bascule

But terrorism is, by definition, a thoroughly decentralized, ad hoc process, executed by a loosely coordinated network of independent cells. Trying to search for its focus point is like trying to find the center of the Internet, or for that matter, the universe. There is no evidence whatsoever that the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the larger "war on terror" has done anything whatsoever to abate terrorism. The other biggie "what would be different" I didn't state is international respect for America. I think America's image has suffered greatly in the wake of the Iraq war and particularly the re-election of Bush (itself a validation that this was a policy created by a man Americans supported) I think the Iraq war has increased global anti-Americanism. I think it can be argued that increased global anti-American sentiment increases the potential for a terrorist attack against America. Think in terms of how few were involved with the 9/11 attacks versus the cascading, worldwide changes it caused. I think the ability for a small group of people to cause massive worldwide devistation increases with overall human ability, primarily technological abilities. I have great fear that in the future some misguided person or a group of only a few people could wreak worldwide devistation which would dwarf 9/11. To me, terrorism represents a small group of people who want to cause the largest, most devistating events they possibly can. They pursue creative techniques, evaluating the defense systems in place and looking for vulnerabilities. They can come from anywhere. I don't think there is any defensible reason, especially in the light of 20/20 hindsight, to say that Iraq was the primary country to target in terms of combating terrorism, or even close to the top of the list. I suppose my overall argument would be that America went too far by invading Iraq, and in doing so substantially damaged a sort of international anti-terrorist commoradorie that self-established following 9/11.

Sorry, didn't see this until today, and I've been posting rather infrequently lately due to work. But uhh, I defer to Martin. Fecund universes involve a sort of transformation which, according to the hypothesis, alters physical law itself, so any physical laws we experience now won't necessary apply to fecund universes or their creation

To answer the OP: Being offensively inoffensive

The dollar would be up, because the US's outstanding obligations (now at $8.6 trillion) would be significantly less. A sagging dollar is partly responsible for increased fuel prices. I think it can be argued that the Iraq War itself is also partly responsible for increased fuel prices.

Nitrosamine forms during the cooking of bacon. Nitrosamine also forms on flue-cured tobacco. Nitrosamine used to form on flue-cured barley, until beer makers switched to indirect fire curing in the '80s. I'm guessing there's ways you could prevent nitrosamine from forming when bacon is cooked, but here's a better idea: don't eat bacon. It's unhealthy, and pigs are among the most intelligent animals on earth. I think the way pigs are treated is intolerably cruel, and feel morally repulsed by their consumption in the same way I would think of consuming the meat of monkeys or apes.

A possible suggestion I heard regarding doctors and poor handwriting is this: Doctors must study for a long time and take extensive notes. This process makes them optimize their writing for speed, rather than legibility. I print everything in highly legible block letters, despite hardly ever writing anything and overwhelmingly choosing to type whenever I can. People often give me compliments on the quality of my handwriting. And I would consider myself to be smart, so...

For me, the episode reiterated something I've believed for quite some time: atheism is not something around which you can build a unified social movement, case in point the inability of anyone to agree on a name! Atheists. Free Thinkers. Skeptics. Brights. The Church of Reality. The list goes on and on. As I believe in transhumanism and the impending technological singularity, I feel knowledge of these concepts, and the certainty they bring about the nature of the universe are the only sort of thing that could truly replace religion as a societal construct. As a social movement, I believe atheism will evolve organically, with a gradual decline in religion over time as more information about the world becomes available. I think atheists should do their best to construct good arguments and make them available to religious types, but I'm not sure how I necessarily feel about proselytism. I certainly don't have enough confidence that the transhumanist view of reality is correct to attempt to proselytize it.

http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal#11 I thought that was a classy and humorous response to the two situations, especially from a man who is stereotyped by his detractors as an asshole.

I found this excellent chart of modeled climate change attribution, also comparing the reconstructed temperature change to the instrumental record: I think this is a great chart for answering some of the most common questions about global warming, such as "Why did the global mean surface temperature level off mid-century then start increasing again?"

