Mokele

Ok, I've got yet another electronics question. At lab, we've just gotten these neat tiny pressure sensors that can be applied to anything (in our case, perches for the animals, to measure locomotion forces). Apparently, the company can build perches with *dozens* of these things, but use only a few input channels for the computer, because it samples from each sensor in an array sequentially over the same channel, and their software decoding this sequence so you can get each of the inputs individually (just at a reduced sampling rate). Since number of channels is a limitation in my work, I'm keen on seeing if this technology can be applied to my own work, which brings me to the two rather basic questions: 1) Is there a special term for this sort of setup? 2) How easy is it to create such a setup? Is this the sort of thing that a single individual could design, or would it require quite advanced knowledge of electronics and computers? Mokele

Didn't someone already try this about 2 years ago? Isn't this just the same hackneyed political ploy to make people hate the war by making it a threat to them and their kids, just like last time? $10 says it won't even be in the news a week from now, and it'll die before even being voted on. Mokele

Mutations are the raw material for evolution, so in that sense, all mutations are evolutionary. However, the important part here is that it's not just some run-of-the-mill mutation like albinism, but rather that a mutation caused the expression of a hidden ancestral trait that was blocked until now. Essentially, it shows that all dolphins have a genes to build external rear limbs, but only this one has those genes active. Mokele

Yes, but I've seen no evidence that things are changing, thus it's pointless to presume they are, and it's equally pointless to presume there are bugs in the bag if I've never seen one. You have *COMPLETELY* missed the point. Bugs and changing balls don't matter. If I keep pulling balls out, I become more and more certain (though never absolutely so). If there is indeed change, I'll see that as I keep pulling balls out, and I'll be able to analyze it, quantify it, and deal with it. If bugs get it, I'll see them. If there is no prior reason to expect this to happen, why bother talking about it? Sure, they could happen. And the universe could have been made last tuesday with all evidence of the past in place. It accomplishes *NOTHING*. What the **** do you think science *is*? And if you deny evidence you are faced with, you're intellectually dishonest. There is *nothing* wrong with claim a fact is a fact when no reasonably explanation can be found otherwise. And wild conspiracy theories are not reasonable explanations. It's called the FDA. Look it up. You mean shares your ignorance? If a creationist reviews an article on evolution, they'll just confirm the idiocy of other creationists. Good creation, that's precisely what I programmed you to say. You see, I created you, a la Frankenstien, last Tuesday. All of your prior life, including all prior posts in this thread, were an elaborate ruse by me, as is your memory. So, will you now go through life *seriously* considering that you may be my creation? No. Skepticism has limits, and arguements about the reliability of the raven feather tests are just grasping at straws. The probability of that being true is so tiny that it doesn't even matter. Only if that party is very, very stupid. Since you seem to know jack shit about science, I'll let you in on something: we *know* that nothing is absolutely certain. We even have a measurement of it, the p-value. Whenever you report *ANY* scientific results, you are required to report a p-value for your statistics, and that value is your certainty. A p value of 0.01 means there is a 1% chance that you got these results by random chance. A p value of 0.05 is the standard for all sciences, though some may self-impose more rigid standards. All you're doing is wasting breath by pointing out that vastly improbable things *could* happen, as if we weren't already aware of this, and claiming that this somehow matters. It doesn't. If there's no evidence of such bizarre conspiracies, they aren't worth taking seriously, otherwise there would be NO knowledge of any kind. You arguement is pure solipsism, and the inevitable conclusion of it is that we can never know anything for certain, while neglecting that we *can* know to a level beyond which it's silly to claim otherwise. Go read a damn textbook and come back when you know how science works. Next time you post something that clearly misses the point, you're getting a strawman warning. Mokele

I see the stripes, and I'm using a quite old CRT monitor.

Yes, you put it forth and I smacked it down as utterly ridiculous and flatly contradictory of all known data. Doesn't the earth also lose mass to space, with the gasses at the top layer of the atmosphere evaporating into space? Mokele

As Pangloss noted, it sure worked in Iraq. And Vietnam. The 'paranoid possibility' is actually how this country was formed. Also, how will restricting legal gun ownership prevent people getting hurt of robbed? I know it's a cliche, but criminals don't follow the law. Look at the UK; the gun crime has only gotten worse, and the police departments can't retain new hires because nobody wants to face armed criminals with nothing but a stick unless they're Bruce Lee. Hell, it didn't even work out well for him. Aside from that, knives are deadly too; even if guns were eradicated, criminals would use knives and it would be the same situation. And believe me, you can do a *lot* with a knife. Agreed. As much as my own artillery weapons would advance my goals of becoming Emperor Mokele I, that's precisely why they should be avoided. I think a good general rule is "if it's military hardware, you shouldn't have it." Google "Radioactive Boy Scout". It wasn't a bomb, but a *KID* with enough ingenuity managed to create a *working* nuclear device without anyone knowing. As for the insane, not all crazy people are gibbering on the streetcorner. A sociopath looks like anyone else, as do most schizophrenics, between episodes. Personally, I find guns distasteful, but I don't object to people owning them. I'll take a nice pair of Katars, myself. Mokele

I must confess I'm a bit unclear on how he uses pebbles to move things around. I get that once you get a pebble underneath a massive block, you can pivot it (though how you get it under there is another matter). But what does the second do? It's got to pivot on one or the other, or both to varying degrees based on the center of mass, but it's still spinning in place about its center of mass, right? Mokele

Not necessarily; they may have valid reasons, such as Gould's controversial notion of species-level selection occuring. Also, they're often separated simply for convinience, so people working on fruitflies won't be confused with people working on Ordovician snails. But that's merely a convenience, not a real distinction. Mokele

Correct, but it does produce fish, including those we eat; swamps/wetlands are vital habitats for the fry of numerous game and food fish.

BMW already has prototypes along such lines. Productions models are expected to follow relatively soon. Mokele

First a small technical point: 'gait' technically refers to the pattern of footfalls, their duration within the cycle, and the mode of energy conservation used. The machine in the video was always using a "trot", characterized by the simultaneous ground contact of diagonally opposite limbs. Also, it may not necessarily take much processing power; just use gyroscopes and accelerometers to figure out where the body is going and how fast, and put the legs in a position to absorb the force. There was actually a talk just last SICB about "WHEGS", a little robot who could traverse amazing obstacles just by having wheels with large protruding spokes at 180 degrees (like legs) on a flexible axle. Apparently this is literally what roaches do: if the leg hits an obstruction, the apodeme (insect version of a tendon) keeps storing energy until there's enough to finally shove the animal past the obstruction. A springy axle, with no active control, gives it more manuverability that almost any modern robot of its size. Cliffs are probably coming; the first studies on how animals deal with such things are only just beginning. As for size, the Biewener lab (who helped on it, and where I'm applying in a bit over a year) is very big on scaling, because it has tremendous impacts on locomotion. Likely, it won't get any bigger (bigger than about 300kg and animals have to start curtailing their locomotor performance to stay within the capacity of bones and muscles without damage), but how much smaller is mostly limited by the ability of the engineers to make parts smaller. Simply? Because wheels suck. No, I'm being serious. Look at what a basic wheeled vehicle can do. Sure, it can go fast over level, smooth terrarin, but the rougher the terrain, the worse it performs. Steep inclines are impossible without special modifications. Gaps cannot be traversed except by jumps which require a running start (which again runs into the problem of needing smooth terrain). Water is impossible to traverse; wheels generate no thrust without special modifications. A jump from standing, again, impossible. Stabilization relies soley on a low center of mass and a few springs, and can easily become a problem is the vehicle is high-bodied. Landing from jumps and such also relies solely on additional components a vehicle may or may not have (shocks). Pure sideways movement is impossible without amazingly flexible axles, and mud is a *huge* problem, as is any slick surface such as ice. Now look at a simple limbed animal, such as a salamander or cockroach. They can traverse very rough terrain with minimal loss of speed. Steep and even vertical inclines are possible, as is climbing trees, poles, etc. Jumps can be perfromed from standing, or the animal can simple reach a limb across. Swimming is easy, and requires no special modifications (dog paddle). Stabilization is active, simple, and relies on nothing not already present in the limbs for propulsion. Sideways movement is easily possible, mud is much less of a problem, and slick surfaces like ice are much easier. Wheels are great in civilization, but require a special infrastructure of flat, smooth surfaces. Legs are much, much more versatile. Mokele

I'm gonna poke around TFN in a bit. Otherwise, I participate on DeviantArt forums for prose and fantasy lit, Fauna Classifieds (very large reptile sale and discussion site), a small, mostly dead site on writing, various Livejournal communities (Biology, Scientists, Herpers, Snakecommunity, ljcps), and Terraforums (very large carnivorous plant discussion and trade site). Mokele

Awesome, isn't it? That's a direct outgrowth of what I do - biomechanics and animal locomotion. In fact, I'm going to be applying to the lab of the prof who helped them with it for my PhD work (so if I'm lucky, I might be there in fall of 08). The irony is that very little has been done in stablization and disturbed motion in vertebrates, yet the robot seems to be doing fine. Mokele

The eyes in the eye socket are surrounded by occuluar muscles, but also by a cushioning layer of fat. Presumably, after a long illness the body's fat reserves are depleted, including this fat, thus making the eye appear sunken. However, this is just a hypothesis based on what I know of anatomy.

"Books"? What are these "books" you speak of? Are they like journal articles, but longer? ::Stares at the literally 1-foot high stack of papers I have to read sometime soon::

The problem is, I've got similar concerns, but they're vague and nebulous, from what I've heard here and there, as I haven't studied it hard enough to wade through all the biased crap. It'd be nice to have some sort of objective report that thoroughly details the inner workings of the associated companies (drug, insurance, etc), just to actually see what's what without all the endless agenda-driven bickering. I think that's one of my cheif annoyances with the world in general; there are numerous important issues, like capitalism vs socialism or the US healthcare system vs alternatives, where it's literally *impossible* to find accurate, unbiased information, and it frustrates the hell out of me. Mokele

If you want to discuss creationist garbage, go elsewhere; this is a forum for *real* science. Topic locked, thanks for refutation, Capn.

All of the above!

You know, with all these high and mighty ideal about 'Real Men' and 'what women really want', I just have to ask: So, ParanoiA, when was the last time you got laid? As a side note, since when did living up to a stereotype make someone a man? Back in the old days, you had to *do* something to be a man, like go kill a sabre-tooth tiger. Now you can just buy shit and act a certain way. I wonder how many of these 'Real Men' have ever even had their lives in danger? To me, it all reeks of trying too hard. Mokele

I dunno, I'd go with bonobos, even over humans. Yeah, we've got computers and stuff. But their life in a non-stop orgy.

Part of the problem is that advanced science is a *great* source of villains for books, movies, etc. I need to explain where the big nasty monster came from. 50 years ago, I could say nuclear tests or outer space. Today I can say genetic engineering or pollution. Those probably won't work in another 50 years, and writers will be using some other excuse. It basically boils down the fear of the unknown or that which isn't understood. Mokele

I like it. The more screwed up and broken the system is, the easier it will be for me to seize control with my army of giant robot lizards and become Supreme Dictator.

Point out which are strawman fallacies. Oh, that's right, none, you're just using this as a dodge because you can't face up to being wrong. Wrong again. I am totally aware of the problem of generality in induction, but you are flat-out wrong in claiming one cannot become more and more sure of a negative answer. For instance, say I have a bag of colored balls. If I know there's only 1000 balls in the bag, and I sample 3000 times (obviously putting balls back) without getting any blue ones, I have a given level of certainty which can be mathematically calculated (as in, there is x% chance I am wrong). The more times I sample, the less likely I am to be wrong. Also, note that the ball example is finite, as are most system. Some systems, including biology, are also non-independent; all the ravens are related to eachother to varying degrees and part of an interbreeding population, so the existence of one white raven means the genes behind it are likely hiding in many others, and in time more white ravens will be born. The same way we know anything is a raven; examination of the animal's genes and morphology. And ravens molt, so paint would come off. And they breed; if it's genetic, we can just breed a line of albino ravens from it. Any more grasping at straws? And I'm the one committing strawman? Look at what I've quoted. Seriously, kid, you need to learn how science really works. Nobody just takes someone's word for something; proof is expected, along with a rationale of how they know. If, for instance, I claim to have seen a white raven, in order for that to be valid, I need to compile a report which includes photos, shed feathers collected, genetic analysis of those feathers, etc. What, do you seriously think scientists just assume we're each doing everything right? Shit, it's like an academic flame-war out there, albeit with bigger words than most flame wars. The slightest mistake or oversight will get you hammered into the ground. 1) that's why you calibrate equipment 2) that's why in the peer review process, reviewers can ask you to check your calibrations 3) that's why other people who *definitely* know how to use the equipment can repeat the experiment 4) criticism and dissenting opinions is pretty much all the peer-review process *is*. They give you a paper and basically say "rip the hell out of it". The author then has to respond to all criticisms in a satisfactory way to get the paper published. Are you illiterate, or just stupid. The physical existence of a white raven, especially alive and in captivity, is *proof* that they exist. After all, there is it! If you doubt it, go do whatever tests you want. Breed it to see if there are white baby ravens. Sequence it's geneome to see if it's an albino or leucistic. Test the feathers to see if it's been painted. When all of those have been exhausted, what are you going to do? Tell me that a pure-bred, gene-sequenced albino raven standing in front of you is just a hallucination? Do you *really* have your head buried so far up your first-year Intro to Philosophy textbook that you can't see how an object's existence, by definition, *proves* that such objects can and do exist? Can you seriously think of *any* reason why being presented with a genuine physical example of something is *not* proof that thing exists? Not all of science is induction. Some of it is just plain "can this happen? Oh, look I made it happen, so clearly it can!" You can't get much simpler than that. Mokele

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2629683 Yep, a dolphin with hind limbs. Very cool, but not totally surprising; we've found hind limbs on whales a few times during the days of whaling, and have the bones preserved at several museums. Mokele