text:
12:00 am
Globe Trekker "Papua New Guinea" Trekkers explore New Britain Island, which is inhabited by the indigenous Papuans and the Austronesians, with several ancient traditions that survive in today's diverse and complex cultures. They find a superb location for scuba diving, snorkeling and wreck dives near where the township of Rabaul was destroyed by a 1994 volcanic eruption.G
1:00 am
Thousand Invisible Cords: Connecting Genes to Ecosystems Can an entire landscape be changed by changing one gene in one plant or animal? Thirty years of interdisciplinary research says yes, and this film follows the scientific journey that came to that conclusion. "A Thousand Invisible Cords: Connecting Genes to Ecosystems" is an eco-documentary that can truly change how we view the world. No longer will we see species as isolated members of ecosystems but as genetically connected members of a rich interacting community. D
2:00 am
Klamath Basin: A Restoration for the Ages For over a century, the Klamath Basin along the Oregon and California border has faced complex water management disputes. The water interests range from the Tribes near the river, to energy producer PacifiCorp, farmers, municipalities, commercial fishermen, environmentalists-all bearing legitimate arguments for how to manage the water. After years of fighting, a groundbreaking compromise may soon settle the battles with two epic agreements that hold the promise of peace and fish for the watershed. D
3:00 am
Biz Kid$ -- Three Minutes to Change The World An hour-long special from the producers of the Emmy Award winning financial literacy series BIZ KID$ follows four young entrepreneurs as they compete in an international contest to change the world. Sharing their lives, passions, joys and hardships, these semi-finalists must present their business ideas to some of the world's most influential technology leaders in just 180 seconds.G
4:00 am
Mechanical Universe And Beyond, The "Engine of Nature" The Carnot engine, part one, beginning with simple steam engines. D
4:30 am
Democracy In America "Civil Liberties: Safeguarding The Individual" This program examines the First, Fourth, and Sixth Constitutional Amendments to show how the Bill of Rights protects individual citizens from excessive or arbitrary government interference, yet, contrary to the belief of many Americans, does not grant unlimited rights. D
5:00 am
NHK Newsline NULL
5:30 am
Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish "La Despedida (The Farewell)" This episode covers days of the week, telling time, and conversation that use these concepts. Raquel helps find Jaime and his dog Osito.G
6:00 am
Classical Stretch: The Esmonde Technique "Feet & Ankles" NULL
6:30 am
Clifford The Big Red Dog "Tie-Dye Clifford/Stage Struck" TIE-DYE CLIFFORD: When Clifford accidentally gives himself a bath with tie-dye dyes, he ends up looking like a T-shirt from the '60's! Not wanting to upset Emily, he tries to hide the fact. But soon learns that he can tell the truth to Emily because Emily understands that everyone makes mistakes. STAGE STRUCK: Mary has always been afraid to perform in front of an audience. D
7:00 am
Arthur "To Tibble The Truth/Waiting to Go" To Tibble the Truth - When the Tibble Twins' constant lying lands them in constant trouble, they promise to tell only the truth. But is telling every truth any better? Tommy and Timmy try to be honest Tibbles before they lose all their friends - and each other. Waiting to Go - Binky and Brain collide on the soccer field, breaking Brain's new watch and nearly breaking their friendship. D
7:30 am
Martha Speaks "Martha Runs The Store, Part 1 & Part 2" Martha Runs the Store, Part 1 - Skits and Martha are feeling desperate while they wait in the broiling sun for Helen to finish shopping. Martha Runs the Store, Part 2 - Helen can't find Martha and Skits anywhere.G
8:00 am
Curious George "The Big Picture/Juicy George" George and Steve paint an empty billboard with a picture to promote a book about endangered birds.G
8:30 am
Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That! "I Love The Nightlife/Oh Give Me A Home!" I Love the Nightlife - Nick wants to stay awake all night. Good thing the Cat needs help finding his most favorite hat that he lost in the forest of Wagamaroo! The Cat takes Nick and Sally on a nocturnal adventure, along the way meeting a variety of animals who stay up all night! Oh Give Me a Home! - Nick has a super duper special shell and Sally wants one too! The Cat in the Hat takes them to a beachside adventure where they meet Tucker, a hermit crab who is also looking for a new shell because he's grown too big for his. An under the sea fashion show gives both Tucker and Sally super duper special shells!. D
9:00 am
Super Why! "The Beach Day Mystery" Whyatt and the other fairytale buddies have found a clue leading to treasure and they need a little help! So the superhero readers fly into The Beach Day Mystery where they set off on a swashbuckling scavenger hunt adventure filled with clues, pirates, and of course, treasure! Will Super Why and his friends be able to outsmart the trickiest pirate of them all? Educational Objectives: To learn how to figure out clues. Kids will follow the alphabet, rhyme with AIL words, and use the power to read to change the story!. D
9:30 am
Dinosaur Train "One Small Dinosaur/T. Rex Migration" One Small Dinosaur - Mrs. Pteranodon takes Buddy and Tiny to visit a Mikey Microraptor, one of the smallest of dinosaurs ever. Tiny is annoyed that Mikey is even smaller than she is, but Mikey looks up to Tiny as a role model. T. rex Migration - Buddy and Tiny go to visit their friend Annie Tyrannosaurus and discover she isn't home, so they follow clues and find her on a migration with her family. D
10:00 am
Sesame Street "Wild Nature Survivor Guy" Wild Nature Survivor Guy is accustomed to surviving in the wilds of nature and thinks he needs to "survive" out on Sesame Street. Elmo and Rosita are confused. He is not alone and he's not in the middle of nature, but he is convinced nature is all around them! First, Wild Nature Survivor Guy finds a tomato plant and bites into a ripe tomato. D
11:00 am
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood "Daniel's Birthday/Daniel's Picnic/Daniel Visits School/Daniel Visits The Doctor" Daniel's Birthday - It's Daniel's Birthday! Daniel is very excited to go to Baker Aker's Bakery with his mom to pick out a cake for his party. When they arrive home after a bumpy ride on Trolley, Daniel is disappointed to find that his cake is smushed. It turns out. D
12:00 pm
WordWorld "Duck at Bat/You Can Never Have Too Many OO's" Duck loses the letter B to his baseball bat just before the big game is supposed to start. When the two letter O's in Monkey's roof blow away in the wind, it's up to Duck to hunt down the /oo/ sound and fix the roof before it rains.G
12:30 pm
Caillou "Caillou The Magnificent" Show and Tell - Caillou has to decide on a nice surprise to bring to playschool for Show and Tell. The only problem is, he can't decide between his toy dinosaur Rexy, his kite, or his toy firetruck. However, when Rosie proves to be the best at surprising everyone, Caillou decides to bring his little sister for Show and Tell. D
1:00 pm
Barney & Friends "Playing Games/No, No, No!" Playing Games - Baby Bop has trouble following the rules and taking turns while playing games. Barney and Riff help her learn how to follow the rules. In the end, Baby Bop and BJ have fun playing together, and Baby Bop learns that rules make games fun for everyone! No, No, No! - It's just "one of those days" for Baby Bop! Every time she turns around, someone is telling her "no!" As her frustration grows, Barney explains that the word "no" can help you avoid making mistakes or getting hurt. D
1:30 pm
Thomas & Friends "Helping Each Other" Stop that Bus! - Thomas feels bad that Bertie doesn't get to travel on the rails so he decides to take Bertie on a tour of Sodor by rail. Bertie rolls onto Thomas' flatbed and soon they're off on their adventure. Bertie loves the sights but he needs to go and collect Dowager Hatt and her friends. D
2:00 pm
Curious George "The Big Picture/Juicy George" George and Steve paint an empty billboard with a picture to promote a book about endangered birds.G
2:30 pm
Martha Speaks "Martha Runs The Store, Part 1 & Part 2" Martha Runs the Store, Part 1 - Skits and Martha are feeling desperate while they wait in the broiling sun for Helen to finish shopping. Martha Runs the Store, Part 2 - Helen can't find Martha and Skits anywhere.G
3:00 pm
The Electric Company "Madame President" Lisa and Francine face off in the election for Book Club President. Can Lisa's campaign message win out over Francine's dirty politics?. D
3:30 pm
WordGirl "Mr. Big's Colossal Mini-Golf/The Young and the Meatless" The Young and the Meatless - Romantic sparks fly when the Butcher meets Lady Redundant Woman's copy Dupey. Will Lady Redundant Woman allow a union between one of her copies and the meat-wielding villain? Vocabulary: Duplicate, Interruption. Mr. Big's Mini-Golf - There's a new villain in town, Guy Rich, he's a super rich evil businessman. D
4:00 pm
Wild Kratts "Mystery of the Squirmy Wormy" Aviva miniaturizes Chris and Martin for an underground mission with earthworms, in search of the answer to the mystery "Why do worms come above ground when it rains?" But they have to hurry, as they soon discover that life as a worm is full of dangers at every turn. Science Concept: Wet objects can be changed by heating and cooling. If a worm is left in the hot sun, their skin will dry up and they will die. D
4:30 pm
Cyberchase "True Colors" Hacker becomes a good guy! Can this possibly be true? A new, reformed Hacker runs for election against Motherboard, claiming to have done five good deeds, and promising to turn over a new leaf. Can the kids find a counter example that proves Hacker is lying -- or will he be elected the new ruler of cyberspace? Guest voice: Al Roker as "Sam Vander Rom." The Big Idea: When people use words like always, never, all, or none to claim something is true, be suspicious! Such claims are often false, and you need only a single counter example to disprove them. D
5:00 pm
Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman "The Fetch Finale" It all comes down to this! In the Season Five FETCH! Finale, Ruff has learned that PURRS, the organization that runs Go Get It!, is an EVIL CAT ORGANIZATION! PURRS plans to brainwash the entire country with a device that makes everyone think they're cats! PURRS is also responsible for the disappearance of Ruff's parents.After learning that PURRS headquarters is hidden somewhere inside a water park, Ruff sends the FETCHers to find a way inside. Now all Ruff needs to do is stop the brainwashing device, find his parents, and crown a FETCH! Grand Champion!! All in a day's work for Ruff Ruffman!. D
5:30 pm
5:56 pm
NewsHour Promo NULL
6:00 pm
PBS NewsHour NULL
7:00 pm
Antiques Roadshow "Mobile, AL - Part 2" Treasures include a circa 1969 jersey worn by NFL football legend Gayle Sayers and a side chair that may have graced the Lincoln White House. A trio of books containing lithographs of American Indian chiefs whose portraits were painted when they came to Washington to negotiate treaties is valued up to $90,000. Part 2 of 3G
8:00 pm
Market Warriors "Antiquing In Philadelphia, PA" Experts Miller, John, Bob and Kevin are in the City of Brotherly Love, working in close quarters at the 60-vendor Phila Flea Market. The challenge is to find costume jewelry - within their fixed budgets - with an eye to selling their finds for profit at auction. As off-screen host Fred Willard explains, one of the experts will make a fatal mistake.G
9:00 pm
Globe Trekker "Papua New Guinea" Trekkers explore New Britain Island, which is inhabited by the indigenous Papuans and the Austronesians, with several ancient traditions that survive in today's diverse and complex cultures. They find a superb location for scuba diving, snorkeling and wreck dives near where the township of Rabaul was destroyed by a 1994 volcanic eruption.G
10:00 pm
Homeland: Immigration In America "Refugees" The conclusion tells the stories that illustrate the forces and factors that can lead refugees to a life of stability and success or to isolation, welfare and homelessness; and looks at the heart of America's humanitarian position. Part 3 of 3G
11:00 pm
Charlie Rose NULL


text:
There are some who play it safe...and others who keep the world safe for others. These are the ones who face danger every day to maintain the peace and save the day. These are the also the ones who must react quickly in the aftermath or prevention of those dangers. For these people, the equipment they use must serve and protect them, even as they do the same for their community.
