Guano (1)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. Rich: Because telling people to shut up is not calm, rational discourse. Clam rational discourse invites and considers other opinions.

    But only a moron would say I told somene to shut up.

  2. Joe G: That you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child- you just said it in the middle of nothing as if you were confessing.

    That’s a very poor quote-mine, even by your dishonest standards. go back and read the post, and what it was replying to.

  3. Rich: That’s a very poor quote-mine, even by your dishonest standards. go back and read the post, and what it was replying to.

    Rich- you were standing in the middle of the room, holding your pee-pee and pissed yourself.

    That is what I saw.

  4. Rich: Joe: “What are you talking about?

    Please make your case.

    Or shut up.

    Thanks

    ”

    Exactly- If I had told someone to shut up I would have said “shut up” without anything else. However I provided a choice- dumbass

  5. Toronto:
    Joe G,

    Don’t stop now Joe.

    You’re demonstrating the behaviour of someone with a weak message and that’s what’s needed to stop the inroads of ID/creationism.

    We have to show that the ID/creationist side has an argument that doesn’t stand up and there’s no better way to display that than showing one of its supporters sweating under pressure.

    What pressure? What sweat?

    Look at the evotards’ behaviour you selective fuck.

  6. Joe G: Rich- you were standing in the middle of the room, holding your pee-pee and pissed yourself.That is what I saw.

    That’s the stuff. That’s the retort of a sharp mind, on top of his game, who’s winning the debate through unassailable logic, backed by empirical evidence. That’s the voice of someone you’d take seriously on matters of science. Well played sir, well played. I am deeply offended by your sophisticated jibe. It’s like having the rapier wit of Noël Coward thrust through my very soul. I’m off to cry for a while, having been cut down by your brutal, yet savagely beautiful word-play.

  7. Rich: That’s the stuff. That’s the retort of a sharp mind, on top of his game, who’s winning the debate through unassailable logic, backed by empirical evidence. That’s the voice of someone you’d take seriously on matters of science. Well played sir, well played. I am deeply offended by your sophisticated jibe. It’s like having the rapier wit of Noël Coward thrust through my very soul. I’m off to cry for a while, having been cut down by your brutal, yet savagely beautiful word-play.

    No, I use the same tactics as my opponents- no need to waste unassailable logic, backed by empirical evidence on a bunch of obvioulsy clueless evotards.

    However I await the day when evotards use unassailable logic, backed by empirical evidence- hopefully that day comes before the 22nd century

  8. Joe G: No, I use the same tactics as my opponents

    Yes, we often fabricate stories of people holding genitalia and wetting themselves. When we’re not making flash animations with fart noises.

  9. Wow. I go away for a bit and Joe has a non-stop massive tardgasm for the better part of the whole day.

    All those insults and evasions and he didn’t answer a single question about his magical “cell internal” GAs.

    Joe’s a real beauty, ain’t he?

  11. Rich,

    This thread is supposed to be about GAs- however that is a subject that obvioulsy you are ignorant of.

    So why are you here?

  12. Joe G: I don’t want it deleted- it demonstrates evotards are clueless liars, who falsely accuse people and can’t support anything but their despeartion.

    I’m sure you think you’re doing great, making stuff up on the fly, misunderstanding things, having ‘GAs that are safe from genetic entropy due to agency involvement’!!

    The hard part for us is do we point inquisitive minds here, or to your ‘Guano’?

  13. Joe G:
    Rich,

    This thread is supposed to be about GAs- however that is a subject that obvioulsy you are ignorant of.

    So why are you here?

    Yeah, it’s supposed to be. Instead it’s all about Joe Gallien making incredibly dumbass claims about GAs, then running away from all questions and demonstrating conclusively he doesn’t understand them even a little.

    So why are YOU here Joe?

  14. Rich: Joe, working practitioners in the GA / optimization space have found your understanding of GAs here to be wrong. So I don’t think you should be commenting on other’s understanding until you fix your own.

    Liar- I have corrected Lizzie- and no one else had any evidence to supprt their claims.

    Now we have you, a total moron, trying to support other morons.

    It doesn’t work that way. No one has demonstrated my understanding of GAs is incorrect.

  15. Thorton: Yeah, it’s supposed to be.Instead it’s all about Joe Gallien making incredibly dumbass claims about GAs, then running away from all questions and demonstrating conclusively he doesn’t understand them even a little.

    So why are YOU here Joe?

    Liar.

  16. Rich: I’m sure you think you’re doinggreat, making stuff up on the fly, misunderstanding things, having ‘GAs that are safe from genetic entropy due to agency involvement’!!

    The hard part for us is do we point inquisitive minds here, or to your ‘Guano’?

    And more ignorant spewage from the RichTard

  17. However given RichTard’s response to my blog posts on GAs it is obvious he doesn’t have a clue.

    As for thortard, it is just a hopeless pile of shit anyway…

  18. Thorton: The fact that you think a GA can run internally to an individual organism doing the evolving instead of externally affecting the selection pressure on the whole population is one easy example of your incompetence.

    So just because YOU don’t have a clue that means I am incompotent?

