of pollution that everyone must endure, but government should not be creating specific rules on waste and environmental damage. Why not? Chemical companies should not dump their waste in rivers. The only way you make them not do that in an otherwise free market is to have financial penalties if they do. As far as unethical practices and exploitation, the politicians excel at those pursuits. Not a good idea to have politicians defining what is ethical or exploitative, beyond a basic legal framework for protecting property and liberty that was already established ages ago. You should be made aware that this is a global list, and that basic legal framework you're talking about only applies to your nation, not mine. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote: I accept a variant of the golden rule, I just don't accept that it's anything other than a personal and social contract. OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal contract is actually better than any other. Oh for fuck's sake. Where have I EVER said THAT? Stop trying to make other people fit in your own limited number of pigeon holes, and don't say to be clear and then say something that's just plain wrong. Of course some are better than others. But what actually is better depends on what one is trying to achieve. If we're trying to achieve the best outcomes in terms of personal freedoms and responsibilities, then some ways of living are demonstrably better than others. You either accept certain axioms as truths without proof (admitting straight out that you are positing those axioms) or you say they are arbitrary, and that there is no means of distinguishing one set of axioms from another. Or one doesn't regard them as axiomatic at all, and we attempt to come to an agreement about what works better than what else. If what I've said is a version of sliding in the naturalistic fallacy then so be it. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous people, with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their politicians. Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an unfortunate way. Yeah. I couldn't work that out either. Right, off to work time. Conversation resumes in about 12 hours from my point of view. :-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 01/09/2008, at 10:32 AM, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. They're not children yet! Children have *been born*. Late-term abortion kills the unborn at a time when they're likely to survive (except in cases where the abortion is because they won't and they'll probably kill the mother in the process), and is something I strongly oppose (because adoption is an option for delivered healthy babies). But talking about a 12 week embryo as if it has the same status as a 5 year old is both unhelpful and dishonest. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. No it's not arbitrary at all. It is the point at which it becomes an independent being, which is just as important a milestone as fertilisation, the first cell division, implantation, blastulation, the start of the heart beat, the start of brain activity, the opening of the eyes, or the achieving of full self-awareness. (My wife says it's not fully human until it can do its own laundry... I'm not sure she's helping...). If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). If you're talking about abortion, yes. If you're talking about personhood, it makes no sense at all. There's a grey area between implantation and birth. I think that if an abortion is to be carried out it should be as early as possible, and certainly before measurable brain activity starts (which is 22 - 24 weeks). After all, we define the end of human life by the end of brain activity. Why not define the start of human life by the same criterion? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 01/09/2008, at 1:17 PM, Dan M wrote: Well, having looked at Hume and having read several reviews of Moore's work that discuss the Naturalistic Fallacy, it appears that you and I may actually agree on a philosophical point: that one cannot deduce ethics from nature. Neither can one deduce ethics from sitting in a desert and eating insects, or ascribing the universe to a made-up authority figure. Ethics is a product of philosophy. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 01/09/2008, at 6:56 PM, William T Goodall wrote: The question of how we come to have ethical ideas is a different kind of question, with a different kind of answer, than the question of what is good. The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer 'our nature as social mammals'. The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer 'our nature as social mammals'. What an absolutely taut precise concise piece of writing. Very nice indeed. Argue like this, and noone gets frustrated. We might not agree with you, but that's still great argument. Nice post. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
On 02/09/2008, at 1:58 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: Nothing motivates the masses more that money. If we're still buying $1.50 a gallon gas at the pumps, why would anyone be motivated to get rid of that Hummer getting 10 miles per gallon (on a good day!) and find more efficient and sustainable fuel sources? Because it's the right thing to do? Just because something is cheap does not mean we need to be wasteful. Substitute anyone with most people in that sentence and I'll agree with you. Why would car manufacturers do the research and development to create vehicles with higher fuel efficiency unless they have to? Or unless they see a market for it. But yes. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 31/08/2008, at 2:54 PM, Olin Elliott wrote: On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote: ...there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point. The people who are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with much greater degrees of sentience. Both sentience and sapience. The point about sapience, or full self- awareness, is that in humans it doesn't occur until 3-4 years of age. And as you point out, adults in many species exhibit at least the reasoning of a human toddler, and in some species that of a child. The list of species that pass the mirror test is growing - recently the European magpie was added to the list. Other corvids (particularly ravens) have been known to be very smart. While I'm not sure about parrots - some of the smarter species may be, and even smaller dippy parrots like rainbow lorikeets can have a vocab of 10 or more words and associate those with actions or objects, certainly our close ape relatives and certain domestic pets pass the test too. (Could we have been inadvertantly breeding for intelligence in our companion critters - I think it likely). So Singer's argument is that we will put down seriously sick or injured animals, and yet a newborn infant that is seriously sick or disabled we will keep alive at all costs when maybe we shouldn't and that a painless and quick end is not only the kind thing to do, it's the right thing to do (and a similar argument but even stronger is made at the other end of life when people not only can feel pain, they can express clearly their wish to end their suffering, but that's for another thread). Our ethics do seem very badly skewed at times. Good post, Olin. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 12:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. That's the current tactic from the creationists trying to get round the various court rulings. Teach the controversy and Teach both sides. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. If you support teaching both sides then you're a creationist. It's a code word. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: vaccines and autism
On 31/08/2008, at 5:30 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
The reason to give shots early is that's when the
immune system is
doing its major formational work, learning as
much as it can as fast
as it can. Vaccination is more likely to be effective for
different
diseases at different times.
Charlie.
as long as they are not all given at the same time, when there is a
possibility of an interaction that could cause autism...
Is there such a possibility? There doesn't seem to be *any* evidence
for this.
is there any kind of formula which vaccines are more likely to be
effective for different diseases at different times?
Formula? Probably not. But medics do, you know, think about that sort
of stuff. My knowledge of vaccines from my degree is purely on the
theory side and at first/second year undergrad level. So I understand
how they work in principle; I understand the specifics for influenza,
polio and smallpox ('cause they're the classic case studies) but the
practical side I don't know as much about. What I do know is this:
that there are people as smart or smarter than I am who *DO* know the
practical side and have done the hard yards over the couple of hundred
years since Pasteur, and I trust the process to get it right more than
it gets it wrong.
Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Secular belief vs Science
On 30/08/2008, at 8:05 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. I'm placing my bet on cryonics... I'm pretty sure my son, at 5 1/2, is not autistic, and no harm was done by delaying his shots... The reason to give shots early is that's when the immune system is doing its major formational work, learning as much as it can as fast as it can. Vaccination is more likely to be effective for different diseases at different times. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On 28/08/2008, at 6:36 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i have to agree that rule britannia were less brutal than most of the other european colonists. Really? I'm sure Native Americans, original Australians (especially in Tasmania where they were wiped out), the fuzzywuzzies who were made to build railways in Africa and so on would disagree with that. Britain has just as shameful a past in slavery and extermination as the French, Dutch, Belgians, Portugese... Maybe more. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On 28/08/2008, at 1:53 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Charlie wrote: I could be wrong, but doesn't the rule have something to do with the adverse effect of the extreme amount of stress on a young, developing body? If the rule was arbitrary, why don't they have it for other sports? They do. Divers, 14. Fencers, 17. And so on. That's kinda what I meant. Its not 16 straight across the board. Ah, I get you. Yes, it's not arbitrary as different sports set limits based on medical advice and risk assessments for their own sports. It's the same reason U16 footballer don't play 90mins, they have shorter matches. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Portuguese expansion and Religion is Evil [was: Sore losers]
On 28/08/2008, at 10:43 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Really? I'm sure Native Americans, original Australians (especially in Tasmania where they were wiped out), the fuzzywuzzies who were made to build railways in Africa and so on would disagree with that. Britain has just as shameful a past in slavery and extermination as the French, Dutch, Belgians, Portugese... Maybe more. I think we must separate what was deliberate extermination, accidental extermination and assimilation. That's fair. What I mean is that the portuguese genocide of brazilian natives was either accidental (diseases) ...well, many of the diseases were deliberately spread, but yes, some were inadvertantly introduced too. or assimilation. Each native tribe that spontaneously converted to catholicism - and many of them did, as the technology of the invaders was really impressive - was immediately accepted in equal terms with the portuguese colonists. Yep. They wouldn't be able to conquer such a vast area in so little time otherwise - just to compare, by 1580 or so all coastline of Brazil was firmly secured in Portuguese control, and then they (and here I am almost replacing they by we...) began digging to the inside. OTOH, there were some episodes of deliberate genocide, with - as usual (WTG! take note on this! Religion is evil!!!) - a theological justification. Canibal tribes were considered soulless The irony when (many/most) Catholics believe that they are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ does not escape me, but I'm sure it did them. But yes, the Portuguse may not have been *as* bad as the Spanish, say. But pretty much all of the European colonial powers killed a lot of people in their quest for control of as much land as possible, and it's just a matter of degrees really. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On 27/08/2008, at 12:27 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Because if you assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 point for bronze, then the crybaby yanks lost to china, and that is unacceptable to the American chauvinist, patriotic, jingoist, dogmatic, nationalistic media. Americans can not accept that they are on their way down, and no longer first in everything. They whine because they can't prove the Chinese gymnists lied about their age. Who cares what age they are; that is an arbitrary rule that should be eliminated. No, absolutely not. First - whether or not it's arbitrary, it's a rule. If they were underage, they were underage. One might say that it's arbitrary that 2 200m runners were disqualified for running out of the lane in the final. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a rule. All the competitions have their rules set in advance. Arbitrary or otherwise, entering the competition binds one by the rules, and breaking them leads to disqualification. Second, there's good evidence to show that the sort of intensive training in gymnastics that'll make a lass competitive will cause serious joint problems later on in life at 13-14 and is significantly less likely to at 16 when the long bones have done their growing and are hardening. That's the reason for the rule, and it's a good one. There are age limits in many sports to compete at the highest level, and there's nothing wrong with that. I bow down to the Chinese volleyball girls, and all the other champions that dominated this Olympics. If it wasn't for Phelps (aided by American society's peculiar syndrome of ADHD) America would have done even more poorly. Yep. A very good Olympics. Not as tarnished by drugs as I thought so pleased. However, much more tarnished by the win-at-all-costs attitude of many nations (probably more the media than anything, but it was still there.). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On 27/08/2008, at 3:26 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jon wrote: They whine because they can't prove the Chinese gymnists lied about their age. Who cares what age they are; that is an arbitrary rule that should be eliminated. I could be wrong, but doesn't the rule have something to do with the adverse effect of the extreme amount of stress on a young, developing body? If the rule was arbitrary, why don't they have it for other sports? They do. Divers, 14. Fencers, 17. And so on. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apology (was Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion))
On 21/08/2008, at 7:48 PM, William T Goodall wrote: Newness is a rather high standard to set. Most of the arguments are quite old but still not settled. But you're not arguing, you're just posting third party articles that reinforce your worldview. The silent majority on the list love reading my posts about the pernicious evil of religion. I don't think a couple of whiners should get to dictate to everybody else what gets posted here. I mostly agree with your worldview, but I'm still tired of seeing articles I've mostly read elsewhere reprinted in full here by you. One of the primary community values of this list is diversity of opinion. Yes, but we all know yours already. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The First Event
On 05/08/2008, at 9:35 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: sounds like peter hamilton's new trilogy http://www.peterfhamilton.co.uk/index.php?page=Void_Trilogy what is de Sitter vs. anti-de Sitter universe? Which I've not yet read, even though I quite like Hamilton. I own a copy of Dreaming Void, but it's on a ship somewhere between the UK and Oz right now. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alastair Reynolds