Gargoyles Performance Eyewear gets this job done. Our sunglasses are made with the best materials and the latest technology, resulting in lenses that meet and often exceed military-grade specification* for coverage and protection, and frames that are highly durable.
Gargoyles protects the eyes of the people who protect us.
*Z87.1+ products
Regular Price: $120.00
Special Price $80.00

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Stupid Philosopher Tricks: Thomas Nagel
Here's another example. Thomas Nagel, a philosopher of some repute, nominates Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell as his pick for book of the year in the Times Literary Supplement.
Does Nagel have any biological training? None that I could see. Does he know anything about evolution or abiogenesis? Not if he thinks Meyer has any valid contribution to make. Did he bother to check if biologists think Meyer's book is a good contribution to the literature? I doubt it. Did Nagel spot all the phony claims Meyer makes about information? I doubt it again.
Just to cite one: Meyer claims, over and over again, that information can only come from a mind -- and that claim is an absolutely essential part of his argument. Nagel, the brilliant philosopher, should see why that is false. Consider making a weather forecast. Meteorologists gather information about the environment to do so: wind speed, direction, temperature, cloud cover, etc. It is only on the basis of this information that they can make predictions. What mind does this information come from?
It's sad to see such an eminent philosopher (Nagel) make a fool of himself with this recommendation.
96 comments:
- Adrian Petrescu said...
Here's a paper by Nagel that you would probably find interesting.
- 4:40 PM, November 25, 2009
- Vladimir Levin said...
It seems to me that the brilliant trick played by these ID people is to wrap up their ideas in formalisms that are just complicated enough that most average people (and philosophers) can't really parse them.
- 6:07 PM, November 25, 2009
- RichardW said...
Adrian, thanks for that link to a paper by Nagel. While I disagree with much of what he writes there, I do share his view that it's wrong to rule ID out of science a priori, as many of its critics do. Of course, many of those critics also go on to show that the ID arguments are nonsense, and they do that very well. But they distract attention from that strong case by also making a bad case for rejecting ID a priori.
- 4:27 AM, November 26, 2009
- Brian Leiter said...
Nagel has become a disgrace. He was a philosopher who made some significant contributions, but in areas far afield of this one. A small irony: the other book he chooses to recommend is by a colleague and friend with whom he co-teaches. High standards of integrity here!
- 10:52 AM, November 26, 2009
RichardW: I do share his view that it's wrong to rule ID out of science a priori, as many of its critics do.
There seems to be plenty of variation with some labeling ID non-science, others bad science, still others pseudo-science. It is clear however, that there is a broad consensus that it is not good science.
- 2:45 PM, November 26, 2009
- RBH said...
RichardW wrote
While I disagree with much of what he writes there, I do share his view that it's wrong to rule ID out of science a priori, as many of its critics do.
Which critics rule it out a priori? I'm a critic of ID. I've actually read Dembski (three of his books and many of his essays), Behe (both of his books and some of his essays), Johnson (two of his books), Meyer (most of his book and several of his essays), Wells (his two books and a couple of his essays), and others of the modern ID movement, and I've read historical intelligent design arguments going back to Paley's Natural Theology and earlier (e.g., John Ray).
In addition, I've read the 'traditional' creationists -- Morris (two of his books) and Gish (two of his books) and their colleagues (e.g., one of Josh McDowell's 1970s-era books), and I see the identical arguments.
On the basis of all that reading I reject ID after having considered what it has to offer science, which is nothing.
Or consider your host, Jeffrey Shallit, who has published at least one critique of modern ID arguments in the peer reviewed literature and was a prospective expert witness for the Kitzmiller trial until Dembski ran for the hills. Is he ruling ID out a priori? I don't think so.
So Richard, please show us those ID critics who rule it out a priori, please, with appropriate citations.
- 4:06 PM, November 26, 2009
- David said...
Hi Professor Shallit,
You criticize Nagel for lack of knowledge of biology. What are your own qualifications in this subject? Also, what is your training in philosophy? You are an authority on information theory, but this doesn't carry with it expert knowledge of biology or philosophy. This isn't to say that you don't have such knowledge---I'd just like to know the basis from which you pass judgment on Nagel.
On a different point, why does Brian Leiter think that to recommend a book by a friend shows lack of integrity?
- 8:24 PM, November 26, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You seem confused. One need not have qualifications in field X in order to validly point out that someone else has no qualifications in field X.
As for philosophy, I don't see why my qualifications are relevant here. I am not criticizing Nagel for his philosophy, but for his stupidity in not seeing the trivial counterexample to Meyer's argument, and for not consulting with biologists to see whether Meyer has anything to say that interests them.
Anyway, I have a paper published in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal. Does that count for something?
- 8:42 PM, November 26, 2009
- David said...
Thanks for your reply. Why do you think that Nagel failed to consult biologists on whether Meyer's book had anything to say of interest to them? I may be misunderstanding you. but I think you are reasoning, "Had Nagel done so, the biologists would have told him that the book was worthless and he wouldn't have recommended it." But if this is what you think, then isn't it reasonable to ask how you know that they would say this?
Having an article in a peer reviewed philosophy journal does count for a great deal, but if I am not mistaken the paper was a criticism of Dembski on information theory, your professional specialty.
- 9:04 PM, November 26, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You don't need to be a biologist to know that biologists-in-general view Meyer's "work" as junk. Just go look at discussions of his work by actual biologists.
If you are not an expert in field X, and you say in a justified way that experts in field X say Y, this is hardly objectionable. But if you are not an expert in field X, and you say that person Z has something interesting to say about X, while nearly everyone in field X who reads Z thinks the opposite, then you're on shaky ground.
- 9:32 PM, November 26, 2009
- Joe G said...
Well all the experts in biology have to do is step up and demonstrate that genetic accidents (all mutations are genetic accidents in your scenario) can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to novel, useful, complex protein machinery and novel body plans.
However those experts cannot even account for the differences observed in primate feet via any amount of mutational accumulation.
We exist people.
And there is only one reality behind that existence.
So if you could just start supporting your position ID would fade away.
However given our knowledge of cause and effect design appears to be the best explanation.
For example just basic transcription and translation requires knowledge to pull of as both have proof-reading and error-correcting.
Blind and undirected processes putting together proof-reading and error-correction?
The only "evidence" for such a thing is the refusal to accept the design inference.
- 12:36 PM, November 27, 2009
"Meteorologists gather information about the environment to do so: wind speed, direction, temperature, cloud cover, etc. It is only on the basis of this information that they can make predictions. What mind does this information come from? "
Why do I have a feeling that your usage of the word "information" is not the same as Meyer's?
- 4:55 PM, November 27, 2009
Dear Mr Shallit
Thomas Nagel may not have biological training, but as a philosopher, he will no doubt be trained in assessing logical fallacies.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your rant was one long ad hominem argument, buttressed by appeals to authority and straw men.
- 8:41 PM, November 27, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You're wrong.
