1

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:02:51 »

it is an excellent approximation to assume that whenever e rises above es vapor condenses to bring the relative humidity back to unity. In much of the atmosphere it is the saturation pressure over ice, rather than water, that is relevant,

Both statements are obviously wrong.  But as you say, that would be nitpicking, boring and scientific. Or what aviators call "life and death".

2

Technology / Re: What Question Could You Ask To Determine Sentience Of An AI ?

« on: Yesterday at 14:54:28 »

All depends on your definition of sentience.

It seems to me that there are two current definitions:

A. What people have but machines don't

B. What machines and people have.

AFAIK the only distinction between machines and people is that people make mistakes that aren't traceable to a hardware or instruction fault, so the question doesn't matter. If you use A, then any question will do  because eventually the human will get it wrong for no discernible reason. If you use B, you can't tell the difference, by definition.

Now there are two useful definitions of intelligence:

A. Constructive laziness

B. The ability to surprise a challenger.

Basic hill-climbing algorithms or content-addressable memory satisfy A, and the answer to B just depends on how stupid the challenger is.

So my answer to the OP is that the question is undefined and the answer is anything you like. 

3

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 12:16:47 »

If you engaged an HMS in battle, you might not be breaking the Geneva Convention. If you sank an RMS you might be prosecuted for a war crime. The difference is important, which is why they wear different flags.

And water doesn't necessarily fall from the sky when the RH reaches 100%. Look up and marvel at the clouds. The thermal importance of atmospheric water is that it has an enormous IR absorption spectrum, far broader than any other constituent gas, exists in all three phases in the atmosphere, and determines the global albedo. Ignore it at your peril!

4

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: Yesterday at 10:27:41 »

No, it just shows that society is dynamic and evolutionary (except in the USA).

5

Just Chat! / Re: Would society be a better place if "jocks" instead aspired to be like astronauts

« on: Yesterday at 10:25:32 »

Why can't these men be strong, smart, and nice?

Like the astronauts?

Lack of wars. Most astronauts have seen active military service or been strongly connected with the military as test pilots or engineers. This tends to sort out the men from the rubbish, and also produces some very strong, smart, personable women.

6

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why where the native Americans so vulnerable to disease?

« on: 26/06/2022 22:50:41 »

On the low side of negligible.

7

Technology / Re: Are solar panels worthwhile?

« on: 26/06/2022 11:10:24 »

Whilst we are diverting towards money it is worth noting that the permitted price of mains electricity in the UK is linked to the current wholesale price of gas, not the actual cost of generating electricity.

Right now, 80% of demand is being met by non-gas generation, so wind, solar and nuclear generators are profiting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Red/green color blindness?

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why where the native Americans so vulnerable to disease?

« on: 26/06/2022 10:59:07 »

Indeed, it may all come down to quarantine. European invaders just wanted to get on the land, with all their agues and poxes, but the port authorities insisted than anyone travelling east across the Atlantic should have a clean bill of health before disembarking.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 26/06/2022 10:50:37 »

Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.

I was at a Monday project meeting some years back, when we were building a new clinic. Doctors, scientists, engineers, craftsmen and bankers sat around my boardroom table. The architect arrived last and said he had just returned from a  visit to Auschwitz "which was designed, built and run by people just like us". Sobering thought, my friend.

10

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 26/06/2022 10:43:06 »

 Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.

Not true. The "instructions" are needed for cells to replicate, and once formed (by the laws of physics and chemistry) they can evolve into all sorts of interesting things and a few very dull ones that believe in magic.

11

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 25/06/2022 22:41:24 »

Not "possibly".

Titanic was a civilian ship authorised to carry passengers and mail, not a military vessel loaded with guns. The distinction is clear and obvious, even to the color of the flag  she flew: blue ensign for a civilian ship commanded by a member of the Royal Navy Reserve and carrying mail.  White is reserved for the Royal Navy itself or ships commandeered or authorised  by the  Ministry of Defence, and red for all merchant ships under civilian command. Royal Air Force search and rescue vessels are also "HMS" and carry a blue ensign with the RAF roundel.

Therefore definitely RMS, not HMS.

And it wasn't her first voyage, which was from Belfast to Southampton.

Facts are very important in science. 

12

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 25/06/2022 16:41:57 »

HMS Titanic on its first, and last, voyage.

That's how it looks

RMS (Royal Mail Ship), please. HMS is military only.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 25/06/2022 14:43:41 »

I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.

In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.

Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.

Whilst vegans don't drink milk, the quantity of water required to produce a liter of almond "milk" is ludicrous. Nonveggies argue that the culled bull calf will be eaten anyway, either now as veal or later as beef, but beef is a very inefficient form of grass-protein conversion so now is better.

14

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 25/06/2022 11:40:54 »

The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.

Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?

15

Just Chat! / Re: Erectile Dysfunction And Its Solution

« on: 25/06/2022 11:35:24 »

OK, Paul, here's a detumescive response to your rampant wit.

AFAIK (not IIRC) Sildenafil does not induce spontaneous or sustained erection: stimulation is also required.  Ergo no pandemic of priapism.

Pedant? Moi? Now where's that damned tongue-in-cheek  emoticon?

Switch-mode power to your elbow, my friend!

16

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 25/06/2022 11:21:11 »

Suppose I could have prevented the birth of Pol Pot. Serious negative impact on one known conscious being, major benefit to everyone else. Moral or immoral?

Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?

Contraception?

Spaying a pet dog?

Ah, philosophy. Ask a question with no defined parameters, then get paid for not answering it.

17

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 25/06/2022 11:12:03 »

You could save yourself a lot of pointless effort by simply suggesting that I read the Guardian. I don't see evidence of anyone else reading your posts, and the Guardian is quite well written if a bit predictable.

18

Just Chat! / Re: Erectile Dysfunction And Its Solution

« on: 24/06/2022 18:15:59 »

Still the best and funniest advert on TV, though.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Occam's razor, what most likely happened to Amelia Earhart?

« on: 24/06/2022 18:12:05 »

Hardly infancy. The first flight from England  to Australia was in 1919, by which time at least one war had been fought with fighters and bombers.

Nothing particularly unpredictable about the Pacific ocean (essentially, buggerall chance of survival if you hit it in any kind of  airplane) but it is VERY BIG so a small headwind can result in ending up hundreds of miles short of your planned destination even if you were pointing in the right direction. Also VERY EMPTY so little chance of getting a credible enroute weather report even if your surface station radio is working. And

Earhart's transmissions seemed to indicate she and Noonan believed they had reached Howland's charted position, which was incorrect by about five nautical miles (10 km).

So their navigation may have been perfect but the chart was wrong, and they were certainly short of fuel at the time of their last known radio contact, when they said they were tracking north and south at 1000 ft in scattered low cloud looking for Howland island.

20

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 24/06/2022 17:43:22 »

Alan, humanity, not you personally deciding.

Not sure whether the majority of humanity actually supports the development of nuclear weapons. The democratic nations that possess them only require about 30% of the electorate to approve any particular policy, and dictatorships don't consult the population anyway, so the best estimate is maybe 15% of the world's population being prepared to fund them and the other 85% either being forced to do so or living in counties that don't have them at all. 

Don't blame human beings for what politicians do.