Forgot your password?

Comment: Citation needed please (Score 3, Interesting) 401

by aepervius (#47415179) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
"the same mistake the anti-eugenics movement made in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial [], which fought the teaching of evolution in schools"

All the history of the Butler act I ever read mention they simply feared teaching of evolution would weaken faith, and that they refused our descendance from great apes, as it would shows us as descending from lower beings like animals. At no point the proponent of Butler's act mentioned eugenism, that sound like a modern rewriting of the history. In fact the prominent web sites which promote this thesis are : answeringenesis and Fancy that.

Comment: Nice Science FICTION (Score 1) 553

Where can I buy the book ? I am travelling soon and need some SF reading.

Seriously before pretending that in 30 years we will be overwhelmed by cyborg, or whatever new species, we might require , I dunno, EVIDENCE; that such specie is possible or would even react like that. For pity's sake we aren't even progressing that quick with self driving car, people are warry to hell of it, and we are speaking of making a different specie in the same timeframe people think self driving car will come up ? Get real.

Comment: Documented donation (Score 1) 1318

by aepervius (#47357671) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception
You are confusing the corporation (chick a fill) and the people serving. The people serving might not be AT ALL bigoted, while the corporation high level might be. Pretending to ask an example of bigotry from the serving people is a strawman. Chick A fill donated 2 million to anti gay group. As such the corporate direction of chick-a-fill is definitively showing their bigoted face, and as such it is valid to state that chick a fill is bigotted (remember the political decision are not decided by the foot-folk, the serving guy). On the other hand It would be definitively WRONG to state chick a fill is bigoted because some serving people refuse to serve gay.

In other word the example you ask is NOT an example of a corporation with an anti gay bigoted supporting agenda, it is an example of a few person serving bigotted. ONLY at the highest level through corporation donation and action can you detect if a corporation is bigotted or not. because it is the A-level manager which give the corporation a face by their decision and politic. not the serving people.

Comment: Not being forgotten== less freedom (Score 1) 138

by aepervius (#47333681) Attached to: Google Starts Removing Search Results After EU Ruling
"But if you post naked pictures of yourself on a forum or advocate cannibalism on twitter then tough luck. That's no longer private information as you just published it to the world."

That's where I disagree. When we were young many (most?) of us did stuff which would ruin our carrier. Or maybe we did something "crooked" but now are "straight". But you know what ? Nobody would ever find out without spending a lot of money because information was not so easy to spread. So yeah we were kiddna protected as people forgot our childhood or our misdeed.

But nowadays ? Internet keep the info *forever*. I think this is terrible and would mean an incredible cultural change, and I don't see it it as going toward freedom. On the contrary I see it as going toward repression, less freedom, because *anything* you do , can be now published against you forever.

Remember freedom is not about what is acceptable for the average, freedom is not the middle road, the well lighted path. Freedom is about the side of the road, the less travelled path, the palces with shadow. Society involve only where there are freedom.

What you imply *might* at first view looks like more freedom (of information) but the way I see it, it would within a generation or two mean far less freedom because any mistep would then screw your life forever rather than being forgotten like it was in the past.

That is *WHY* I am for the right to be forgotten. Because paradoxically the right to be forgotten, allows people to have more freedom.

Comment: Well yeah good luck to them (Score 3, Interesting) 370

by aepervius (#47292179) Attached to: Age Discrimination In the Tech Industry
They go hiring for unexperimented people. I saw a lot of project sink and get stopped, or cost far more than they should have at compeltion, because the "young" devs have no experience, suffer the NIH syndrom, get enthiusiastic doing new stuff rather than limit themselves to what should be done, if you got for service layer concept screw it up, costing you time to refactor.

So yeah. Go ahead. Hire only youth. And lose money.

Comment: Wrong (Score 2, Interesting) 272

by aepervius (#47239525) Attached to: EU May Allow Members Home Rule On GMO Foods
"Genetic engineering is far less likely to have problematic outcomes"

Hu no. We have even a very well known example of the contrary, of a soja sort stopped because of peanut gene in it generating allergic reaction. Sure it was stopped before commercialization. But this is hardly something you get when splicing. Whereas it is certainly something you have a pay attention for with GMO.

"We have been studying health impacts of GMOs for over 20 years now and so far we can find absolutely none." that's because we are clever enough to test our shit and discard what is dangerous before it is commercialized (see above). That does not mean there is no danger. In fact we have one documented case of problem which is why we test for potential problems.
What you probably meant is "We have been studying health impacts of commercialized GMOs for over 20 years now and so far we can find absolutely none". Which is right. GMO can do a lot of good things for us, but let us not call it "without danger or problem" when there is a documented case of problem, and yes allergic reaction from species from which you do not expect them, IS a problem. (which is why we test for it before commercilization).

Comment: Ugh not that oen again (Score 1) 272

by aepervius (#47239509) Attached to: EU May Allow Members Home Rule On GMO Foods

"The human race was eating GMO long before it wasn't cool."

Look I am for GMO for a variety of reason, but please stop using that line of reasoning. It has long been common parlance to use GMO for genetic modification which are not reachable by hybridization. What we have used for thousand of year is hybridization. The two are comparable, but not on the time period counting on 1000 of years. It is nigh impossible by hybridization to get, say , peanut genes in soja, or human hormone growth factor in , say, tobacco, or even fish genes in tomatoes. Yes they use a similar mechanism, but no they are not the same in the public mind, NOR should they be, as going across genus brings other problem which do not happen with hybridization (and even stopped a variety of soja with peanut gene to be commercialized due to allergy problem).
Whether you like it or not, the public recognize hybridization as different to GMO, and frankly I agree. Whereas you can certainly attain the same results as hybridization using GMO, you will be SOL the other way around for time period being like human civilization.

Comment: Except you cannot keeep all on server (Score 1) 372

You knowq most of us which DO have real work, get a lot of email circulating. On our account we may have maybe 128 Mb maybe 256 Mb of place available. EVen if it was 1 Gb. Well whoopy duh. After a year or two you usually have to move email ina rchival because no matter what you will reach your server max capacity. And guess where those archive are ? Archival are a local file, not a server file. You can set it up to have backup but so far I have known of no normal department which does that.
And by the way the thing you all accuse to being fishy ? hapenned to me at work. Once my HD broke down, I lost all archived email which were older than soemthing like 1 month.

Comment: No, not even the 50ies (Score 3, Interesting) 686

by aepervius (#47219975) Attached to: Aliens and the Fermi Paradox

The problem is that the power of the signal very rapidly went down (in 1/R^2) so even when we were broadcasting in the 50ies-60ies, our best signal did not even go beyond 1 light year before being indistinguishable from noise , in the best case scenario (actually probably much less depending on the signal). There are only 2 signals which went beyond the 1 or 2 LY, and those were intentional "we are here" signal, sent toward M10 i think (or was it M52?) and those signals were maybe a few dozen minutes all combined together.

We would not be able to detect ourselves if we were located on our direct neighbor, 4 LY away, alpha centauri. By that point even our most powerful unintentional signal is beyond the noise floor (again except those few dozen minutes TOTAl over all our whole civilization time).

Comment: Wake me up when those program solve this problem. (Score 5, Interesting) 432

by aepervius (#47191641) Attached to: Turing Test Passed
Wake me up when those program solve this problem, which most human would do, but a machine not *specifically* coded for this will have a hard time. "take the first word of each next 7 sentences , put them together to form a new sentence, and then answer the question the sentence form please :
* What is your name ?
* is it cold here ?
* The test is going well
* Color me surprised but are you a machine ?
* of course I am a human
* the keyboard is clean
* sky is the tv channel I watch a lot
* please answer the question now. "

When one AI not specifically programmed for that problem answer it correctly, I will be surprised and intrigued. Until then chatbot are just using cheap tricks to fool human.

Comment: You disappoint me , fellow physicist (Score 1) 358

by aepervius (#47164045) Attached to: The Disappearing Universe
"Warning: if you subscribe too heavily to these ideas now, you'll be way, way off base later when science starts finding better answers to the accelerating universe and other open questions. "

Every damn hypothesis we have are only good as long as we do not find any better answer. Even the one you call better supported. Heck, 150 years ago you would probably have put newton in your list.

It is the basic reality in physic that we use what we have as hypothesis until a better theory or falsifying data come up and disprove that theory. By *specially* asking us to hold off for dark matter/ dark energy you are specially pleading against those, which is a nono, or you misunderstood science in general which is worst.

Even classical gravity or electromagnetism are a temporary hold on until something better come up. Something better MAY never come up. Or it could next month. This is the beauty of science. Adapting.

Comment: Actually nearly correct (Score 1) 772

by aepervius (#47108813) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
Evolution of species is what we observe. The theory is the theory of natural selection (evolution by natural selection). natural selection is what we use to explain the observed evolution.

TL;DR : observed data=evolution; theory=natural selection. In common parlance it became the theory of evolution. but in reality it should be rightly called the theory of natural selection.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.