I specifically pointed out a fatal flaw in Meyer's book which anyone with half a brain should be able to see.
Why didn't Nagel?
- 9:12 PM, November 27, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
How about addressing the error in Meyer's argument instead of babbling incoherently?
- 9:12 PM, November 27, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
What definition of information do you think I should be using? Kolmogorov, Shannon, or something else?
- 9:13 PM, November 27, 2009
- RBH said...
For Miranda's benefit, I'll note that a critical form of information in Meyer's book is what he calls "active information." He uses that term numerous times in the text, as for example when he wrote
Informational accounting will reveal that sources of active information are responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations. (p. 496)
However, he does not define "active information" and it is not even in the index of the book. So a critical quantity -- "active information" -- that is central to Meyer's argument is left undefined. Elsewhere he mentions Shannon information, though he doesn't employ it in any argument that I recall, and I don't recall any mention of Kolmogorov information, though there might have been; in any case he doesn't use it in his argument. Hence his notion of "information" is idiosyncratic and undefined, and one doesn't know what he meant by it.
- 11:03 PM, November 27, 2009
- RBH said...
I should add that Meyer also uses Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" a great deal. That's another kettle of rotten fish. As far as I can tell, no ID proponent has ever actually calculated the complex specified information content of any biological structure. and so claims about it as a metric ring pretty hollow.
As far as I can tell, complex specified information is different from "active" information, so the latter is undefined.
- 11:09 PM, November 27, 2009
- Joe G said...
The error is in your "argument".
You are the one who is babbling incoherently.
You don't seem to understand what Meyer said.
BTW he provided the definition of information used- it's on page 86 of "Signature in the Cell"-
It can be found in perhaps any standard and accepted English dictionary:
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
He, as others before him, explains why Shannon's definition is useless- it only deals with mere complexity and not content.
But anyway to refute Meyer all you have to do is demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.
Babbling incoherently isn't going to get the job done.
- 11:10 PM, November 27, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
Thank you so much for instructing me on the meaning of the word "information". It will be so helpful in the courses I teach at my university. And the sheer brilliance of using an online dictionary to establish the meaning of a technical term! Why, it is simply astonishing!
What a shae, then, that your dictionary seems so unhelpful when it comes to the other technical terms I use in my course, such as "primitive", and "border". Come to think of it, maybe I should simply invite you to teach in my place, because then you could tell my students the best way to ascertain the meaning of these terms.
Now, given that definition of "information", could you please explain why things like temperature, wind speed, etc. do not constitute "information"?
- 5:06 AM, November 28, 2009
- Joe G said...
Meyer, in his peer-reviewed paper that caused so much whining, tals about "information" equaling biological function.:
"Dembski (2002) has used the term "complex specified information" (CSI) as a synonym for "specified complexity" to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well." Meyer in "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories".
Now, given that definition of "information", could you please explain why things like temperature, wind speed, etc. do not constitute "information"?
Why don't you tell me why they do?
Then tell me if that information is complex and specified.
And what do you teach that a dictionary isn't good enough as a reference for the meaning of words?
Do you and your students have different meanings for every word in the English language?
Doesn't that make communication outside of your group a little difficult?
- 10:07 AM, November 28, 2009
- Joe G said...
Meyer talks about Shannon information in that he points out it only pertains to mere complexity.
Shannon did not care about actual content/ meaning.
To Shannon a string of 1 million random characters has more "information" than 900,000 characters arranged to form important instructions.
IOW "active information" is information that has a meaning/ purpose.
- 10:11 AM, November 28, 2009
- Joe G said...
Meteorologists gather information about the environment to do so: wind speed, direction, temperature, cloud cover, etc. It is only on the basis of this information that they can make predictions. What mind does this information come from?
Someone measures the wind speed and checks its direction.
Someone has to check the temperature.
Someone has to check the cloud cover.
So all the information the meterologist gathers comes from the people who actually gather it based on the instruments they used- hopefully correctly calibrated instruments.
Also to make accurate predictions meterologists have to know/ understand quite a bit about weather patterns and jet streams.
The information for that comes from years of research.
- 10:17 AM, November 28, 2009
Joe G says: So if you could just start supporting your position ID would fade away.
Great. Now we know how to tell when a position is correct. When a position is correct, then opposing positions will fade away. Thanks a lot!
- 12:00 PM, November 28, 2009
- RBH said...
Joe G wrote
BTW he provided the definition of information used- it's on page 86 of "Signature in the Cell"-
It can be found in perhaps any standard and accepted English dictionary:
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
The problem is that Meyer doesn't stick to that definition. For example, his "active information" doesn't correspond to that definition, as far as I can tell from context.
Further, he provides no way to actually measure "information" in that definition. Absent a way to measure it, statements like 'evolutionary mechanisms cannot increase information,' which are common in his book, are impossible to test. Without an operational definition, it's a scientifically useless notion.
- 2:31 PM, November 28, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
You say "Someone measures the wind speed and checks its direction. Someone has to check the temperature. Someone has to check the cloud cover."
You seem very confused. The question is the origin of the information, not who measures it. By the same token, I could dismiss Meyer's claim about information in DNA because someone has to sequence it.
Nice try at the evasion, but you lose.
You also say, "And what do you teach that a dictionary isn't good enough as a reference for the meaning of words?"
I'd really recommend to you a remedial course in reading at your local community college.
Dictionaries are not good at defining technical terms. To understand the meaning of technical terms such as "primitive" and "border" in computer science, you need to consult a textbook, not a dictionary. Most students have this figured out by their first year in university.
- 9:10 PM, November 28, 2009
- RichardW said...
RBH wrote: "Which critics rule it out a priori?"
I'm talking about the many critics who say that, because ID is supernatural or unfalsifiable, it cannot possibly be science. As for the rest of your post, you seem not to have read the remainder of my mine, where I wrote:
"Of course, many of those critics also go on to show that the ID arguments are nonsense, and they do that very well."
You and Jeff are certainly among those who have done an excellent job of showing that the ID arguments are nonsense. I don't recall whether you are among those who also rule ID out of science a priori.
- 3:36 AM, November 29, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Hi, Richard:
If the claimed design is done by something in the universe, of course it can be studied by science. I am open to the possibility that life on Earth was created by aliens -- and if one supports that theory, then all one has to do is produce the crashed spaceship and the blueprints.
If the claimed design is done by a supernatural being whose motives, goals, and techniques are eternally hidden from us, then I think it is much harder to claim it is science. This is, essentially, the distinction between ordinary and rarefied design made by Wilkins and Elsberry.
- 6:45 AM, November 29, 2009
- Joe G said...
One measures the information by counting the number of bits.
As for scientifically useless, well that sums up your position very nicely.
For example what do you have that can be measured?
How many mutations does it take to go from an invertebrate to a vertebrate?
How about from a land mammal to a fully aquatic mammal?
How about from a light-sensitive spot to a fully formed mammalian vision system?
- 11:18 AM, November 29, 2009
- Joe G said...
I notice you did not answer my question-
You were suppoosed to tell us why your "argument" is valid.
You did not.
Also Meyer is talking about the information required to bring something about.
For example I could tell the difference between a house built by a well-designed plan and one built willy-nilly.
So tell us how many bits of information are required for wind?
How many bits are required for temperature?
Methinks you don't know what you are arguing against.
BTW ID does not require the supernatural.
Also if you require a meeting with the designers then you are not interested in science as it is obvious tat all you will accept is proof.
Yet when one takes a look at your position all you have is the refusal to allow the design inference.
- 11:24 AM, November 29, 2009
- Joe G said...
If you have two opposing positions and one is verified/ confirmed while the other is not, which does science align itself with?
- 11:28 AM, November 29, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
"You were suppoosed to tell us why your "argument" is valid."
Sorry, I didn't think anyone was moronic enough to not be able to figure that out.
The argument is valid because the information needed for weather predictions satisfies the definition you proposed:
1. There are many alternative possibilities to wind speed, direction, and temperature.
2. The different alternatives produce different results.
So by the definition you yourself proposed, my example refutes Meyer.
Glad to see, though, that you have tacitly abandoned your moronic "humans have to measure wind speed" argument.
- 12:03 PM, November 29, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
So tell us how many bits of information are required for wind?
That's a good question. A good estimate can be provided by the number of bits that meteorologists actually measure. A single measurement is often in miles per hour, and wind speed usually is between 0 and 30 mph. So each measurement is about 5 bits. Since I'm not a meteorologist, I don't know how many measurements they integrate into a forecast, but I would bet it is hundreds, if not thousands. Each forecase, then, depends on hundreds or thousands of bits of information.
- 12:06 PM, November 29, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
By the way, I think the reactions to my counterexample to Meyer's claim are interesting.
The counterexample is so clear and unambiguous that only someone with a religious attachment to ID could debate it.
Can you believe it? ID advocates are actually claiming, in effect, that meteorologists somehow do their forecasts without using any information gathered from the environment at all! I wonder how this magic is carried out.
Contrast this with the way a real scientist behaves when a counterexample is found. They would say, "Hmm. That's a good exception to the rule I proposed. Maybe I need to rethink it a little." But ID advocates don't act like scientists - they act like politicians.
- 12:30 PM, November 29, 2009
- RichardW said...
BTW "active information" is another bit of nonsense concocted by Dembski, this time in collaboration with Robert Marks. I'm surprised to hear that Meyer doesn't even cite them.
