Cap'n Refsmmat

It might help if you'd answer a fundamental question. That appears to be pioneer's point, actually. No, they don't. They begin with a random configuration. All of the genetic algorithm examples I have given do so. (The clocks example, the antenna example, etc. Also Dembski's systems.) You speak as though they import all of the information they generate. This is not what Dembski states in his papers. They generate information at a rate proportional to the information provided in the beginning; that is, given enough time, they will generate more information than they were provided with. They do so with the No Free Lunch theorems... which don't apply to natural selection. It is my understanding that animals tend to reproduce quite often, and mutations tend to occur during reproduction. Some examples might include Lenski's bacteria. They began as nearly identical E. coli, but after many generations, a small portion of the population diverged from the initial population with a mutation in a select few genes. These mutations gave the genes new or altered function, and they now metabolized citrate. Other E. coli samples in different containers made no such changes. As a result, there are now two versions of the genes: one with the original function, and one with a modified function that allows metabolization of external citrate. It does not matter if you believe metabolization of external citrate is not a significant or "new" function, so long as it is different from the original function. Similar processes occur in any population that exhibits a new trait, no matter how trivial. Can you propose a physical mechanism to prevent reproduction and mutation from creating two different versions of the same gene that have slightly different functions?

I suppose it could work like the old gold-backed US money. Bills would represent an obligation of the government to supply you with a certain amount of energy, rather than a certain amount of gold.

This doesn't follow. The search algorithms in the Dembski papers you linked me to earlier are a counterexample; they require information to begin, but they generate new information at a rate related to the amount of information provided at the beginning. That is, a minimal amount of information is required to generate new information. It is not merely a reconfiguration; Dembski quantifies the amount of information that can be generated in a given time. However, even if you are correct, this is not an obstacle. Suppose I have an organism with a certain gene that encodes 100 bits of coherent functional information. The gene has a certain function in the cell. Now, suppose my organism has two offspring, A and B. Offspring A has a mutated version of the gene. It is still 100 bits of coherent functional information, but rearranged such that it performs a slightly different function. Offspring B has a perfect copy of its parent's gene, so it has the exact same 100 bits of coherent functional information as before. Now we have two organisms, and two different sets of 100 bits of coherent functional information. The total information has increased, despite each organism only rearranging the existing bits. Further breeding and mutation can spread both genes through the population.

Can you mathematically and rigorously define "functional information" for us?

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html Looks like Bruce Schneier is part of a lawsuit to force the stop of backscatter scanners. And in case you don't know who Bruce Schneier is: http://www.schneierfacts.com/

The majority of doctors are competent and well-meaning. Of course, you never hear stories about the doctor who said "oh, it must be an ear infection, so here's some pills" and got it right -- you only hear the small portion of cases, when a doctor got something wrong, or a patient was stuck with a rare doctor who truly doesn't care or is incompetent. Get down to an ophthalmologist and get an exam done. You don't have to agree to any surgical procedures or treatments you don't want -- you can just get an exam to see if they can find out what's wrong. Work from there. If there's a serious condition that needs to be treated, ask them about the treatment. You're allowed to ask as many questions as you want -- what are the risks, how long will it take, and so on. Don't agree to any procedures unless you understand what will happen and what might go wrong. There's not much that can go wrong if you just go get an exam. The worst that can happen is a misdiagnosis -- but if you're worried, you can always see a second doctor to be sure. Remember, though, that most naturopathic doctors have limited rights to perform surgery or prescribe drugs. There's little harm in seeing one, but I'd recommend seeing a regular doctor first. Just get an exam. It can't cause you any harm and you'll find out what you're up against.

How would a security agent at a checkpoint distinguish between Mr. Smith, middle-aged white male recently converted to radical Islam, and Mr. Jones, middle-aged white male who's been Protestant his entire life? As for the existence of homegrown terrorists, here's what Napolitano has to say: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/napolitano-issues-blunt-comments-on-domestic-terror-threat.html

Supposing we did accept it as a practice, without whining about the ethics of it, it still wouldn't work against the newest threats. Many recent terror suspects have been ordinary Americans who have converted, kept up with the radical Islamic world online, and occasionally traveled to the Middle East for training. Racial profiling won't catch Mr. Smith from South Carolina.

