Tag: 杭州洗浴中心600随便玩

Posted in mayitfactdvf

Spore Game: Evolution or ID?

first_imgSpore is a highly-anticipated computer game that just came out.  Evolutionists are claiming it as a model of how life evolves – but intelligent-design advocates are calling it an ID game, pure and simple.  Who’s right?    Carl Zimmer, a science writer, is among those counting Spore points for Darwin.  His blog entry from Discover Magazine leads to an article on the New York Times sporting a large depiction of Tiktaalik, the alleged fish evolving legs (04/06/2006).  In “Gaming Evolves,” Zimmer gets evolutionary biologists to comment on the game.  The reviews are positive but mixed.  They enjoy the game, but Dr. Richard Prum commented, “The mechanism is severely messed up.”  Presumably it does not accurately depict the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations.  The game only touches on some of the big questions of evolutionary biology, Prum continued: What is the origin of complexity?  And how contingent is evolution on happenstance?  Nevertheless, he feels that if it helps players ask these questions, “that would be great.”    Spore was written by Will Wright, author of the popular game SimCity and its spin-offs.  Wright was motivated by the work of evolutionary biologists and prior simulations like Avida (05/08/2003) and Evarium.  In Spore, he wanted to “give players an experience of life and the universe across billions of years, from microscopic creatures to interstellar civilizations.”  So he invented a virtual landscape that allows players to create organisms that mate and evolve and deal with the unexpected.  The question remains: is this evolution or intelligent design?    The game avoids the problem of the origin of life by starting with spores from outer space.  Then, players exercise choice and direction over what happens:The game begins with a meteorite crashing into a planet, sowing its oceans with life and organic matter.  Players control a simple creature that gobbles up bits of debris.  They can choose to eat other creatures or eat vegetation or both.  As the creature eats and grows, it gains DNA points, which the player can use to add parts like tails for swimming or spikes for defense.  Once the creature has gotten big and complex enough, it is ready for the transition to land.    On land, the creatures can grow legs, wings and other new parts.  And it is at this point that some of Spore’s features really shine.  Mr. Wright’s team has written software that can rapidly transform creatures in an infinite number of ways, as players add parts and alter their size, shape and position.In other words, players don’t need to sit and wait for millions of years with hands off; the game puts control in their hands in time-lapse.  Is that evolution?  Furthermore, it is doubtful if Wright would take kindly to hear his software attributed to chance and necessity.  Nevertheless, he feels that the balance between cooperation and competition designed into the game is what drives the emergence of complexity in the wild.    Meanwhile, over at the SETI Institute, Frank and Jill and the other alien-hunters are going nuts playing Spore games during work hours, building Mr. Alien Potato-Head and other imaginary creatures.  Seth Shostak, director, is even joining in the fun.  He wrote for Space.com that it’s not only fun, it could inspire young people to become scientists (hopefully SETI members).  “When you’re young, it’s the inspiration that counts – the emotional appeal,” he said proudly.    Some evolutionists, though, have noticed the chinks in the claim the game represents evolution.  They might be worried the “design flaws” (so to speak) could be exploited by members of the intelligent design community.  They seem eager to state up front, therefore, that Spore is not quite like “real” evolution.  Zimmer explained on page 3,Even as scientists praise Spore, they voice concerns about how the game does not match evolution.  In the real world, new traits evolve as mutations arise and spread gradually through entire populations.  Winning Spore’s DNA points does not work even as a remote metaphor.    “I do hope that it doesn’t confuse people as to what evolution is all about,” said Charles Ofria, a computer scientist at Michigan State University and a creator of Avida.    Spore may also mislead players with the way it is set up as a one-dimensional march of progress from single-cell life to intelligence.  Evolution is more like a tree than a line, with species branching in millions of directions.  Sometimes species become more complex, and sometimes they become less so.  And sometimes they do not change at all.  “There’s no progressive arrow that dominates nature,” Dr. Prum said.    These caveats notwithstanding, Dr. [Thomas] Near [Yale] hopes that Spore prompts people to think about the evolutionary process.  “This may be totally off about how evolution works, but I’d much rather be dealing with a student who says, ‘O.K., I have no problem with evolution; I think about it the same way I think about gravity.’”  If it does that, it’ll be great.”This seems to imply that Spore does not have value in convincing non-believers in evolution, but only in reinforcing the convictions of those who already have “no problem with evolution.”    Another scientist who liked Spore in spite of its faults was Neil Shubin, discoverer of Tiktaalik (04/06/2006) and author of Your Inner Fish (01/16/2008)  He didn’t mind its differences with nature.  It’s only a game, he reminded everyone.  “It is not identical to nature, but it is a world that evolves, that changes and where the players are part of those processes.”  Shubin was especially pleased with the Tiktaalik that he and Wright “designed” in Spore, if one will pardon the expression.  But if players can design body parts and direct what happens, is it really a world that evolves?    Seth Shostak revealed that the game’s creator “has frequently visited the SETI Institute, and says he drew inspiration for the new game from its various research programs.”  Will Wright had a curious metaphor for his game.  He called it “manure to seed future scientists.”Since future scientists are presumably human beings and not plants, it is disgusting to spread manure on them.  Will Wright may be a clever inventor like Wilbur Wright, but in the unforgiving air of critical analysis of evolution, his invention won’t fly.  Adding a lot of hot air underneath violates the rules.    It’s no wonder evolutionists love this game.  They live in Fantasyland, where Tinker Bell helps them wish upon a star, and all their Darwinian dreams come true.  They love digital organisms, not real ones.  They flourish in a playground where imagination is king.  They don’t want students to learn about evolution; they want them to have an experience of it.  They want their minds to soar off into millions of mythical years where miracles happen, given enough time.  If they really wanted a real-world simulation of evolution, they would turn the computer off and shake it for a million years.    The perceptive onlooker sees intelligent design all over the place (cf. 11/14/2006).  It took ID to build the hardware.  It took ID to write the software.  It takes ID for the players to guide the outcomes according to their own purposes and plans.  And all the complex organs – wings, lungs and legs that Spore conjures up on demand – are conveniently pre-designed in software modules.  To really simulate Darwin’s scenario, how about we take the players’ hands off the controls and throw in a few random mutations in the code from time to time.    The awarding of “DNA points” to fake organisms unmasks the hype that somehow Spore represents evolution.  In nature, who rewards anyone?  Survival is not a reward.  The last man standing is not necessarily going to be rewarded with wings.  It’s the origin of innovative function that is the problem.  Wright designed an evolutionary algorithm to solve the problem, but it presupposes a purpose and direction that nature cannot provide.  As William Dembski proved in No Free Lunch, no evolutionary algorithm, when stripped of auxiliary information, is superior to blind search.  The giving of awards to help evolution represents the insertion of auxiliary information into the system – a form of cheating.  With deft analogies and rigorous mathematical reasoning, Dembski reduces all evolutionary algorithms to blind search, and then shows mathematically that getting complex specified information at the complexity level of life by blind search is less probable than the universal probability bound of one chance in 10-150 – i.e., it will never happen.    Evolutionists deceive themselves into thinking this game has anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Then they deceive players and students quite literally by enticing them to “think about the evolutionary process” with a game that is literally saturated with intelligent-design requirements.  Chalk this up as another example of the “useful lie” tactic with which evolutionary manure is spread on the unsuspecting (e.g., 06/29/2007).    If you’re a vegetable (e.g., a couch potato), you might enjoy the fertilizer.  Future sentient scientists, however, need nutritious food, exercise, sound reasoning, ethics and a valid education about the real world – not manure.(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Continue Reading Spore Game: Evolution or ID?
Posted in fewjzcltzucd

Record attendance in Nashville as NCBA members elect officers

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The 2017 Cattle Industry Convention and NCBA Trade Show wrapped up on Saturday with the election of Nebraska cattleman Craig Uden as the organization’s new president. More than 9,300 people attended this year’s convention, shattering the previous record of 8,200, to engage in grassroots policy process, hear from industry experts and attend the expansive tradeshow. Attendees enjoyed live music all week and closed the convention with a night at the Grand Ole Opry.Kevin Kester of Parkfield, Calif., was voted to serve as NCBA president-elect. Jennifer Houston of Sweetwater, Tenn., will serve as vice president. Jerry Effertz of Velva, N.D., is the new Federation chairman and the new Federation vice chair is Dawn Caldwell of Edgar, Neb. The new NCBA Policy Division chairman is Joe Guild, Reno, Nev. and Jerry Bohn of Pratt, Kan., is the new policy vice chairman.Uden, a fourth-generation cattleman from Elwood, Neb., said he is proud to lead the organization.“It is an honor to be selected to lead the industry that my family has worked in for four generations,” Uden said. “We have a great opportunity in the coming year and sharing our story on Capitol Hill and around the country is going to be top priority.”Uden is a partner in Darr Feedlot Inc., a commercial cattle feeding operation in central Nebraska. Craig and his wife, Terri, also own and manage a commercial cow-calf operation.In addition to electing the new officer team, NCBA members voted on new and expiring policy issues, and set policy priorities for the organization that will direct the efforts of NCBA in Washington D.C., and elsewhere.“The coming year is going to be a huge one for the cattle and beef industry from a policy standpoint,” Uden said. “We are facing unprecedented change in Washington D.C., and we’re going to work tirelessly to make sure our producers’ voices are heard in Washington on important issues like tax reform, regulatory relief and international trade.”last_img read more

Continue Reading Record attendance in Nashville as NCBA members elect officers
Posted in jtejzywlantv

What Glee Means for Twitter & Television

first_imgRelated Posts Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… mike melanson The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos When you watch TV, do you watch with a smartphone in-hand or a laptop by your side, so you can keep up with what everyone is saying on Twitter? One TV show, more than the rest, has captured the attention of the Twitterverse and its popularity has implications for both Twitter and television.More and more, Twitter is becoming a side dish for prime time entertainment and, as the networks catch on, it’s becoming a tool for bringing the audience back from the land of DVRs and time-shifted television into real-time viewing. But how?Twitter CEO Dick Costolo discussed the Glee phenomena earlier this month at the Consumer Electronics Show when he sat down to talk with Kara Swisher. Costolo explains that TV and Twitter have an interesting relationship because, more and more, viewers have a device in their hand while they’re watching TV.“The characters on Glee actually tweet and they tweet during the show. When Glee starts, the moment it airs for the first time on the East Coast, the tweets per second for Glee shoot up,” said Costolo. “They stay up there at a super high level at hundreds of [times] what they are before the show comes on until the moment the show ends and then they drop. […] People feel like they have to watch the show while it’s going on because the community is tweeting about the show and the characters are tweeting as the show’s happening so [they have to] watch it in real time.” Click here to view full screen.Appozite co-founder Jenn Deering Davis said that TweetReach, a tweet-tracking media analytics tool, saw the same phenomena last weekend during the Golden Globe awards. Glee not only took the award for “Best TV Series” but also for reaching the largest audience, with one “#Glee” tweet being retweeted 2,262 times, passing its nearest competition by 1,348 retweets. It seems that, by including in-show tweeting and interaction with fans when the show is off the air, Glee has managed to create a following of Twitter-dependent fans who love to tweet about it.“It’s interesting what this kind of behavior says about the growing convergence between internet and TV,” said Deering Davis. “It’s not all Google TV and Roku; it’s also taking the web tools we already use (Twitter, Facebook, IM) and integrating them into our TV-watching experience. People seem to be doing this a lot.”What does this Twitter popularity mean for the show and the networks?Costolo says that it means big things for getting viewers back to real-time viewing, rather than recording an episode on DVR and skipping the commercials, and that the networks are loving it.Deering Davis agreed, saying that the phenomenon is a sort of cultural shift in television viewing.“There is something culturally significant to the real-time shared experiences created by TV/media events like the Golden Globes or the newest episode of Glee,” said Deering Davis. “With Twitter, we now are able to collectively experience TV like never before. In the past, TV has often been a passive, even isolating, form of entertainment consumption, but with Twitter and other social media it can be much more social and interactive.”The big question now is, what form does this interaction come in? Costolo noted this point in his interview with Kara Swisher, asking if this will come as an on-screen experience or if it will remain on the tiny screens in hands and on our laps. Twitter has already made its way onto the big screen in the form of integrated TV sets and set-top boxes like Google and Apple TV, but are people using it?Whatever screen they’re looking at, one thing is certain – they’re watching TV and tweeting at the same time. During the Golden Globes last weekend, tweets reached a peak of 3,554, according to the TweetReach data, which is just under half of the 7,400 tweets per minute seen during the iPad launch last year. As networks take notice, we’re likely to see more and more in-character tweeting to assure we’re paying attention when they want us to pay attention and not on our own, commercial-free time frame.As for what all of this means for Twitter, perhaps it will end the age old question of non-Twitter users about why they would want to hear about what someone is eating for lunch. Perhaps connecting Twitter with television is just what it needs to reach critical mass.center_img Tags:#Internet TV#NYT#twitter#web Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Auditlast_img read more

Continue Reading What Glee Means for Twitter & Television
Posted in asjipkupjnct

Indigenous cybernoir Video game designers crafting futuristic detective story

first_imgAdvertisement Advertisement A group of Indigenous female developers in Hamilton, Ontario, are putting their own cultural spin on the usually male-dominated video game industry.Purity & Decay is a futuristic detective video game being developed by Achimostawinan, a company of five people — four of whom are Indigenous.The game’s prototype was created over just two days in February of this year at an event held by the Toronto organization Dames Making Games by two Indigenous women, Meagan Byrne and Tara Miller. Login/Register With: Meagan Byrne and Tara Miller are two of the Indigenous women behind Purity & Decay, a cybernoir video game. (Meagan Byrne/Tara Miller/Contributed) LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment center_img Facebook “I remember talking about how interesting it would be to take that kind of thing and present it in an Indigenous way,” said Miller.The game is set in North America of 2262, where a class system divides people both metaphorically and physically and the ruling class lives in floating cities. The protagonist, private eye Myeengun Hill, is sought out by a woman to help find answers about her sister’s murder.READ MORE Advertisement Twitterlast_img read more

Continue Reading Indigenous cybernoir Video game designers crafting futuristic detective story