The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu..

Howard Brazee <howard.DeleteThis@brazee.net> wrote:

> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> I was too narrow. No other species of animal (or at least mammal)
> >> has the diversity of dogs. I don't remember the exact quote, from a
> >> National Geographic article on dogs.
> >
> >I'd want to see the figures.
>
> I understand that. Do you have any candidates for a species with
> comparable diversity?

Nope. I'm not any sort of biologist: it's not my field. I'd ask the
experts.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.DeleteThis@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

J. J. Lodder <nospam.DeleteThis@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nospam.DeleteThis@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam.DeleteThis@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > You are way behind the times.
> > > >
> > > > You haven't a clue, so don't offer an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > > Classificaton is (also) DNA based these days.
> > > >
> > > > The required DNA analyses haven't been done in any signficant number of
> > > > species. Claiming otherwise indicates either dishonesty or ignorance on
> > > > your part - which is it?
> > >
> > > You are way behind the times.
> >
> > It's very easy for you to repeat your bleating claims - but you are
> > being ignorantly insulting.
>
> You really don't want to educate yourself?

I'm trying to do so all the time, but I don't see any educational
possibilities in most of your posts at all.

> The keyword you want to know is DNA-DNA hybridization
> It is possible to compare DNA (by the whole genome)
> (and hence establish evolutionairy relationships)
> without having to sequence it.

Yes? Your point being? My claim still stands exactly as before.

I don't have the skill to assess the reliability of any of these
techniques - do you?

> > Go stick your head in a pig.
>
> You're slipping again Rowland,

Jan, you're slipping if that's what you think. That's a famous
quotation from a famous book by a famous author you're commenting on.
See if that helps you figure out what I was playing at.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.DeleteThis@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:42:58 +0100, real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@flur.bltigibbet
(Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>> I understand that. Do you have any candidates for a species with
>> comparable diversity?
>
>Nope. I'm not any sort of biologist: it's not my field. I'd ask the
>experts.

As long as I don't have any such candidates, I'll accept National
Geographic's authority. What they said seems reasonable to me.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Howard Brazee <howard DeleteThis @brazee.net> wrote:

> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> I understand that. Do you have any candidates for a species with
> >> comparable diversity?
> >
> >Nope. I'm not any sort of biologist: it's not my field. I'd ask the
> >experts.
>
> As long as I don't have any such candidates, I'll accept National
> Geographic's authority. What they said seems reasonable to me.

I learnt long ago that authority is normally wrong - especially when
what it says sounds terribly reasonable and sensible.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell DeleteThis @dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:21:32 +0100,
real-address-in-sig DeleteThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>> >> I understand that. Do you have any candidates for a species with
>> >> comparable diversity?
>> >
>> >Nope. I'm not any sort of biologist: it's not my field. I'd ask the
>> >experts.
>>
>> As long as I don't have any such candidates, I'll accept National
>> Geographic's authority. What they said seems reasonable to me.
>
>I learnt long ago that authority is normally wrong - especially when
>what it says sounds terribly reasonable and sensible.

Authority, real or self-proclaimed doesn't have a good track record.
But if I reject everything without alternative ideas, then I have
nothing.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Howard Brazee <howard DeleteThis @brazee.net> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig DeleteThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> >> I understand that. Do you have any candidates for a species with
> >> >> comparable diversity?
> >> >
> >> >Nope. I'm not any sort of biologist: it's not my field. I'd ask the
> >> >experts.
> >>
> >> As long as I don't have any such candidates, I'll accept National
> >> Geographic's authority. What they said seems reasonable to me.
> >
> >I learnt long ago that authority is normally wrong - especially when
> >what it says sounds terribly reasonable and sensible.
>
> Authority, real or self-proclaimed doesn't have a good track record.

All authority is self-proclaimed, surely? `Real'? A null concept in my
world-view.

> But if I reject everything without alternative ideas, then I have
> nothing.

