18 Responses to “Friday Brain Teaser”

1. salimfadhley Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 7:51 am

   All you need to save yourself is self-belief, sometimes in the teeth of the all evidence. I'd go and read Just go and read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and stop worrying about the cliff, zebra and tiger.

   You are on your horse galloping at a constant speed.

   Didnt you mean "constant angular velocity".

   get your drunk ass off the merry-go-round!

   Of course, it is also true that you and the zebera are chasing the tiger.

Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 7:51 am

2. David Heddle Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am

   Didnt you mean "constant angular velocity".

   No, constant speed is quite accurate.

Comment by David Heddle — July 27, 2007 @ 9:07 am

3. salimfadhley Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am

   No, constant speed is quite accurate.

   I'd better stick to Ayn Rand then…

   

Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 9:22 am

4. Jehu Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 11:56 am

   I would think that this article about how genetic variation within species declines over time to be published in the July 27 issue of Science has interesting implications for a front loading scenerio. The article explains how research by a paleontologist at the University of Chicago shows how (at least in the case of trilobites) when species first emerge they have more variation and as time goes on the variation declines then the species goes extinct.

Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 11:56 am

5. chunkdz Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

   salim
   

   All you need to save yourself is self-belief, sometimes in the teeth of the all evidence.

   What a dork.

Comment by chunkdz — July 27, 2007 @ 12:46 pm

6. Doug Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

   All you need to save yourself is self-belief, sometimes in the teeth of the all evidence.

   laaaaaaame.
   It's funny to watch a fundamentalist shoehorn their agenda into any possible situation.

Comment by Doug — July 27, 2007 @ 1:33 pm

7. salimfadhley Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

   laaaaaaame.
   It's funny to watch a fundamentalist shoehorn their agenda into any possible situation.

   Do you object to the notion that Randian philosophy might be helpful on the roundabout of life? Perhaps you would prefer the philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard instead?

   After a course of dianetic auditing you might be able to float off the roundabout.

Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

8. David Heddle Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm

   OT: Personally I reject Ayn Rand on a couple of fronts: one is that she published several of the most hideously written novels of all time, with characters so one dimensional that it makes the mind reel. Second, she was, in my opinion, a fraud. While pretending to worship on the altar of individualism, she clearly basked in the glory in her role as a cult leader for a bunch of a highly non-independent followers. Had she been true to herself, she would have told the bozos at the Ayn Rand Institute: go out and get a real job and produce some wealth, you parasites.

Comment by David Heddle — July 27, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

9. salimfadhley Says:
   July 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

   Personally I reject Ayn Rand on a couple of fronts: one is that she published several of the most hideously written novels of all time, with characters so one dimensional that it makes the mind reel.

   My original comment was mainly intended as a jibe at her preposterously bad fiction, something that only Rand-ist ideologues could truly love.

   I might also level the same criticism about C. S. Lewis, whose overt Christianity I have no problem with but whose cloying, twee fiction, wooden characters and asinine plots I find utterly irritating. Anybody who has taken time to read Lewis's noxious pot-boiler "That Hideous Strength" should feel justified in shredding his complete works.

   On the other hand, I have no problem at all with J K Rowling, Tolkein and Lewis Carrol, all of whom were/are Christians who delight in expounding their redemptive philosophy through fiction, but all much, much better writers.

   

Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 5:19 pm

10. MikeGene Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    Salim:
    

    All you need to save yourself is self-belief, sometimes in the teeth of the all evidence. I'd go and read Just go and read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and stop worrying about the cliff, zebra and tiger"¦..Didnt you mean "constant angular velocity""¦.Of course, it is also true that you and the zebera are chasing the tiger.

    Er, did you realize that was a joke?

Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2007 @ 5:24 pm

11. salimfadhley Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Yes, as soon as I read the punchline. My comment was not intended seriously either…

    …Except for the bit about Ayn Rand… that was deadly serious.

    

Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 5:26 pm

12. MikeGene Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    It looks to me like you tried to start another fight in a thread with a harmless little joke.

Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2007 @ 5:28 pm

13. Jehu Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Anybody who has taken time to read Lewis's noxious pot-boiler "That Hideous Strength" should feel justified in shredding his complete works.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. "That Hidieous Strength" is a great book. I recommed it to everybody who reads this thread.

Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

14. kornbelt888 Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    "What must you do to get out of this highly dangerous situation?"

    I'd pull out my S&W and shoot the tiger in the head, then the elephant.

Comment by kornbelt888 — July 27, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

15. dantedanti Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

    holding a degree in literature, i think i have the official credentials to say, rand, cs lewis, and the lady who wrote harry potter, should all be shot for their fiction.

    i find nabakov's lolita to be perhaps one of the best books ever written in english.

    on the note of the zebra, tiger, elephant, etc……
    the answer is rather obviously obvious: get off the high horse, and say hello to hobbes. he never gave calvin more than a rumble tumble now and again, nothing more.

    :mrgreen::shock::idea:

Comment by dantedanti — July 27, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

16. BoZ3MaN Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 5:36 am

    Does the answer have to be purely materialistic? For example, could I use Astral Teleportation in my answer?

Comment by BoZ3MaN — July 28, 2007 @ 5:36 am

17. Randy Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    dantedanti
    

    cs lewis, and the lady who wrote harry potter, should all be shot for their fiction.

    Too late for Lewis. He died on the same day Kennedy was shot.

Comment by Randy — July 28, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

18. eric Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    Jehu: I would think that this article about how genetic variation within species declines over time to be published in the July 27 issue of Science has interesting implications for a front loading scenerio. The article explains how research by a paleontologist at the University of Chicago shows how (at least in the case of trilobites) when species first emerge they have more variation and as time goes on the variation declines then the species goes extinct.

    Yes, I'm inclined to agree that this could have "interesting implications for a front loading scenario." From a systems perspective, I believe it is quite reasonable that evolutionary progression can lead to increased constraints on further change.

    "The paper is relevant to the big question of what fueled the Cambrian radiation, and why that event was so singular," said UC-Riverside's Hughes of Webster's study. It appears that organisms displayed "rampant" within-species variation "in the "˜warm afterglow' of the Cambrian explosion," Hughes said, but not later. "No one has shown this convincingly before, and that's why this is so important."
    …
    The genomic hypothesis offers a second explanation for the decline of within-species variation over time. According to this idea, internal processes in the organism were the key factors. Various developmental processes interact with one another to control the growth and formation of body parts as any organism progresses from egg to adult.

    "It's been suggested that early on in evolutionary history, in the Cambrian Period, the degree to which these different developmental processes interacted with each other within the organism was a lot less," Webster said. "As a result, the constraints on what the final organism looked like were relatively low."

    Its interesting that Webster came to this conclusion of reduced variation over time while studying trilobytes, with 17,000 known species and which "once were the most common creatures in the world's oceans".

    Kazuo Kawano seems to have arrived at a similar observation from his study of the order Coleoptera (beetles), which "contains more described species in it than in any other order in the animal kingdom" (Wikipedia).

    You can't fault either for picking cases that lack potential for diversity.

    Kawano: The fact that phyla, classes, orders, and families had evolved in the remote past and never evolved again suggests that higher taxa, once evolved as a framework of variation, have stayed unchanged from the time of their emergence to today. The facts and logic indicate that the morphological evolution of multicellular animals has not been a spreading process but a process of diminishing dynamics where the magnitude of evolutionary effects on morphology decreased with time. Evolution is not a process of micro variations accumulating to macro effects but of macro effects preceding micro variations (p. 50).

Comment by eric — July 28, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.