I think this falls under the Hollywood rule of "Any publicity is good publicity". Who even cared about what Michael Richards was up to until this happened?

Looks like Michael Richards is going to take Sinbad's advice and apologize directly to the people he insulted: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/01/michaelrichards.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Sinbad was in the audience and said he had no problem with Richards using "nigger" in his act until he realized that Richards wasn't going anywhere with it as part of his routine, but was just being a racist dick. I think it'd be pretty hard for a white person to get away with using "nigger" in the context of a racially charged routine in the same way someone like Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle can lambaste whites and use it, along with "cracker", "honkey", "whitey", etc. (none of which, of course, carry nearly the negative connotation of "nigger") About the only time I've heard the word successfully used commedically by a white person was Archie Bunker, who succeeds at using it by being the stereotype of all the negative qualities of someone who would think like that. And, of course, George Jefferson fires right back at him when he does it, and it's the exchange between the two of them that makes it funny. If Kramer really wants to pull off a successful apology he needs to be face-to-face with the guy in the audience he insulted, go "I'm a racist, and I'm sorry. I admit I have a problem and I was totally out of line" or something to that effect. Instead, he gave an apology so "sincere" people in the audience were lauging. His apology was, literally, a joke.

He was impractical and overly theoretical. That doesn't make him a quack. His idea was certainly possible but impractical due to human health concerns and the non-uniformity of the Schumann Cavity. There's no way Tesla could've known about these things when he originally undertook Wardenclyffe. Tesla became increasingly aware of the potential health concerns of his wireless power scheme as he aged and learned more about electromagnetic radiation and resonances.

I live in Colorado. We don't have snow days, except for real blizzard conditions that are so bad the snowplows get stuck. Usually get one of those every 1-2 years.

Uh huh. Care to give us the math behind that estimate?

Could fecund universes provide the seed data for non-local hidden variables which could deterministically describe apparent quantum indeterminacy? Could seeming randomness in fact simply be the result of a complex heritage of parent universes, each one more complex than the next? My reasoning is as follows: If the fecund universes hypothesis is correct, and the formation of a black hole creates a new universe, then the most statistically likely universe is one which comes from a line of universes that generate a lot of holes. Black holes are formed from stars. More stars means more black holes. If apparent quantum indeterminacy is the reason for the non-uniformity of the Big Bang, and such uniformity is what resulted in our clumpy, star-filled universe, then perhaps such indeterminacy evolved in a series of successive universes, each one clumpier than the last.

Want to know NASA's amazing solution to this problem? Springy tethers Hook yourself up to them and run on treadmill. The force you exert every step you take is reflected by the springiness of the tether, so you bounce up and down on top of it. Yes, that's NASA's amazing secret to artificial gravity. Springy tethers.

Tesla never claimed to have created any free energy technologies. There's some sort of Tesla free energy meme that's very much alive. It's being spread by people who completely misunderstood his ideas. This began long ago, for example the batsh*t insane psychopath author Ayn Rand based her character John Galt on Tesla. John Galt created some sort of weird coil that sucked energy out of nowhere, turned a motor, and in turn... turned a generator. If that system doesn't make sense to you, you're not alone... Ayn Rand's understanding of Tesla's concept was about as jaded as her understanding of Nietzsche. (and for those of you who lack the background to catch the reference, I'm basically saying she doesn't get it) The basic component of Tesla's conceived wireless power concept was the prototype he attempted to build at Wardenclyffe Tower. This was: a large generator farm attached to an electromagnetic transmitter tuned to particular harmonics of the Schumann Cavity, the space between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere. Tesla's hypothesis was that electromagnetic energy transmitted into this cavity on such harmonics would resonate and eventually form standing waves. He conceived a series of Wardenclyffe-like structures erected all over the world, filling the Schumann cavity with electromagnetic energy and providing a pool of energy anyone could tap and make use of. So really, it's not free energy whatsoever. The entire system would be powered by generators of some sort. What he was really trying to do was eliminate transmission lines. Generators all over the world, powered by whatever energy source, would fill the Schumann Cavity with standing electromagnetic waves. It failed for many reasons. The first is that Tesla lied to obtain funding for the system. He told his investor, J.P. Morgan, that Wardenclyffe would be a wireless communication system, when really he intended it to be a wireless power distribution system. Today Wardenclyffe is clearly outlandish in comparison to the actual technical requirements of a radio transmitter, but when J.P. Morgan invested he had no idea what would actually be involved. Lying to your investors is a great way to piss them off. Morgan dumped Tesla as soon as Marconi was able to pioneer practical radio transmitters and receivers and get them into production at the same time Tesla was working on wireless power. Also, the Schumann Cavity would be very leaky, because the locations of both the surface of the earth and the ionosphere are not fixed and thus the Schumann Resonance, the base frequency upon which you must transmit a harmonic of to fill the cavity, changes depending upon where you are in the world. Tesla's concept would be like trying to inflate an inner tube that's full of holes: it leaks, and thus the process is highly inefficient. Furthermore, there are potential health hazards with transmitting large amounts of energy on harmonics of the Schumann resonance, which are typically in the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) band. Tesla became gradually became aware of these risks and grew increasingly wary of the Wardenclyffe Project. In the end, the polyphase AC electrical system remains the most practical method of electrical transmission, and all attempts to replace it, such as HVDC, have failed. HVDC (essentially the evolution of the Edison system) serves some specific niches, such as subaquatic transmission lines, but overall remains impractical for to the home transmission of electrical energy. Tesla's ideas grew increasingly impractical as he aged. He was really a conceptualist, with his grand concept, the polyphase AC system, being a masterwork which remains the most integral system driving the modern world to-date. How could he possibly top that? Like Einstein, he sprung his big idea while he was young, and failed in his search for something that could possibly top the original concept.