That makes no sense at all.

If anyone presents me with a `reasonable argument' that appears to back
up an idea, I automatically reject it unless that `reasonable argument'
can be backed up by some solid evidence: checkable data, verifiable
modelling, that sort of thing. Without that, experience teaches me that
the `authority' is normally talking bullshit.

A lovely example of this is `Time' magazine. Robert Heinlein mentions
in `Expanded Universe' that he was present at a particular number of
world-significant events that were covered by Time - and what he saw
failed to match up with Time's reporting.

I've been getting Time magazine for a few months. It's obviously just a
propaganda tool, operating on behalf of I don't know who or what or why
- but it just tells you what to think, providing reasonable arguments,
and so on. And in every case where I've known something about it, what
Time says is utter bollocks.

Seems that things haven't changed much since Heinlein got disgusted with
it. I have no information about National Geographic in that sense - bu
the feeling I've got from it makes me think it's as unreliable as Time.
(I don't have a lot of time for Nature, and quite a few other rags of
that sort).

What publications do I trust? Not many - the Institute of Physics's
general magazine `Physics World' is pretty reliable, if only because if
someone *does* make a false claim, someone is sure to write in with a
correction which will be published.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell DeleteThis @dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:00:18 +0100,
real-address-in-sig RemoveThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>> Authority, real or self-proclaimed doesn't have a good track record.
>
>All authority is self-proclaimed, surely? `Real'? A null concept in my
>world-view.

When we accept authority, it is real.

When that authority is accepted by those with power over us, it is
real.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

In article <1iifpr5.gyx1mlyvmzvaN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>,
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:


> I've been getting Time magazine for a few months. It's obviously just a
> propaganda tool, operating on behalf of I don't know who or what or why
> - but it just tells you what to think, providing reasonable arguments,
> and so on. And in every case where I've known something about it, what
> Time says is utter bollocks.
>
> Seems that things haven't changed much since Heinlein got disgusted with
> it. I have no information about National Geographic in that sense - bu
> the feeling I've got from it makes me think it's as unreliable as Time.
> (I don't have a lot of time for Nature, and quite a few other rags of
> that sort).

Nature and Science are the pre-eminent general scientific journals. If
you reject their contents (at least the peer reviewed papers) then you
may as well reject the whole of science.

>
> What publications do I trust? Not many - the Institute of Physics's
> general magazine `Physics World' is pretty reliable, if only because if
> someone *does* make a false claim, someone is sure to write in with a
> correction which will be published.

The same thing applies to any widely-read scientific journal. After
all, scientists value themselves by their publications, and the
opportunity to get a free publication (especially in Nature!) simply by
supplying a correction is not to be missed.

To return to the subject of dogs, my old lady is a dog judge, and
according to her there are 159 breeds recognised by the (UK) Kennel
Club. Worldwide there are many more breeds, maybe as many as 300. I
cannot offhand think of any other mammalian species which might compare
with that for number of races.

Phil Taylor


Whose publication list includes three papers in Nature and two in
Science.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:56:43 GMT, Phil Taylor <nothere RemoveThis @all.invalid>
wrote:

>Nature and Science are the pre-eminent general scientific journals. If
>you reject their contents (at least the peer reviewed papers) then you
>may as well reject the whole of science.
>
>>
>> What publications do I trust? Not many - the Institute of Physics's
>> general magazine `Physics World' is pretty reliable, if only because if
>> someone *does* make a false claim, someone is sure to write in with a
>> correction which will be published.
>
>The same thing applies to any widely-read scientific journal. After
>all, scientists value themselves by their publications, and the
>opportunity to get a free publication (especially in Nature!) simply by
>supplying a correction is not to be missed.

Some clarification might be in order though. I suspect the vast
majority of people would call _Scientific American_ a "widely-read
scientific journal". While that magazine is fun, it has a habit of
exploring, shall we say "fringe" ideas.