Dembski's "active information" is not information in any reasonable sense but is actually a measure of the performance of a search algorithm. Dembski performs his usual bait-and-switch routine by taking a ratio of two probabilities, applying a mapping of -log2, and deceptively calling the result "information". He then makes absurd statements like Meyer's quoted above:
Informational accounting will reveal that sources of active information are responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations. (p. 496)
Since "active information" is defined in a way that makes it a measure of search performance, Meyer's statement is at best mere tautology: sources of the effectiveness of evolutionary simulations are responsible for the effectiveness of evolutionary simulations.
More on "active information" here:
- 2:04 PM, November 29, 2009
- Blake Stacey said...
Dembski performs his usual bait-and-switch routine by taking a ratio of two probabilities, applying a mapping of -log2, and deceptively calling the result "information".
Yes — Dembski and Marks measure probability on a logarithmic scale and then call it "information" as a cheap rhetorical trick.
- 3:28 PM, November 29, 2009
- RBH said...
RichardW wrote
I'm surprised to hear that Meyer doesn't even cite them [Dembski & Marks].
Actually, Meyer does cite them somewhere in the book in a paragraph a few sentences after he uses the term "active information," so it's not at all clear he's referring to their papers. And, as I noted, the term isn't in the index.
- 7:23 PM, November 29, 2009
- Joe G said...
Thank you for admitting that you don't know what you are talking about:
The argument is valid because the information needed for weather predictions satisfies the definition you proposed
Not even close.
The information for making weather predictions comes from making many, many observations.
Ya see as I told you and IDists have written about- the INFORMATION we are concerned with is the INFORMATION that is required to bring something into existence.
So it is as Dembski blogged- you have stuck your foot in your mouth and you don't even realize it.
Thanks for the entertainment though.
I feel really bad for your "students"...
- 7:23 AM, November 30, 2009
- Joe G said...
How many bits of information are required to bring "wind" into existence?
You are soooo freakin' clueless that you don't even understand the argument you are trying to refute.
Par for the course...
- 7:26 AM, November 30, 2009
- Joe G said...
Each forecase, then, depends on hundreds or thousands of bits of information.
That has nothing to do with anything!
The information we are concerned with is the information that makes "wind", the temperature, the rain, the torndo, etc.
- 7:28 AM, November 30, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
"we are concerned with is the INFORMATION that is required to bring something into existence."
Clearly the number of bits required to measure it is a lower bound on the number of bits required to bring it
"into existence", whatever that means.
I am sorry you are unable to present a coherent argument.
- 9:01 AM, November 30, 2009
Joe G.:
"The information for making weather predictions comes from making many, many observations."
Golly, are you going back to the dumb 'the information comes from the people making the observations' thing? Ridiculous. The question is where does the information come form, not who is measuring it. Or are you suggesting that wind does not actually exist, and the people making the 'observations' are making up the wind speed information out of the blue?
You're so committed to your ID position that you cannot see the exact argument you're trying to use to refute weather information (it comes from meteorologists making observations) can be applied to DNA information (it comes from the geneticists making observations).
- 7:51 PM, November 30, 2009
- Joe G said...
Clearly the number of bits required to measure it is a lower bound on the number of bits required to bring it
"into existence", whatever that means.
Clearly you have not demonstrated that and obviously you don't even understand the debate.
"whatever that means"? Are you serious?
- 9:09 AM, December 01, 2009
- Joe G said...
Jason A.,
It is not my fault that you people don't understand the debate.
- 9:10 AM, December 01, 2009
I want to thank whatever performance artist produced the comedy stylings of "Joe G". He's the funniest creationist I've seen in some time.
It's nice to have some levity injected into what is otherwise merely a sad tale of yet another creationist who, instead of actually doing some science, says "There's a gap in our knowledge that can never be bridged! Let's stick God in it!" and comes up with some sciency verbiage to make it seem new.
- 2:42 PM, December 01, 2009
Mike from Ottawa
Nice ad-hominem for starters Mike. You managed to humour and dismiss Joe G as a creationist, before finishing him off with a straw man.
I like your compact style, and the way you avoid addressing the substance of the arguments.
Keep up the good work!
- 7:53 PM, December 01, 2009
I like your title. You leave it vague whether you mean:
Stupid (Philosopher Tricks)
(Stupid Philosopher) Tricks
- 2:51 AM, December 02, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
You remind me of the man who drunkenly enters a freeway in the wrong traffic direction, and wonders why every other jerk on the road is driving the wrong way.
When you start claiming that all your opponents "don't even understand the debate", it may be time to check if you're driving on the wrong side. After all, incompetent people don't seem to know it.
- 6:26 AM, December 02, 2009
- Joe G said...
Your posts betray you.
I was just trying to help you out.
However it is obvious that you are beyond help.
Keep setting up those straw men so you can knock 'em down.
You must be very proud of yourself...
- 9:04 AM, December 02, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe G:
Do you always try to "help" people by calling them "soooo freakin' clueless"? If so, I recommend counselling.
- 9:08 AM, December 02, 2009
- Joe G said...
If people are clueless it is always helpful to let them know.
- 9:24 AM, December 02, 2009
I'm not a Christian or intelligent design adherent, but I find it remarkable that no one here seems to believe that one can endorse a book with a thesis with which one disagrees. Even if Meyer's thesis were "the moon is made of cheese," conceivably he could offer and interesting account of both moon and cheese before reaching this absurdity. This is not as unlikely as it sounds: Descartes argument for the existence of God, after all, leaves something to be desired in a ways related to the deficiencies of intelligent design. But the argument is still magnificent. And I find the overly emotional and defensive appeal to personal attack remarkable: "disgrace," "stupid," etc. As an appeal to character rather than evidence, it is its own sort of inverse intelligent design theory. And then there is the very intellectually passive appeal to authority "we must always trust and defer to the reputed experts, we are simply not qualified to make these evaluations": a very religious seeming appeal to authority. With time, even the Christians allowed their protestants to read and evaluate the sacred text for themselves. As for your emotions: I promise you that science will get along without your attachment and your ire. It doesn't need your loyalty. It's very grand to feel that ideas and people are stupid and unworthy of consideration -- in which case you should ignore them. But if someone well-respected shocks you by giving them attention, the advised route is to offer a sober rebuttal -- not to appeal merely to authority, the established opinion of the day, and so on. In this case, of course, the rebuttal wouldn't even concern the intelligent design thesis -- which Nagel didn't endorse. It would involve arguing that Meyer's account is so poor in all its parts as to be unworthy of attention -- even for the purposes of rebuttal or for sharpening one's own counterarguments. But again, even this position could hardly account for the ire directed toward Nagel: we have something more and tribal here. Nagel has offended what should be his tribe by even dignifying the ways of another. And these ways are felt as a threat. But again -- I simply don't see the threat. Yes: fight the Christianists -- tooth and nail -- in their attempts to bastardize education or thwart public policy based on scientific consensus. And if Meyer is an activist of this sort, fight him -- no holds barred -- on that turf. And if you think this book is merely propaganda, merely a tool of these politics, then again I think it's probably best to ignore it. But if you do decide to engage something like, then it's time to stop acting like an intemperate yahoo and put on your little science or philosopher cap for a little while and make some real arguments. It does not add to the credibility of science or philosophy to have its practitioners act like hysterical yahoos when they are challenged -- no matter how absurd the idea; in fact, the more absurd the idea, the less concern for worry.
- 2:37 PM, December 02, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Dear Anonymous Concern Troll:
Certainly it's possible to endorse a book with which one disagrees. But Meyer's book is mistaken and dishonest in so many ways, it is only possible to endorse it so wholeheartedly if one is blissfully unaware of what's going on.
As for the rebuttals - Meyer's arguments are unoriginal and the arguments have been rebutted over and over and over again. But like the Energizer bunny, creationists keep going and going and going and going...
As for real arguments, you have read my paper in Synthese, right? If not... perhaps you should do some reading before you start the concern trolling.
- 3:42 PM, December 02, 2009
Dear Jeffrey Shallit
"Meyer's arguments are unoriginal and the arguments have been rebutted over and over and over again."
Then why don't you remind all the "stupid" people out there, i.e. those who happen to disaggree with you, of the flaws in Meyer's arguments.
By way of advice, your approach is not only lazy and arrogant, but it is also likley to repulse potential allies. Unfortunately, the evidence for ID, and the problems with Darwinian evolution, are too widely known, for the "brush off", "stra wman", "demonisation" tactic to work.
You will only serve to undermine your own credibility further, if you persist with this approach.
I hope this helps
- 4:02 PM, December 02, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Then why don't you remind all the "stupid" people out there, i.e. those who happen to disaggree with you, of the flaws in Meyer's arguments.
Been there, done that. Go read this paper. You know, the one I mentioned in the previous comment? It's about Dembski, but Meyer uses Dembski's results and makes exactly the same mistakes.
your approach is not only lazy and arrogant
And you're a moron if you can't bother to read the paper I already friggin' mentioned before responding. Happy?
You will only serve to undermine your own credibility further, if you persist with this approach.
Concern troll!
- 4:17 PM, December 02, 2009
I generally think "concern troll" is one of the most over-used and questionably warranted expressions on the internets. But here it seems completely justified.
Why don't you intelligent design proponents JUST ONCE come up with a respectable argument for your position? Until you do that, you have no business even mentioning the word "credibility."
Calling a fool "a fool" when one has reached the last degree of exasperation doesn't undermine one's credibility in the least.
- 5:07 PM, December 02, 2009
Dear Jeffrey Shallit
According to Dembski, the points you raise in your paper "Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information" have been addressed:
"Shallit's criticisms of my work, insofar as they have any legitimacy, have been responded to at length in The Design Revolution and in my recent papers "Searching Large Spaces" and "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies" (the latter two available at www.designinference.com). Moreover, he now indicates that he won't be analyzing my future work because, and I quote from a recent email, "I do not intend to waste my time finding more errors in more work of yours.""
Pardon me for doing the same as you by merely appealing to some papers. My point was that you should bring forth your arguments in clear and accessible terms, rather than appealing to your work and describing people who disagree with your line of reasoning as "morons".
There is clearly a scientific controversy, and this should take place at a dignified and rational level. You may not like to hear this, but the jury is out as far as Dembski's ideas are concerned. It also appears that you are unwilling or unable to address his latest work. You merely assert that Dembski has been refuted and proceeded to assume the authority to write articles attacking those who take his side. Since reading Dembski's blog, I have become aware that this is your stock and trade.
If you have the arguments, then present them to us, and please stop trying to compete with Richard Dawkins for straw men and ad hominems.
- 7:19 PM, December 02, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Dear Alan The Concern Troll:
If you are trying to see if the claims of Meyer and Dembski are correct, you need to read my paper -- not search the internet for reasons to avoid reading it.
When Dembski claims "Shallit's criticisms of my work, insofar as they have any legitimacy, have been responded to at length", he is just blowing smoke. Go read Searching Large Spaces and Specification... and you will find not a single reference to our criticisms.
My point was that you should bring forth your arguments in clear and accessible terms...
Been there, done that. Read my chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails, Rutgers University Press, 2004.
You may not like to hear this, but the jury is out as far as Dembski's ideas are concerned.
No, it's not - if the jury is a scientific and mathematical one. Dembski's work has been soundly dismissed by nearly everyone who is competent to understand it.
It also appears that you are unwilling or unable to address his latest work.
There is only a limited amount of time, and an unlimited supply of idiocy.
You merely assert that Dembski has been refuted and proceeded to assume the authority to write articles attacking those who take his side.
You lie. I don't "merely assert", I publish my articles in the peer-reviewed literature. If you refuse to read them, I can't do anything about that.
If you have the arguments, then present them to us, and please stop trying to compete with Richard Dawkins for straw men and ad hominems.
Don't make me laugh, Mr. Troll. I have presented them, but you are so scared, you have not read them. You just go off to others and find reasons for avoiding reading them.
- 7:35 PM, December 02, 2009
- Ingo said...
I don't "merely assert", I publish my articles in the peer-reviewed literature.
Indeed, Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's 'complex specified information' has not appeared in print yet, but is already being cited.
- 12:20 AM, December 03, 2009
I imagine when Meyer talks of "information", he means something with semantic content, rather than Shannon information.
There has been considerable debate in philosophy of biology concerning whether biological explanations make an indispensable appeal to semantic content carried in DNA sequences - and whether DNA is the only source of semantic information in heredity.
Maynard Smith, for instance, wrote a widely read article in Philosophy of Science arguing that biologists do need such a notion.
The worry is that there is longstanding view, associated primarily with Searle (Nagel too, I think, but it's not really his area) that only sources of "original intentionality" (viz. minds) can give things semantic content.
Many others (e.g. Dennett) deny this. But it's very much a live debate.
- 6:56 AM, December 03, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
There's no need to imagine what Meyer meant when it is spelled out in his book.
He refers to "functionally specified information", "information content", and "specified complexity" and distinguishes it from "information-carrying capacity. He refers to Dembski without acknowledging that Dembski's claims have been refuted and are not accepted by the information theory community.
By the way, the chance that philosophers are going to come up with anything definitive or ground-breaking on the origin of information -- semantic or otherwise -- is pretty much zero. We already know that randomness can generate Kolmogorov information, and we already know that evolutionary algorithms can generate novel behaviors. So for the scientific community, the question is already settled.
- 7:12 AM, December 03, 2009
its funny that shallit writes a concern troll post on his blog, and then proceeds to call other people concern trolls.
only trolls cry troll.
- 2:54 AM, December 06, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Anonymous Kim:
You don't know what the term "concern troll" means, do you?
- 6:28 AM, December 06, 2009
- Danny Pi said...
I would further like to protest the attacks against Prof. Nagel. I think there is a very easy and very clear way to legitimately attack his endorsement of the book. Namely, if you read the book and find it poorly written and bereft of interesting ideas, then you might rightly criticize him for recommending a bad book.
But to criticize him for not being a biologist is a rank ad hominem fallacy. He is not commenting on the plausibility of ID. He does not even believe in ID, and he makes no pretension of having any expertise in evolutionary biology. His endorsement of a book about ID is not tantamount to an endorsement of ID. There might be many other reasons why the book was good. It may have made many interesting philosophical points about what ought to count as free speech, and what ought to count as science education. Such issues are not solely the domain of scientists, and a philosopher might very well be in a good position to evaluate those merits. The point is that he is not endorsing ID, ergo, he should not be criticized for making an evaluative claim about research in biology, which is, incidentally, a straw man fallacy to boot.
I probably disagree with Nagel insofar as I think that ID should not be taught in public schools, even if the local school board votes to include the teaching of ID in science classes. I think there are compelling non-constitutional, non-legal reasons for banning the teaching of ID in science classes. And I think that his endorsement of that book, however sincere and however intellectually honest he may have been in endorsing it, was something of a PR misstep. That said, I feel saddened that he is, in my view, being unfairly lambasted.
That is, he is being criticized for endorsing views, which he does not believe, and he is being criticized for lacking qualifications which he never claimed to have, nor needed to have to comment on the merit of a particular book (i.e. not the conclusions it contains!).
To make my point crystal clear with a personal example, I am not an economist. I have probably a slightly above-average knowledge of economics, but I am by no means an expert in the field. Furthermore, I am politically slightly left of Dennis Kucinich. And yet, I would wholeheartedly recommend Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom to anyone interested in economics. I don't agree with the vast majority of Friedman's conclusions (with the exception of his disapproval of rent control). In fact, I wildly disapprove of the social consequences of many of Friedman's recommended economic policies. Nonetheless, I believe it is a very good book, which offers very many interesting ideas worth considering. I don't think that my lack of qualification as an economist (it is written as a popular book anyway), nor my disagreement with his conclusions makes my recommendation of Capitalism and Freedom at all intellectually dishonest or disingenuous. Likewise, if you want to criticism Nagel's book recommendation, then you should criticize it for being a bad book, rather than attacking Prof. Nagel's qualifications and sympathies.
- 3:49 PM, December 07, 2009
- Danny Pi said...
I see there has been some trolling and flaming on this item, and I don't want to get mired in anything like that, so I will try to make this post relatively brief, uncontroversial, and clear.
I studied very briefly with Prof. Nagel at NYU, and in class discussions which veered into the nitty gritty of hard science (e.g. quantum physics, the details of evolutionary biology, and other stuff that philosophers would often like to talk about, though they too often lack the expertise), he was always extremely responsible in corralling the discussion away from subjects best left to scientists.
If you read his paper on the teaching of ID in public schools, I think you would agree that he seems to have very little interest in donning a biologist hat and pretending to be Darwin. He obviously has sufficient knowledge to speak about evolution intelligently, and he certainly does not claim more expertise than he has, and he does not deign to evaluate or contribute to ongoing research.
And indeed, the crux of it is that Nagel does not endorse ID. He endorsed the book. I have not read the book, and I rather doubt that most of the people criticizing his endorsement have read the book. It may, in fact, be a good book. Who is to say that it doesn't toe the fine line of expressing some Popperian falsifiability condition, whilst carefully avoiding any direct references to supernatural entities? Someone who has read the book, presumably.
Nagel himself does not seem to believe in God, nor does he believe in ID, nor does he believe that ID should be taught in schools. He is a legal scholar, and so he does make the point that if local school boards vote to teach ID, then there is no constitutional reason to prevent it.
He seems to believe, and I agree, that incorrect theories, so long as they are consistent with empirical data and so long as they have falsifiability conditions, can still be "scientific" theories. To this extent, ID is a scientific theory, it's just a bad one that is very likely incorrect. This is not a scientific assertion, nor does it require more than an reasonably educated layman's understanding of biology. It is an issue in the foundations and philosophy of science, and not a particularly nitty gritty issue in that subject, either.
At any rate, I would agree that it was ill-advised of him to lend his good name to the endorsement of a book on such a politically charged subject, the conclusion of which he does not even believe. However, I do not think it was intellectually dishonest of him to do so, provided he actually thought it was a well-written book, which made interesting points.
- 3:49 PM, December 07, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
The point is, how can the layman tell whether a book on a scientific is even making valid points, if the layman has little or no training in the area? Frankly, it's pretty hard.
Even renowned mathematicians and mathematical physicists often say really stupid things when talking about complexity theory -- I have had to correct the misunderstandings of Nobel laureates -- so how likely is it that the average person will analyze a popular science book from a position of knowledge?
- 7:39 AM, December 08, 2009
- Danny Pi said...
The point is that you don't generally need to speak from a position of expert knowledge, when reviewing a book putatively written for a general audience.
I just don't see how you can claim that I.D. is not science (or "bad science" at least), but then demand that Nagel have scientific qualifications to review it. I mean, if it's not science, then why does he need to be a scientist to evaluate the book?
Okay, sure, it's making scientific(ish) claims, so perhaps Nagel would need to have some degree of expertise if he were trying to evaluate the truth of its claims, which he did not do. He never said that Meyer was right, he simply said that the book explored interesting issues in an interesting way. In fact, he doesn't think Meyer was right. I hardly see how that warrants the big ruckus that has ensued.
- 4:29 PM, December 08, 2009
- RkBall said...
A captain of a ship is at sea. The wind is blowing. The salt sea is spraying on his face. He hears an S-O-S signal. Surely the S-O-S constitutes information in a way that the blowing of the wind and the spraying of the salt sea does not. And, for the speed of the wind to be determined, and, perhaps communicated to someone else, does it not take an intelligent agent?
Does not the finding of a treasure map on a rock constitute information in a way that e.g., the observation that there is also lichen growing on the rock, does not?
- 6:52 PM, December 24, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Surely the S-O-S constitutes information in a way that the blowing of the wind and the spraying of the salt sea does not.
When you say "surely" it seems to me you are assuming what you want to prove.
It's up to you to quantify precisely how this information is different. To a mathematician or computer scientist, who uses Shannon or Kolmogorov, things like meaning do not enter into the definition of information.
Furthermore, consider instead of receiving an SOS, the captain observes a meteorite entering the atmosphere and striking another ship within viewing range. Viewing that scene would convey exactly the same message - namely, that assistance is needed - yet no intelligent agent was involved.
Even further, consider instead that the captain receives the message "TPT" instead of "SOS". Would that be more or less information than "SOS"? How about if you knew that the sender loved to send messages by advancing each letter one position?
Does not the finding of a treasure map on a rock constitute information in a way that e.g., the observation that there is also lichen growing on the rock, does not?
Mathematically I suspect the lichen contains much more information than the treasure map.
- 8:44 AM, December 25, 2009
Jeffrey says in his example that weather information does not originate in mind(s). I disagree in part; he is on to something regarding the nature of/ or inherent existence or nonexistence of information in the weather. Does weather have informational content? No. Do units of measure? Yes. Do the designs of transducers and sensors? Yes again. The last two arise in minds and in the Shannon sense are part of the coding problem, and are indispensible for collecting weather information. And so weather information does originate in minds, because the coding originates in minds. This in my view is a conundrum for Jeffrey's argument, and is in fact laughingly related to the insistence of scientists that there is a "genetic code", a term used to wow each other and the public in general. By maintaining the "wow" factor to keep the funding coming, life scientists in this case are unintentionally implying a mind behind the "genetic code", because codes originate in minds.
But then if coding originates in minds, then information only exists for minds that have a knowledge of coding. So there would have to be a mind in the cell to appreciate the genetic code if it is indeed a code. I think the ID crowd may have a problem here. I support ID but am increasingly skeptical of the ID folks' usage of informational terms of which they have little understanding.
- 5:00 PM, December 25, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Does weather have informational content?
Certainly it does. Take, for example, whether it is raining or not in a place where it rains half the time. Knowing whether it is currently raining gives you one bit of information.
- 7:23 PM, December 25, 2009
- Enézio E. de Almeida Filho said...
No offense, please, but have you ever considered yourself a stupid mathematician?
- 6:15 AM, December 26, 2009
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Sure. I'm a mathematician (and computer scientist) and I'm stupid about many things. Don't ask me anything about Etruscan thought, or Thai cooking, or the history of rugby.
- 6:56 AM, December 26, 2009
- Ensjo said...
In the forming of an intricate snow flake, the physical forces provided by nearby water molecules can be seen as constituting information for every incoming molecule to position itself. Yet no mind is involved in the process.
- 11:46 AM, January 15, 2010
I'm coming late to this, but I read the ramblings of an intellectual hack like the this Shallit character, I cannot help myself.
You yourself, Shallit, seem to be ruling out a priori that just because Nagel recommends a book, he seems to be endorsing all of said book's claims, and that if a community of scientists disagree with him, then he must be wrong. If we prize the community version of scientific knowledge, and if somehow all of our scientists collectively came together and told us that black people are inferior to white people (which scientists have actually done), then you would have to agree with those scientists, wouldn't you? Remember what Kant said: "Dare to use your own reason"...unless of course you object to Kant because he had no knowledge of Darwin? ;)
Furthermore, philosophers really deal with matters that are unanswerable by science. Consider ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. Ethics is supposed to show us that which should be, not that which is (which science helps to show us), logic is presupposed by science, metaphysics by its very definition explains that which science cannot explain, and epistemology is the field where we engage in questions about how we come to know the validity of certain claims, including such claims as "the scientific method is a valid method of gaining knowledge".
Nagel has made consistently one of the best points about evolution which no else seems to bring up: the probability of life evolving out of nonliving matter is about one in a billion billion, which should lead to some doubts about the supposed certainty of naturalistic evolution. Why does he need to consult scientists for this, unless of course scientists have proved that life evolving without a designer is indeed highly probable, which seems unlikely.
- 1:32 AM, December 22, 2010
- Nullifidian said...
To be blunt, Anonymous, you are in no position to call other people intellectual hacks.
You yourself, Shallit, seem to be ruling out a priori that just because Nagel recommends a book, he seems to be endorsing all of said book's claims, and that if a community of scientists disagree with him, then he must be wrong.
Case in point. By saying that Dr. Shallit is "ruling this out a priori" you are firmly implying that he is not making this argument you described. So either you've come here to tell Dr. Shallit what he is not doing, or you simply threw a priori in without caring what it actually means. This is the sign of a pseudo-intellectual poseur.
If we prize the community version of scientific knowledge, and if somehow all of our scientists collectively came together and told us that black people are inferior to white people (which scientists have actually done), then you would have to agree with those scientists, wouldn't you?
No. It is possible to make a dissident argument that challenges the prevailing consensus. It just helps your reputation if you do so honestly and not by substantially misrepresenting the consensus science, by refusing to subject your own work to experimental verification, and by plugging it in front of school boards and state legislatures instead of in peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences, and symposia. Guess which way the cdesign proponentsists have chosen to do this?
Furthermore, philosophers really deal with matters that are unanswerable by science.
Peachy. So what is Nagel doing recommending pseudoscientific texts instead of sticking to his admitted areas of expertise?
Nagel has made consistently one of the best points about evolution which no else seems to bring up: the probability of life evolving out of nonliving matter is about one in a billion billion, which should lead to some doubts about the supposed certainty of naturalistic evolution.
I'd love to see the Bayesian priors that went into that calculation. Since you like quotes from philosophers so much, here's one from Friedrich Nietzsche: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments" (The Gay Science, aph. 191).
Contrary to your claim that "no [one] else" brings this up, the probability argument is one of the oldest and tritest arguments in the creationist arsenal. If there has been any diminution in how often it appears, it may be because its proponents are too embarrassed to bring it up any more. It is based on nothing but numbers pulled out from the rectum and asserted with the finality of holy writ. It also has the fault of being completely irrelevant. What you call "naturalistic evolution" is perfectly consistent with any origins of life scenario, as long as it results in organisms that has heritable variation and a finite population.
If this is what Nagel has actually argued, then Nagel is a fucking chump. Fortunately for Nagel's dwindling reputation, I highly suspect that you are putting words in his mouth.
- 11:25 PM, June 01, 2011
I read that paper (or at least am still reading it) that was presented in an early comment.
I can't believe a philosopher of such distinction would engage in a discussion which he clearly (by his own writing) as not the slightest information about.
Especially when the use of genetic algorithms remove all requirement to propose ID... unless god is also acting on the functions in a computer program that mutate the digital genotype to create a solution.
He also can't claim he didn't know about these, as an eminent philosopher he would surely have gone off to find out if there were any non biological examples of mutation and selection...If I can do that and not be a philosopher of merit...then surely he has no excuse?
Had he taken such a detour from his typing enterprises he would have come across genetic algorithms in seconds.
So the next question for him would be...is this designer also fiddling about with the correct functioning of software along with the checksums put in place to ensure it runs correctly?
- 1:00 PM, September 01, 2012
- MSEE said...
'Does weather have informational content?
Certainly it does. Take, for example, whether it is raining or not in a place where it rains half the time. Knowing whether it is currently raining gives you one bit of information.'
Two problems: Like i said in previous post (groovamos) there must be a mind for there to be information. Jeffrey maybe inadvertently admits it in the above: "gives you one bit of information", "you" being a person of sound mind. If it is raining in an area where there is no mind to know it and understand it, there is no information.
Aside from this, whether it is raining or not can't be communicated by one bit. So a few drops come down. Is it raining because of those few drops? If so when exactly did it start and when exactly did it quit? How does one bit flip at a precise time when rain stops? Or starts?
- 12:29 PM, February 16, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Repeating a falsehood does not make it a falsehood.
If a computer deduces that it is raining, that gives it information. No mind involved, unless you want to admit that a computer could be a mind (fine with me). You don't even have a definition of "mind".
By the definition of rain, yes, if there are a few drops, then it is rain. Are you trying intentionally to be stupid?
- 1:48 PM, February 17, 2017
- Gerry Myerson said...
"Repeating a falsehood does not make it a falsehood." I don't think that's what you meant to say.
- 9:07 PM, February 18, 2017
- Joe G said...
The computer's deduction traces back to the mind of the programmer
- 9:20 PM, February 18, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
And your deduction "traces back" to the mind of your parents. So what?
- 5:48 PM, February 19, 2017
- Joe G said...
Hi Jeffrey, I was responding to what you posted:
If a computer deduces that it is raining, that gives it information. No mind involved, unless you want to admit that a computer could be a mind (fine with me). You don't even have a definition of "mind".
The mind involved is that of the programmer. Or do you disagree?
- 6:00 PM, February 19, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Yes, I disagree. For example, suppose the program is written by a person who later dies; yet it continues to collect information. Then it makes no sense at all to say that the computer deduces it is raining and gains information through the mind of a dead person.
- 7:15 PM, February 19, 2017
- Joe G said...
The programmer was very much alive when the program was written. The program traces back to that mind. Just like the Pyramids of Giza trace back to those designers and builders- when they were alive.
Indiana Jones- "This artifact is from the Toltec civilization."
Jeff- "The Toltec are all dead and dead people don't make artifacts."
- 8:54 PM, February 19, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
No, you don't even understand the point. The program continues to gain information, while the Toltec artifact doesn't. That's the difference.
- 3:37 AM, February 20, 2017
- Joe G said...
Wow- artifacts continue to give us information about the artisans even after they are dead and gone. The program traces it mind back to the programmer while he/ she was alive just as the artifacts do
- 8:00 AM, February 20, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Nope, they have the same information content as before. This is not true of a program that continues to read the environment and processing it. Do you understand information theory at all? It doesn't seem like it.
- 1:18 PM, February 20, 2017
- Joe G said...
The information the artifact provides does so despite the fact the artisans are dead. Artifacts provide information about how they lived. The computer program is just another artifact. And everything it does is traced back to the mind of the programmer at the time of the last update. Do you understand reasoning at all? It doesn't seem like it
- 2:00 PM, February 20, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You continue to exhibit your misunderstanding of information theory.
A computer program can harvest bits from its environment and do so (for all practical purposes) endlessly. The information it harvests cannot be "traced back to the mind of the programmer", because it gains new information with each (for example) new weather observation.
An artifact like a Grecian urn cannot.
If you refuse to address this basic point, you are just babbling.
- 4:37 PM, February 20, 2017
- Joe G said...
A computer program can harvest bits from its environment and do so (for all practical purposes) endlessly.
That is false. It will stop doing so when power is cut or the computer breaks down. And also the computer can harvest bits from its environment if and only if it was programmed to do so.
The information it harvests cannot be "traced back to the mind of the programmer", because it gains new information with each (for example) new weather observation.
That doesn't follow. The program will always trace back to the mind of the programmer when the programmer was alive.
If you refuse to address that simple point you are just babbling.
- 9:55 AM, February 22, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You continue to fail to distinguish between the program and the bits the program harvests. Whether this is out of stupidity or dishonesty, I cannot determine.
- 2:08 PM, February 22, 2017
- Joe G said...
Umm, Jeffrey, data is not information until someone gives it meaning. And whatever the program does it does so because it was intelligently designed to do so. Everything the program does traces back to the programmer. That is the mind in question.
You continue to fail to make a point. Whether this is out of stupidity or dishonesty I cannot determine. You are just flailing away
- 5:36 PM, February 22, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
You clearly know nothing about information theory. Information theory is specifically a theory that does not depend on meaning. It's not hard to educate yourself about this; just pick up any text on the subject, such as Li and Vitanyi. Meanwhile, I teach this material for a living.
I have already pointed out specifically an example of information that does not "trace back" (whatever that means) to the programmer. A program harvesting weather data from the environment gains new information with each observation, information that could not possibly be predicted by the programmer.
- 7:39 PM, February 22, 2017
- Joe G said...
Jeffrey- Shannon's theory is just a special mathematical case. He didn't care about meaning because the equipment used to transmit and store information doesn't care about it. That has nothing to do with the fact that data is not information until it is given meaning.
A program harvesting weather data from the environment gains new information with each observation, information that could not possibly be predicted by the programmer
So what? Everything the program does traces back to the programmer. That is just another fact that you cannot change.
And thankfully you are not my teacher
- 10:33 PM, February 22, 2017
- Jeffrey Shallit said...
Your response is completely incoherent.
There is no theory of information in which "meaning" plays a role. It does not play a role in Shannon, or Kolmogorov, or any other theory of information that I know of.
The claim "data is not information until it is given meaning" is just an assertion, which depends on the definition of the terms. It does not correspond to "information" in the way it is defined by mathematicians and scientists. If you have your own private definitions of terms, do not expect anyone else to pay attention.
So what? Everything the program does traces back to the programmer.
The claim is vague and not necessarily true. For example, we could make a program that harvests truly random bits from radioactive decay, and then its behavior is not dependent only on the programmer. In any event, you continue to fail to observe the salient point, which is that the information the program harvests is not depending on the programmer. That is the essential point, which you continue to ignore.
And thankfully you are not my teacher
One cannot teach someone who resolutely refuses to be taught. At my university, we have admissions standards.
At this point you have exhausted both my time and your welcome.
- 7:36 AM, February 23, 2017


text:
Free download pdf urdu book Ubqari Magazine October 2010
Free download Urdu Books PDF.In this site you can Download Urdu books of all kinds like Islamic Books,social and romantic novels,jasoosi novels,Imran series,Serial Novels that published in pakistani digests,Women novels,Pakistani Monthly digests,History Novels,Urdu adab books,Literature,study books,notes.All books in PDF format are available for free.and Zaheer Ahmed imran series,and others,Inspetcor Jamshed Series by Ishtiaq Ahmed.Kids novels like Amber Naag Maria Series by A Hameed,Dastaane Ameere Hamza ubqari wazaif Etc.
Read online pdf urdu books Ubqari Magazine October 2010
Free read online Hitorical Novels by Qamar Ajnalvi,Ilyas Sitapuri,Naseem Hijazi,Aslam rahi and Others writers.
Women Novels by Umaira Ahmed,Nighat Abdullah,Aasia Mirza,Razia butt and other writers.Study
Books like,physics,chaemistry,mathimatics,english,socialplogy,economics,statistics,financial management,corporate financee etc.Monthly Digests Shuaa digest,jasoosi digest,khawateen digest,suspense digest, free download.
Download From Here
Download pdf urdu ebooks Ubqari Magazine October 2010
Note: IF you are unable to find any particular book or novel online, you can simply leave a comment for me asking to upload that particular book or novel. Or you can simply contact me via email. My email is firstname.lastname@example.com
Note: All books, novel, stories and other stuff on this blog are only for knowledge sharing purpose by the courtesy of authors and publishers. I do not own any of these books or novels. If you find a book or novel interesting or knowledge rich, please do purchase the printed version of that particular book or novel to oblige and appreciate the author of that book or novel.


text:
Changes related to "Contributing Patches to Gambit Source Code"
From Gambit wiki
This is a list of changes made recently to pages linked from a specified page (or to members of a specified category).Pages on your watchlist are bold.
Legend: N - new page, m - minor edit, b - bot edit.
No changes on linked pages during the given period.


text:
Parent Directory | Revision Log
|Links to HEAD:
|(view) (download) (as text) (annotate)
Fix bug #517580 - URL updates and language improvements, thanks to Francesco Turco
Fix bug #498968 - Add warning about non-installation media having different /dev/shm structure, as well as an in-document comment for future reference
emerge-webrsync complains about missing /usr/portage but that is to be expected
None for proc is unfortunate (see man mount), using proc instead. Note that it does not harm (free choice keyword)
Move locale generation before kernel build, otherwise kernel build will complain about missing/unset locale variables
Fix bug #494466 - Use emerge --config sys-libs/timezone-data
Bug #494466 - Better description for timezone file
Fix bug #494466 - Add blurbs about localtime/timezone differences
Fix bug #492730 - Add blurb about portage recommending upgrades (users can wait until after installation for this)
Fix bug 493230 - Only show systemd for supported arches
Fix bug #482694 - Add paragraph about where to find info for systemd
Fix bug #466518 - No server subprofiles anymore
Fix bug #466514 - Drop mkdir and paragraph on extraction
Fix bug #466514 - Use "install" instead of "unpack" for Portage snapshot now that emerge-webrsync is used
Fix bug #460852 - Move timezone information to the "Installing the Gentoo Base System" chapter
Fix bug #450038 - Add information on news items, thanks to Pacho Ramos
Fix bug #451354 - IA64 had a separate section but really doesnt need it. removing and using the same section everywhere
Fix bug #449192 (missed a step, or counted a step too much). Fix by Chema Alonso with some minor modification
Fix bug #449192 - remove env-update instructions as they are now obsolete
Fix typo on calling emerge-webrsync, thanks to iamben for catching it
Move emerge-webrsync into chroot section
Using emerge-webrsync as primary method for installing a Portage tree during installation
Fix bug #427860 - Use /etc/portage for make.conf and make.profile. Old location (/etc) is still supported, this is a heads up (new default)
Fix bug #420159 - Add bind-mounting of /sys
Add hint about using other terminals or consoles in chroot environment, thanks to Maciej Nowak for suggesting to add it.
Fix bug #395515 - Do not refer to 2.6 kernel in default profile
#408073 - moving locale settings from Installing to Configure your System - removing "optional" - adding indications to set default system locale
Fix bug #379971 - Show the use of locale-gen in a code listing. Thanks to Niklas Johansson for suggestion.