Hmm. The FAA uses a simple procedure to determine if safety regulations should be put into effect: Estimate the cost of implementation (equipment, training, whatever) and compare it against the estimated value of human lives saved. According to the FAA, the current value of a human life is $5.8 million. (It changes every few years, so I'm not sure if that number is current. It's at least approximately correct.) So, with that value, we can see that each captured bong has to save this many lives to be economical: [math]\frac{62,307,692.31}{5,800,000} = 10.7 \mbox{ lives}[/math] For 130 bongs total, that gives us 1400 lives that must be saved by the TSA yearly for it to be economically worthwhile. Of course, this ignores factors like "what happens to our economy if everyone's scared of flying (either because of gropage or bombage)?", but it's fun to calculate anyway.

I agree. Schneier's article said 700 million passengers per year in the US, though the post is now over 3 years old and the numbers have gone up. Let's run with the number anyway. Suppose that each prohibited item was taken from a different passenger. That gives us: [math]\frac{130}{700,000,000} \times 100 = 1.86 \times 10^{-5}\, \% = 0.0000186 \% \mbox{ of passengers}[/math] That's the percentage of passengers found with "dangerous" prohibited items. Is this really worth billions of extra dollars to catch?

It's a good idea, but: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/airport_securit_7.html Atlanta handled 60 million passengers in 2010, and that's not even an entire year's worth of data. Scaling El-Al's procedures to American sizes is nearly impossible. The top American airports individually handle more passengers yearly than all Israel's airports do over several years. As for Pangloss' point... from what I've read so far, I believe only a few countries have deployed the full-body scanners. I recall reading that there was some legal controversy over their use that prevented immediate widespread adoption. I can't find any news articles at the moment though.

Impressive. You do realize that we'll need high-speed video once you start shooting at targets. I almost feel bad for the flight data recorders.

Hang on... is that the barrel of the gun on the right? It was yellow in your earlier pictures, but it looks rather green. I was confused because I saw a ring of fire sort of hovering in mid-air, but if that's the end of the barrel, that makes more sense...

What exactly am I seeing there? It's impressive, but... what're the fiery bits doing?

Aces? Nelnet? So you have loans from two separate loan agencies? If so, I'd urge you to look up the paperwork from when you first got the loans, to see what you agreed to pay.

See also: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52841-try-your-hand-at-fixing-the-deficit/

I read an interesting Washington Post article today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111506015.html It suggests the president did not make a mistake based on faulty intelligence, but made a decision by ignoring more recent contradictory evidence.

Could you identify that closed system of interest again? I must have missed it.

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Camp_%28software%29

You spoke of humans seeming to be "an exception to laws of information entropy". Having read much of Dembski, who you cite, I recognized the reference to the law of conservation of information. If you're referring to something else, perhaps you could specify what you refer to, because as swansont has noted, the laws of entropy do not help you here. Entropy can easily decrease locally, without violating any law. You referred specifically to "laws of information entropy", but now you dodge to probability theory. Which law exactly is being violated? The analogy to conservation of energy is Dembski's, not mine, and exists as an example.

Agreed. It's not just syntax and style that benefit from good editing; I often find that, halfway through a post, I've thought up new arguments and points to make, and previous points should be edited to make the post cohesive and persuasive -- or removed entirely, as I often realize that I've made a point irrelevant by making a new argument. After all, a post that leverages multiple arguments together to make one strong point is more effective than a post hurling a few disparate arguments and hoping one or two will stick.

Why not peg everyone to US currency without using gold?

I can verify that bascule changed his account credentials so he can't come back, and that the statements made in goodbye bascule's post are consistent with statements bascule has made in the past.

Try reading through this: http://mackeyloggerprotection.com/ You can use Activity Monitor (Applications->Utilities) to look for any suspicious programs, then Google the names to see if they're legitimate or not.

At my home we have a family room with a two-story ceiling. For lighting, the ceiling originally contained 12 100-watt floodlights. Sitting to read in the family room required 1.2kW of power, and changing a lightbulb required one of those awkward fifteen-foot poles with a suction cup on the end. Switching to long-life fluorescents may have been a good idea...