Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:23:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D77066D.99BA488B@mindspring.com> References: <200209050609.g8569e189500@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the > > necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they > > are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the > > genes which express as those characteristics. > > That explanation makes more sense than "the environment chooses". The environment is an actor, in this case. > >> Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? > > > > The method works anyway. > > > >> What if the problem mutates? > > > > Then you reanalyze it. > > > >> What if your classification was in error? > > > > Then you start over. > > All the while believing that your methodology must work for any > problem.... Hasn't not worked yet... ;^). > > As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem > > with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion > > elsewhere. > > The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy > classification except for trivial cases. I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). > > I'm also forcing that verifiable identity to obtain a limited > > time permission in order to post -- a lease -- which must be > > renewed to permit continued posting. > > > > This permits a feedback mechanism -- whatever mechanism the > > list membership consensually decides is appropriate -- to be > > used to enforce against continued abuse of the list. You are > > a SPAM'mer, and your identity loses posting rights. You are a > > troll, and your identity loses posting rights. Etc.. > > This extends to "we don't like you, your identity loses posting > rights". That's one possible abuse, yes. As I said, the solution has the ability to be abused. Another is that you make a statement about Lord Vader, and the Imperial Storm Troopers kick in your door because the post is nonrepudiable. On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". > >> Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, > >> period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since > >> I was born. > > > > People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the > > walk. > > Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) It's still not a religion, and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. > >> See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically > >> examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your > >> classifications. > > > > I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a > > valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. > > What standards of "valid" are you using here? One which allows the problem space to be commutatively transformed into a representation, with no loss of information. > > Your assumption about what happens when you sample something whose > > frequency is higher than the sample rate being similar to what > > happens when you set V > C in a Lorentz transformation is incorrect, > > because there is not equal symmetry around the centerpoint. > > It's not exact, but similar. The same kinds of things happen. The frequency of the sampled waveform does not converge to the sampling rate; it converges to a harmonic proportional to the modulus of the sampled waveform relative to the sample rate. In the Lorents transformation, the convergence is to the speed of light. > More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and > investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your > "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been > around. Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory detail in my modern physics course. It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical representations of the situations in question, when stripped of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. > >> > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. > >> > -- Steinbach > >> > >> How do you know you can handle it before you get it? > > > > What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your > > process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls > > on the file to permit it to be read by your program? > > Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges > and exit with an error message to that effect. =) I haven't given enough information about the problem space for you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. > >> >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still > >> >> "practically work". > >> > "Finger quotes"?!? > >> > >> Eh? > > > > The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' > > says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. > > "Does it"? ;) Yes. It does. It provides you enough leeway to claim that what you said is not what you meant, so that you don't actually ever have to defend your statements. It's a technique people use to avoid defending their statements, particularly when they know they are wrong. > > If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular > > space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all > > the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the > > other. > > > > Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. > > What works in the mathematical domain may not translate properly > to the domain of mailing lists and human interaction. Why not, when human interactions can be repsented by the mathematics of game theory? It's hubris to claim that human behaviour cannot be mathematically modelled, particularly when you mean "because I can't do it, no one can do it". > > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects > > of life". > > I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently > tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot > be handled thus. That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand. > > Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, > > so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive > > models. 8-). > > What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be > correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially > if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is therefore empirically falsifiable. > >> Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard > >> to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee > >> things about the evidence. > > > > I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is > > hard are two different things. > > Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical > methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large > sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random > selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe > the phenomena. Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. Problem solved. 8-). > > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border > > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. > > I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly > impenetrable. ;) This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. It differs only in implementation. > >> Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising > >> secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that > >> the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. > > > > Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse > > to exhibit it. > > If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether > they did. IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True Answer(tm), and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. > >> Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. > >> Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society > >> don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. > > > > That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to > > be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. > > You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take > > that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally > > instead. > > Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in > purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the > only way out is to wait for people to grow up. Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog dare you. 8-). > >> They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat > >> worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, > >> they've managed to win the first round. > > > > Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are > > very different things. > > But they have you worried, oh he who's reality is expressible as > a mathematically consistent and well-defined space. ;) They do not have me worried. But they do very nearly have me engaged in the implementation of a map of what I perceive to be the solution space. Frankly, I do not worry about problems; I solve them. > > It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from > > propagating. > > And then you'll discover they have a necessary component to a survival > trait we need. Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be solved. 8-). > >> And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. > > > > Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; > > how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" > > (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. > > But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far > as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, there is no chance of those responsible achieving their goals as a result of the action. It's only in the case that there is: o A clear demonstration of the lengths to which they are willing to go o A threat of a repeat performance o Demands, offered in trade for inaction that terrorism has any net effect toward achieving the goals of the terrorist. Without that, however -- without your putative "performers" -- there was still significant news coverage, with significant national and international viewership. Thus achieving the goals fo the television networks providing the coverage. > >> Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. > > > > I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've > > posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each > > subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? > > Why is this important? It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. > >> >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, > >> >> not yours.) > >> > > >> > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. > >> > >> It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then > >> again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. > > > > So it worked with Tim, did it? > > For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). > >> > Not long. You have filters, right? > >> > >> Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. > > > > Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, > > even when you, a dedicated person, can not? > > I don't expect them to keep up even if trolls were wiped from the > face of the plannet. "Keeping up" is a larger issue than trolls, > so much larger that trolls (even a group of determined ones) are > largely irrelevant to the big picture. Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the big issues. 8-). > > Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the > > content of the charter are. > > Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have > posts that are on the edge. It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's possible to agree with you. QuickDraw (the Macintosh rendering subsystem) had the same issue, with line rendering. The solution was to use an intersticial coordinate space. > >> > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending > >> > they are. > >> > >> The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the > >> same thing, just on different scales. > > > > Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. > > Not for high traffic lists. Freebsd-hackers feels like a 1987ish > usenet group. Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D77066D.99BA488B>