It also is useful in supporting science & in attacking non-science in
the general public, even if it is not up to some other scientific
standards.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

In article <upd5541t22fj70auve6ktab5ut9gg5m7j7.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
<howard.RemoveThis@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:56:43 GMT, Phil Taylor <nothere.RemoveThis@all.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Nature and Science are the pre-eminent general scientific journals. If
> >you reject their contents (at least the peer reviewed papers) then you
> >may as well reject the whole of science.
> >
> >>
> >> What publications do I trust? Not many - the Institute of Physics's
> >> general magazine `Physics World' is pretty reliable, if only because if
> >> someone *does* make a false claim, someone is sure to write in with a
> >> correction which will be published.
> >
> >The same thing applies to any widely-read scientific journal. After
> >all, scientists value themselves by their publications, and the
> >opportunity to get a free publication (especially in Nature!) simply by
> >supplying a correction is not to be missed.
>
> Some clarification might be in order though. I suspect the vast
> majority of people would call _Scientific American_ a "widely-read
> scientific journal". While that magazine is fun, it has a habit of
> exploring, shall we say "fringe" ideas.
>
> It also is useful in supporting science & in attacking non-science in
> the general public, even if it is not up to some other scientific
> standards.

Yebbut yebbut. Just as publishing a correction is a cheap shot, some
people can't resist pulling a snob act either.

I do it all the time.

Sci-Am gets as many "dumbing down" rants as UK A-levels. But it
probably has done as much to change the world for the better as Nature
and CACM have.

I first read about public key cryptography in Martin Gardner's column
in Scientific American (1977), like quite a few smarter people than me
did.

I found this while googling for the date (and shocked by how long ago
it was ‹ I must be a slow learner)
http://www.livinginternet.com/i/is_crypt_pkc_inv.htm

So Sci-Am sometimes gets it right where 'respectable' journals are
still contemplating their peer-reviewed navels.

Fringe ideas? Bah! Humbug!

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:46:19 +0100, Elliott Roper <nospam.TakeThisOut@yrl.co.uk>
wrote:

>So Sci-Am sometimes gets it right where 'respectable' journals are
>still contemplating their peer-reviewed navels.
>
>Fringe ideas? Bah! Humbug!

That's the nature of the fringe - if we don't look there, we will miss
a lot of stuff which will sometimes turn out to be yarn, and sometimes
turn out to be air. I like the magazine as it is even if it means
I reject some of its articles. It serves a useful purpose (and is
fun).
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

In article <fsg554104n9iukusc7gjqh2682f68i4beu.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
<howard.TakeThisOut@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:46:19 +0100, Elliott Roper <nospam.TakeThisOut@yrl.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >So Sci-Am sometimes gets it right where 'respectable' journals are
> >still contemplating their peer-reviewed navels.
> >
> >Fringe ideas? Bah! Humbug!
>
> That's the nature of the fringe - if we don't look there, we will miss
> a lot of stuff which will sometimes turn out to be yarn, and sometimes
> turn out to be air. I like the magazine as it is even if it means
> I reject some of its articles. It serves a useful purpose (and is
> fun).

Yep. You do have to go to more effort to work out what to reject for
their articles than you do for Hello!

That's more fun

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Howard Brazee <howard RemoveThis @brazee.net> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig RemoveThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> Authority, real or self-proclaimed doesn't have a good track record.
> >
> >All authority is self-proclaimed, surely? `Real'? A null concept in my
> >world-view.
>
> When we accept authority, it is real.

`We' do not accept authority, and all authoritatires in the past have
proven to be wrong when it comes to science at lesat. I have no idea
what you're on about here.

> When that authority is accepted by those with power over us, it is
> real.

I really have no idea what this could possibly mean.

For sure there are ppeople who exert power over us - so what? What does
that have to do with the matter? The bosses claim that they are right
and our opinions are irrelevant - as ever.

I'm an anarchist, you know.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell RemoveThis @dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu..