His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
So, then, it would take even finer turning right? If it is true that there is design behind creation, why assume that the intelligence behind it would require maximized potential rather than mere potential?
I find it interesting that your definition of noise includes binaries.
I suppose I should clarify. A lot of ISPs used to provide nntp servers. As the format of binaries changed (from say jpeg to avi) their size grew. Likewise, as more people got on usenet the amount grew.
While I do not know it as fact, my perception was that most isp--even braodband--starting dropping nntp servers about that same time. Pay services like Newsguy, Giganews and Thundernews, started growing, but, again, my perception was that people were switching to P2P and less people were willing to pay.
I used to be a "feature writer" for Newguy. Two articles a month on their main page, linked to relevant newsgroups, and I got free access. Around 2001, they dropped a bunch of us.
So, my perception of things was that first binaries made it too expensive for isps to carry them and most just dropped nntp altogether. Then the pay services dwindled in user base because of other ways to access binaries. Even YouTube, for example. Many people don't really want to store a video, for example, just watch it.
Usenet is still alive, and you can pull in a bunch of free servers and forget binaries. I was once a regular on c.o.l.a for a long time, and still occasionally go read it, but once isps dropped nntp, less and less people even knew about it.
I think binaries were part of the reason. It got too expense for the few people who wanted it. BTW, I was once a kibologist, though not hardcore. I popped in once a week or so for maybe a year in the late 90s, but I did exchange a few posts with kibo. I started using usenet in 1993 and probably stopped regularly using it around 2004.
You are speaking in generalities. Look at what has actually happened on the Internet over time: usenet was driven out by moderated web boards.
Usenet was actually driven out by many things. 1) It got lost in the noise. As more and more people came online, fewer knew about it. As more and more people came online fewer wanted the Internet for conversation; they wanted video, images, shopping. 2) It was drown by noise: spammers, pirates, binaries, and even great readers like slrn and excellent filters couldn't make the signal to noise ratio manaegable. 3) Increasing content providers, like blogs and newspapers, with their own comments section, where people have to comment on a particular article, the comments sections are mostly unthreaded, and comments get closed or unwieldy. Yuck. Web 2.0 isn't always an improvement. Sure, they could have posted a link to a relevant newsgroup, like people do here, but see 1 above. 4) RSS and social networking.
I've got a bad feeling about this.