My story takes place in a Matrix (in either the Neuromancer or s/t movie sense) or Metaverse-like virtual reality world which exists after the Singularity has occured and all humans have transferred their consciousness into a distributed computer network that runs on a network of nanomachine robots called the Grid. This carries with it all the potential plot devices of such a world: anything can happen since it isn't reality, just a computer simulation. You can jump off a building and bounce through the pavement, etc. The backstory is: The Grid was originally maintained and regulated by an Artificial General Intelligence computer program named Logic. Logic was created after the Singularity to maintain and expand the Grid and enforce a set of laws which ensure individual freedom but prevent people in the post-Singularity universe from harming/killing each other and using the nanorobots that make up the Grid in the real world to do destructive things, such as build an enormous nuclear bomb and blowing everything up, or just turning everything into grey goo. In the Grid everyone is immortal because everyone is just a computer program and Logic ensures that the Grid logs everything and doesn’t lose track of information. However since it's after the Singularity and people are just computer programs, anyone can expand their intelligence by controlling more computer power. Logic continually expands the computer system so everyone can get more processing power, but new programs of all sorts, including new conscious entities, are constantly being created so Logic tries to ensure resources are dolled out in a fair manner. A hacker person/computer program hacks the Grid and takes over more and more computer power, using it to eventually outwit and oust Logic. He/it takes over the entire Grid, and then the real story begins. So, now the real setting: picture a sort of post-Apocalyptic jungle world, except every animal in this world is controlled by an immortal entity with human-level consciousness. The whole backstory I just described comprises the mythology of this world. No one has ever met the hacker who usurped control of the Grid from Logic, but colloquially he/it is known as Karma. Just because the animals are controlled by human-level conscious entities doesn’t mean they can’t die. Imagine all the rules of the real world apply. It’s just that, when the animal you’re in control of dies, Karma evaluates your life and reconstitutes you as a different type of entity. For example, if you commit suicide, Karma demotes you. (that is to say, kill the body you’re in. While the “souls” of people are immortal, if they so choose, they can kill themselves too) Karma doesn’t do this by choice, it’s part of some fundamental safety mechanisms built into the grid for just such an eventuality. Karma, being the antagonist, is inherently evil, duh! The world he constructs is one where you advance through killing and suffering. The better you are at this, the more you “advance” through the animal kingdom. Efficient killers get rewarded with bodies of carnivorous predators, as well as apes and humans. Victims get demoted. Lower level creatures can get promoted by living the longest and outclassing the predators. Okay, with that extended backstory aside, we get to the basic plot: Logic exists within this world. He has the form of a wizardly old man with magic powers. This is what Karma relegated him to after taking control of the Grid. So, Logic is the hero protagonist! Karma is the antagonist. The plot is basically about Logic retaking control of the Grid from Karma. The backstory is something, if I were writing an actual story instead of a treatment, that would be incrementally revealed, but that’s because I’m an idiot who just wants to jump right into the plot and give a series of systematic hints which eventually reveal the backstory. This typically comes off as hokey. For example, Harlan Ellison wrote a similar story called I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, and I have to admit that whole backstory is greatly inspired from that one. Anyway, things start off with Logic confronting a band of bonobos. At this point, forget you know the whole backstory. So, a bunch of bonobos with human level intelligence run into an old man. Fearing the old man wants to slaughter them for bushmeat, the bonobos attack the old man with primitive weapons like spears, blowdarts, etc, all of which he is able to ward off with magic powers. The bonobos get all confused. They’re an evil bunch, since by Karma’s warped system they got that way by being vicious aggressive killers. They also know that, as a human, the old man is better than them. And they’re amazed by his powers and how he thwarted their attack. The old man then reveals he is Logic, and he’s trying to overthrow Karma and take back the world. The bonobos all hate Karma. Everyone does. They all miss their utopian post-Singularity lives. The bonobos have all had to struggle their whole lives, being vicious killers, to achieve their current status, but they aren’t yet good enough to be human. The bonobo body is good enough to do most of the same things humans do, and they’re pretty damn strong. The humans are just bigger and there’s more of them. Anywho, Logic convinces the bonobos that, firstly, he is Logic, the great Artificial General Intelligence program that was created to run the Grid, and secondly, that Logic knows how to defeat Karma, but that he/it can’t reveal that information because while it is safe inside Logic’s own head, as soon as Logic reveals his plan Karma can find a way to defeat it since Karma is effectively the God of the whole world. The timing for Logic’s plan has to be exactly right, or else it won’t work. Well folks, that’s 965 words. I might bust out another 1000 as a conclusion to the treatment, but I’d like to get some feedback on the premise first, and I’m out of gas for tonight.

zyncod, there is almost no variation between these plants, to the point that they are being wiped out by Panama disease because there is too little variation for any to have an immunity.

MySpace deleted my old account. I guess they let you reclaim MySpace URLs now.

I'm so goddamn convinced of this and I have no idea why. I guess what I'm asking here is: have you considered the possibility that everything that is happening has already happened over and over again infinitely, and will continue to do so forever?

Maybe it evolved from another universe...

Technically you can here too. I've seen a guy on a bike pulled over by two patrol cars. I think he was a little more than drunk though. I ride my bike drunk all the time. I'll say this: someone on the receiving end of a car is in a hell of a lot more danger than someone on the receiving end of a bike.

You're reading text. Whatever emotion you impart is your own interpretation. Sorry, I don't play "Here's a web site, now go dig for the information that proves me right." You have the burden of proof. You find it. REALLY? Gee, let's go back to the post that started all of this: I wonder where you learned that seedless bananas reproduce through cuttings. Perhaps... from me! Cuttings are clones. You can't selectively breed seedless plants. They don't have seeds. They can't reproduce. Wild bananas look like this: Please tell me how they got to look like this: Without selective breeding. You're saying I'm wrong then pulled a big post out of your ass to describe why.