#369841: improving readability by swift
use different bind mount, bug 253681
ppc64 now supports selecting ipv6 mirrors, so removed the last warning. bug 321713.
alpha and ia64 stages now support ipv6, bug 321713
cleaned up dead USE flags
made ipv6 note conditional, as all kernels except alpha, ia64, and ppc64 support ipv6. bug 321713.
link community mirrors list for SYNC servers, bug 309073
Quick fixes for autobuilds and all stuff (i think) found on the autobuilds tracker bug -- x86 and amd64 only at this time. should be good for Gentoo's 10th anniversary on these two arches
added note on developer profile that users shouldn't use, but are apparently starting to use. wouldn't want them to be clueless, so added a note explaining that it's only for gentoo development tasks. thanks to dberkholz on irc for suggesting.
prevent portage from being added to world, since it's already in system, by using --oneshot. also bumped the MIPS system up to the same major version number as the other files. shoulda done this already, but at least it's done now.
release time. note that since this is beta1, the release dir and stage/media names have been adjusted accordingly. also, the handbooks are marked with a disclaimer=draft, so once the final is out, that will be removed and the release names adjusted. in the mean time, these are live. the beta is officially released. no, it's not april fools, but it is april 1st. :)
Made profile displayed by "ls -FGg /etc/make.profile" match default from stage3
just copy the file to the dir rather than specifying the filename again. means fewer possible typos like resolve.conf -- suggested by mark_alec on IRC. also, this is already how it is in the quickinstall guides.
2007.0 release is here; final changes and new docs
added bind mount /sys for bug 166069
#153791 Handbook 'all-in-one-page' listing gives 500 error, caused by missing quote in test attribute
Added grub-static for non-multilib systems, as well as added an AMD64-specific example for switching to a non-multilib profile, bug 79936
further capitalization of arch keys, bug 153735
Moved chapter abstracts into shared chapters No content change, hence no bump
general Qt USE flag cleanup
updated handbook for new desktop/server profiles, see bug 146277
2006.1 networked docs are in. portage handbook still untouched per separate bugs. thanks to all the hard work, guys. blame me if something is wrong (and please fix quickly) :)
adding a note about a necessity of upgrading glibc for locale-gen
fixing a wrong file name, thanks to ext for reporting
#140098, locale-gen instead of userlocales
#140176, wrong instructions about not updating portage
Updated license to 2.5
#123684 Wrong message after env-update, refix
Fixed ppc/ppc64 profile paths.
Handbook for 2006.0, "Chuck Norris can divide by zero"
#123684 Wrong message after env-update
#105646 bind-mount /dev before chrooting
#114290, added information about changing prompt after chrooting - to prevent mistakes
Use no-nptl profile for 2.4
#105809 - Moving bootstrapping/system to FAQ, outside handbook
#102735 /etc/portage already exists, use -p to be on the safe side
Migrating to 2005.1
#100758 - Touch nsswitch.conf to have different mtime therefore having Portage to leave it alone
#96715 stage3 users should upgrade baselayout to be consistent with stage1/2 and other parts of book
#94952 "2.4 means 2.6" confuses users. Take 2. Thanks to dsd
#94952 "2.4 means 2.6" confuses users. Tried to make things clearer.
#92855: mention `emerge --sync --quiet` for slow terminals
abovementioned -> aforementioned
#88397 - Added explanation that the change in USE flag is wrt to the USE flag used while building stage2 by releng
#87467 - Inform about emerge-webrsync, no need to link to other part if its just a single paragraph
Inform user about userlocales not functioning for bootstrapping
The linux26-headers hack is not needed anymore; thanks to GurliGebis on #gentoo-doc for reporting
Updating docos to 2005.0
#78631 - Do not select IPv6 mirrors with mirrorselect
#80699 - Mirrorselect rewrite
Separation of Gentoo Handbook into Current and 2004.3
#75466 - Update to reflect cascading profiles changes - make.defaults is now sum of all make.defaults files
#74609 - Fix for locales
#73678 - Add in --nodeps *sigh*
#68682: unpack a portage tree before running either emerge --sync or emerge --metadata
Use GB, MB instead of Gb, Mb... not real standards compliance (not IECs MiB/GiB) but more in line with most users their knowledge. This is "Typo fixing", no version increase
#68852 - Rerunning bootstrap.sh might fail with linux-headers blocking linux26-headers
#71406 - No option_s_, just one. Rephrazing...
Added missing <i> in <pre>
bug 72130 - consistency
#71440 mirrorselect is still b0rked, put "|grep 'GENTOO_MIRRORS='" back
Converted dates to YYYY-MM-DD format
Moving 2004.3 documentation
Adding version/date information in pages
English typo fix
Use coding style, create /etc/portage directory
Add information about the 'userlocales' USE flag
Fixed bad links (including one from #68719) and a few typos
Use Portage, capitalized P, wherever possible
s/emerge sync/emerge --sync/ requested by beejay, confirmed by Kumba
Warn about mirrorselect bug
#62186: Fixed language mistakes all over the place thanks to John Richards
Okay, turning back to the "old" profile system. The thread on -dev@ doesn't give me a good feeling about cascading profiles (pvdabeel sais that it needs some updates, beejay sais it needs testing, solar sais the old one is obsoleted and should be removed, zhen sais an updated catalyst needs to be pushed). So this doesn't feel like "yes, switch them all over" just yet (especially since this is a arch-wide part of our installation instructions).
Use bootstrap-cascade.sh instead of bootstrap; the old one is broken (did you know this?)
Small fixups, undo my undoing of my finishing touches regarding the noauto thingie for /boot
#59484: mirrorselect outputs html junk, grep on GENTOO_MIRRORS
#50289 - Move mounting of /proc right before the chrooting. This also takes care of the errors users receive while unpacking the stage tarballs. Apparently logics is something the crowd wants less
#53272 - Reload environment variables after altering the CHOST variable
#57943 - USE="-java" isnt needed anymore
Rename the Chapter "Updating Portage" to "Updating the Portage tree" #58465
#57264: updated output from env-update #57266: typo (s/socalled/so-called/)
#51612 - Make emerge-webrsync command less ambiguous
Filter out rogue line from mirrorselect that b0rks /etc/make.conf See #52264
#49692 - Apparently users take jokes far too seriously
#47834 - Dont copy a symbolic link but the file it points to
Regarding portage update: can safely ignore it -> should ignore it
Refrase on the defaults regarding the use of mirrorselect
Bootstrapping doesnt do duplicate emerges anymore
#43724 - Fix GRP isntructions
Don't have the users run etc-update during the installation process. Too many users that do tend to overwrite the configuration files they just created and then complain about this on #gentoo. etc-update isn't necessary during the installation, but it is important for people to know about it. We therefore refer the user to the part on configuration file protection so that, once they've finished their installation, they can read up on it.
#43323 - bindmounting /dev is not needed, it even causes issues; or we remove the instruction or we tell the stage1 bootstrapping script to treat the /dev specially (touch /dev/.devfsd). Ive opted to remove the instructions as recommended by most sources
Move from draft - 2004.0 is released
#37257 - Add emerge-webrsync instructions
Add necessary xml constructs on top of all hb-files, tx to neysx
Fix typos
Fix typos, #37377
Fix #37275: add use.desc listing
Fix #36605 (partly): inform users that the LiveCD uses devfs
Fix #36241 - We recommend to change the USE variable based on the default USE settings, but the defaults arent available before the user runs emerge sync.
Some minor changes
Add MIPS instructions to the hanbook
Move the /dev bindmounting to the correct place
Fix typo
Bug 34665
Bug #33977
Fix #34048: Use spelled-out options instead of the abbreviated ones
Fix #33977: Inform users about portage upgrade after running emerge sync
source profile if chost has changed
Add CVS information as comment
Fix ofcourse typo :)
Fix typo
Add a paragraph about distcc
Have USE unset after bootstrap if you have set it
Add licensing to all seperate files, make as many links as possible relative instead of absolute
Further continuation of the handbook -- progressing quickly :)
Small updates to increase readability
Restyle handbook internally
New update; finish stage chapter, start on disk chapter
First draft handbook; not for public use
This form allows you to request diffs between any two revisions of this file. For each of the two "sides" of the diff, select a symbolic revision name using the selection box, or choose 'Use Text Field' and enter a numeric revision.
|ViewVC Help
|Powered by ViewVC 1.1.20


text:
Photos: Towering colonial in Quincy
Photos: Towering colonial in Quincy
This towering Colonial in Adams Shore overlooks the Rock Island Cove Salt Marsh.
12 Quentin St. is awash in natural light and custom touches.
The deck overlooks the marsh.
The open floor plan kitchen features a breakfast counter that winds through the kitchen and can seat up to eight.
There is a brazilian hardwood floor in the kitchen. Appliances are stainless steel, including a double stove.
The breakfast counter is made of granite.
The living room has a tv that comes up from below the painting. The house has tall ceilings and hardwood floors of dark mahogany and light oak.
The railing going to the second floor is ornate.
On the second floor, the master bedroom has a gas fireplace, walk-in closet, its own bath and deck.
The master bedroom also looks out at the marsh.
The second of three bedrooms upstairs is large and well-lit.
The third bedroom upstairs has good closet space.
The family bath has a whirlpool tub, a separate shower with full body shower heads, and double vanity.
The third floor has a large L-shaped bedroom with multiple storage spaces.
The basement is an in-law with a bedroom, full kitchen, and a living room.