On 05/08/2008, at 9:45 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: Has anyone here read Alastair Reynolds -- Revelation Space, Chasm City, Redemption Ark. Revelation Space - so so. CC - v. good. RA - alright. I like Reynolds, but he's merely good not utterly brilliant. I've been reading his books for the past few months and really loving them, but he doesn't seem to be that well known among science fiction readers I've chatted with since I started. Yeah. Most people I know who've read him like him but wonder where his books are actually going. I've enjoyed all that I've read, but not so much that I'm desperate for more, or to re-read them. I'm also reading A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. However, AFUTD (and A Deepness In The Sky as well) is awesome. Completely awesome. Just thought I'd bring up some books, since that is sort of what drew me here in the first place. Good good. All is Brin. :) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
On 05/08/2008, at 9:57 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: Betrand Russell (I'm fairly sure it was him) used to call himself A Teacup Athiest. He said he couldn't prove, beyond any doubt, that there wasn't a pink teacup orbiting the sun, but he didn't think that meant that the likelihood of it existing was on equal footing with its not existing. Twas a teapot. I had an amusing discussion the other night where I was talking about Teapotists, and as our knowledge of the solar system improves, the teapot orbits further and further out. Eventually, the teapot orbits a different star entirely... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
On 05/08/2008, at 9:50 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i sit corrected, in the name of atheism. as a devout atheist i believe there ain't no gawd, but i can't prove it, so i take it on faith. i believe the universe is cyclical and the big bang occurs when all the galaxies in the universe are sucked into super black holes which are then sucked into a super duper black hole at the center of this universe, which then explodes it reaches critical mass, so that the process of expansion, contraction and the heat death of the universe starts all over, again. jon Difference between belief and conviction. I don't believe there's no god. I think on balance there probably isn't. God is in the same class as fairies, Santa, goblins, bigfoot, nessie, chi and reflexology. No faith required to not believe in them, as I don't really believe (even in Not God). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The First Event
On 05/08/2008, at 11:14 PM, Curtis Burisch wrote: Reality is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so. Sorry: Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so. If you want to be precise. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The First Event
On 05/08/2008, at 6:59 AM, Wayne Eddy wrote: Seems to me that something impossible happened at least once in the history of everything. It happened, so it's possible. As we only have one sample, we have only speculation as to how improbable it was (and that goes for both the formation of the universe and abiogenesis). What we don't have is any reason at all, in this day and age, to give up looking for answers, which is what much (not all) religion is trying to do. The God of the Gaps is alive and well in much of the world's people, even though the gaps are shrinking. In fact, the gaps are being kept open on purpose by many, including those nasty little faith schools that teach creationism. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
On 05/08/2008, at 7:29 AM, Nick Lidster wrote: what is your morality system, william? Me. William T Goodall so essentialy you are putting yourself on the same level as an omnipotent, benevolent, compassionate deity? jon A little bit of a reach to say that isn't Jon? Probably, but it was pretty funny. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
On 05/08/2008, at 7:31 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: it is true much of religion is evil, and promotes lies and superstition, but some good is also done in the name of religion. more so in Judaism, and less so in Islam and Christianity. some of the eastern religions are more mystical than supernatural. as for morality, i have to agree with Alberto that some horrible deeds have been committed by atheists. Tibet is being forcibly modernized and brought into the 21st century, Buddhist monks are being slaughtered in the myanmar, etc. i don't know which is the greatest evil, but i agree with nick that there is room for compassion. i myself am guilty of baby killing a couple times when i paid for abortions. i have mixed feelings about that... By atheists and in the name of atheism aren't the same thing. It's about, as was mentioned a few posts back, ideology. When beliefs get in the way of reason. And in that sense, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Spain under the Inquistion, Maoist China, and the Balkan conflicts are all the same thing. It's ideology. Atheism is not an ideology, it's just a position of non-belief in gods. The one problem is that a large proportion of humanity seem to be wired for religion, so if one decides they don't believe in God, there's some room for other dangerous nonsense to fill the gap. In Russia, that was Marx-Leninism and Lysenkoism, and very similar in China. As you were. I'm about to hop on my bike and ride to work. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Top-posting...
I'm noticing a few people replying at the top of the email they're responding to. This is a polite reminder that it's convention on this list to reply *below* the quoted text, and only quote relevant text. It maintains the flow of conversation by email, and follows the order in which we normally read in English. Thanks! Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
On 31/07/2008, at 4:31 AM, Dan M wrote: Given the fact that Europe is showing resistance to the idea of significant additional immigration of non-Europeans, and that Japan has long held racial purity as important, I wonder who will take care of all the baby boomers as they enter their 70s, 80s and 90s, when the working population continues to shrink drastically. People will have to work longer. As life expectancies continue to increase, retirement age will have to increase too. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy theories
On 29/07/2008, at 2:20 PM, Dan M wrote: As I have said before, the assertion that the USA is the world's engineroom is no longer true. It certainly isn't true as it was 8 years ago, but economists are debating how tied the world is to the spending of the US on credit cards (and their Fanny Mae equivalents.) Not as much as the US is to it. An American crash or collapse might slow the rest of the world, but it won't plunge the rest of the world into recession necessarily any more. That's true. And, you see in my post that the consumption of the most critical commodity (oil) is not what it was 30 years ago. But.there are still a lot of unknowns. For example, the US has been running a gigantic trade deficit this decadenear 800 billion last year IIRC. A lot of that money is going into Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac bonds.and these institutions may be technically insolvent. Yep. The US has to back them, it has little choice. But it will be much harder to arrange a soft landing for the US housing bubble for the world economy than the Asian bubble of '98. Banks will suffer. Stock markets will suffer (are suffering, in fact). There'll be a knock-on effect, but other economies are moving away from USD (and have been since the gold standard was dropped). If the USA does crash and the rest of the world takes a hit, I think it'll be the last time it happens with the US, 'cause with the level of globalisation business will just move. The Asia-Pacific boom is self- sustaining now, IMO. (Not sustainable, mind, but that's a different issue). The fall of the dollar has been orderly.but unless the trade imbalance fades with the dollar, there is a risk of a run on the bank. Big time. BTW, I'm not really arguing with you; I'm 90% in your corner in this discussionI just have some worries about short and mid term problems. So do I. I don't think it'll be rosy. I think it's going to be horrific in the States, the UK will take a hit, Oz is taking a hit in the banking sector but the resources boom will get us through the worst. And this'll just drive business away from the States (especially money business) for a good while. World confidence in the USA is at an all-time low, much much worse than during Vietnam or the (last) Oil Crisis. A hell of a lot is riding on the next US election and the aftermath of it. In the long term, the continued improvement in productivity will facilitate economic growth.but we could have a few rather unpleasant years. Could? Will. Sorry. :-( It's really unfortunate that Brad isn't an active member.he could add a lot to this type of discussion. Let's page him. BRAD BRAD Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy theories
On 29/07/2008, at 4:10 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: you are right about bushco using his presidency to enrich his cronies, lance, but i doubt he comprehends what an enormous deleterious effect his policies have had on the global economy. The global economy is still growing at 4%. As I have said before, the assertion that the USA is the world's engineroom is no longer true. An American crash or collapse might slow the rest of the world, but it won't plunge the rest of the world into recession necessarily any more. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Happy sysadmin day!
On 25/07/2008, at 9:13 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://www.sysadminday.com/ I just took mine out for beer. But not 'til after I'd spent a while telling him he didn't count 'cause he's a Senior sysadmin... hehehehe C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 26/07/2008, at 5:59 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what parts of the population are doing their best to outbreed everyone else, and why? it seems to me that less developed countries are the culprits, partly because children are a source of labor... And children *are* social security for many people of the world. Or lunch. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: memes, or genes...
On 26/07/2008, at 10:19 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: And children *are* social security for many people of the world. Or lunch. How Swiftly you come to that conclusion. Very good! :) C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dollar a gallon gasoline
On 25/07/2008, at 5:27 AM, hkhenson wrote: And there are certain parts of the population doing their best to outbreed everyone else just to skew future demographics. So it's likely to be a hard crash, and not a very well controlled one at that. This would worry me more except I think the age of genes is about over. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that we'll be modifying ourselves rather than being subject to the random whims of mutation and selection in the next century (which is what I read) or did you mean something else? Charlie Or Did You Mean Denim Is Out Of Fashion Again Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: And the thred creep begins Re: Dollar a gallon gasoline
On 23/07/2008, at 11:21 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: You wanna tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? -- Toby Ziegler Why did Toby get all the really good lines? He didn't get them all. He got a lot, but so did Josh, and Sam, and CJ, and President Bartlett, and Leo, and Donna. Good deal: our local gamesmusictvdvdhifigearshop has a special on - TV box sets at $30. But buy-two-get-one-free. So, buy two, that's $20 a season one you pick up a third. So, we went a bit mad and bought all of buffy, all of west wing and with the final free slot grabbed firefly. :-) Charlie Watching Le Tour Go Up Some Big Hills Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
On 22/07/2008, at 8:15 PM, Curtis Burisch wrote: Bah. When I tried to watch it, it said 'Video no longer available'. When I went to the site today, it said proudly 'Exclusively on iTunes' !!! Seems I'll never get to see this. Which is a shame :( There are avis floating about. If you have no luck finding one, I can probably dvd them. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Indigo and Umami
On 20/07/2008, at 4:13 PM, Max Battcher wrote: William T Goodall wrote: There used to be seven colours in a rainbow and four basic flavours (sweet, sour, bitter, salt) and then indigo became a shade of violet and umami became the fifth basic flavour. Don't forget that we're down to 8 planets and up to 2 plutoids (Pluto, Eris). And Ceres should be a Plutoid or a planetoid (as it's collapsed to near-spherical under its own gravity), but the rules are stupid and subjective. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
On 17/07/2008, at 10:19 AM, Lance A. Brown wrote: Alright, are you just yanking my chain or what? You seem to be asking me to telepathically implant the information needed for un- knowledgeable computer users to safely attach their computers to the Internet. No, just pointing out that they're the problem... You need to lobby the vendors who sell computers, Apple, Dell, HP, etc. to configure the machines they sell so they have all the security features needed turned on at time of sale. ...and that's the solution. Or one, anyway. If people can't/won't go out and educate themselves how to use computers in today's world, there isn't much I can do as a private citizen. It is an ugly reality that computers AREN'T as easy to use and safe as they should be. I can't snap my fingers and fix that myself overnight. Welcome to my world. IT Support at a law firm at the mo... *banging head on desk* I love my job, I love my workplace, but bloody hell it can be frustrating at times! I think I'm done responding on this thread. Aww. *poke* Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
On 17/07/2008, at 3:54 PM, Dave Land wrote: It's up to the manufacturers: add a layer _in_the_box_ between Windows and the big, bad Interwebs. Sell it as the Internet Security version with built-in hardware firewall. To be fair, a good number of ADSL modems are NAT routers these days. Ours is. Which means I have to configure port forwarding on two boxes to get P2P going on my PC, but that's cool. Or, just buy a Mac and be free from all that rot and have a better operating system, besides. *lalalalalalala* I can't hear you!!! Oh wait, we've got one. No, two, both MacBooks. No, three including the G3 iMac in the cupboard... And I'm strongly considering getting an EePC or similar and turning it into a Hackintosh... :-) And one XP/Ubuntu dual boot, and one with Vista 64 (so I can play 64- bit Far Cry... Mmmm). And a couple of other random ancient (like P3s) boxes with XP or Linux on that are for playtime. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
On 17/07/2008, at 11:57 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: Charlie Bell said the following on 7/17/2008 3:32 AM: Welcome to my world. IT Support at a law firm at the mo... *banging head on desk* I love my job, I love my workplace, but bloody hell it can be frustrating at times! I feel your pain, brother. :-) I'm the sole in-department sysadmin for the Dept. of Statistical Science at Duke University. I have a flat spot on my forehead just like yours. I actually had my very first My screen's blank and when I move the mouse nothing happens Um, is your computer actually turned on? moment two days ago. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
On 18/07/2008, at 12:07 AM, John Garcia wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've worked in IT in the private, public and educational sectors and I was never more frustrated than when I worked at a university. Was that 'cause of the computers, or all the cute students wandering about? ;-) (You don't actually have to answer, especially if it may incriminate you...) C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
On 18/07/2008, at 4:22 AM, William T Goodall wrote: http://www.drhorrible.com/ Anyone not watching this? Managed to download and convert to Xvid, Acts 1 and 2 are on the PS3 now ready to watch at the weekend when Act 3 is released... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