    How can the GA help the organism change its DNA if it isn’t internal to the organism?

    Thanks for proving that you are a moron- as if I needed more evidence…

  21. Thorton: No, the fact that you’ve demonstrated total incompetence in the subject means you’re incompetent.

    There isn’t any GA internal to the organism helping to change its DNA.

    You’re welcome.

    The fact that thortard the fuckhead sez I demonstrated total incompotence means I am an expert.

    The fact that thortard cannot support his position proves he is a coward.

  22. Rich: Yes. WP kindly swallowed the greater than / less than symbols. DNA and genes are not, of themselves GAs, Joe.

    I never said nor implied that they were- dumbass.

  24. olegt: Joe, if you use the standard definition, the GA is not “internal to the organism.” It’s the other way around.

    You are retarded- this is not like the GAs we use- we don’t know how to program an organism.

    The definition of a GA is it is a search heuristic- you don’t get to tell designers what type of GA they have to design-

  25. Look you assholes wanted to know how the designer controlled/ directed mutations- A GA/ GP would do it nicely.

    But thanks for proving that you cannot understand anything.

  27. Rich: So is GBF, Simulated annealing etc, but they aren’t GAs. Very imprecise, you really have no clue, do you?

    Rich- you are a fucking moron wrt GAs- fuck off.

  28. Thorton: That is not a definition of a GA Joe.That is a description of the function of a GA.

    There are lots of different search heuristics. GAs are one specific type with specific attributes.

    That’s another example of your incompetence.

    Asshole that is the definition wikipedia uses

  29. Rich: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!’Shappy’ must be relieved. Can’t type fast enough, eh Joe? Its the adrenalin.

    And we are STILL waiting for any sign of a rational argument from the RichTARD…

  30. Joe G: answer the question oleg:oleg- in the real world- not an artificial world- where the fuck could a designer put the GA. besides inside of organisms, in order for it to direct mutations?

    That question begging doesn’t even make sense. What a Maroon!

  31. Rich: That question begging doesn’t even make sense. What a Maroon!

    Of course it wouldn’t make sense, to YOU.

    And ASSHOLE just going with the scenario where would he put it-

  32. Joe G: And ASSHOLE just going with the scenario where would he put it-

    Well done. The global village has found it’s idiot. You don’t understand GAs at all. You might as well ask where in the cell is Wednesday.

  33. Rich: Well done. The global village has found it’s idiot. You don’t understand GAs at all. You might as well ask where in the cell is Wednesday.

    Fuck you and your ignorant false accusation.

    YOU don’t know anything- you have NEVER demonstrated any knowledge at all

    All you are good for is fuckhead false accusations and bullshit lies.

  34. And again RichTARD- if you could just step up and actually support the claims of your position, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    However you are too much of a coward to do something like that.

  35. Joe G: All you are good for is fuckhead false accusations and bullshit lies.

    Awww, you’re trembling. Take a break big guy. It’s not worth it.

  36. Rich: Awww, you’re trembling. Take a break big guy. It’s not worth it.

    Awww, you’re still a fucking low-life moron- and you are not worth it.

  37. Joe G: In my scenario- just as on Star Trek, it would be inside.

    Which episode was that Joe? ID = science fiction!

  38. Rich: Which episode was that Joe? ID = science fiction!

    It’s an EXAMPLE you moron- something your position doesn’t have.

    Again your inability to think outside of your simple-minded box is very revealing

  40. And again RichTARD- if you could just step up and actually support the claims of your position, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    However you are too much of a coward to do something like that.

    as predicted…

  41. madbat089:
    JoeG said: “There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside.”

    This is funny. It’s like someone trying to figure out whether the *two* in *two geese* is inside or outside the geese.

    It is a given that your head is up your ass

  42. I’d feel sorry for him, but our little culture warrior can’t be wrong. Bless!

  43. Thorton:
    Did this idiot really offer an example from Star Trek as evidence of his claimed intra-cell GAs???

    How can you top that?

    Joe, you’re the best!

    No moron- I offered it as an example of GAs INSIDE of the thing they are controlling- it is an EXAMPLE and seeing your position doesn’t have any, I can see where you would be confused.

    Also science-fiction, well if you mock that then you ain’t interested in science- the science fiction of yesterday is today’s science.

    Besides “The Island of Dr Moreau” is your position’s documentary…

  44. olegt: Rich, but obviously the definition of a car does not prevent it from being inside a steering wheel!

    No but according to you morons the engine must be outside- or is it the transmission?

  46. olegt:
    Really, when someone says that “fitness is a nonsensical term” and later claims that he “go[es] by the standard and accepted definitions of GPs and GAs and EAs” he is not being consistent. For genetic algorithms definitely rely on a fitness function.

    Dumbass- fitness wrt biology = reproductive success and doesn’t have to relate to physical fitness- that was my point. You can’t tell until after.

    That said in a VIRTUAL environment the GA can be outside of the organisms- in the real world the GAs have to be inside the organism.

    As I said you are a small-minded fool…

  48. olegt: This thread is not about your industry, it is about genetic algorithms.

    My industry uses them.

    I have explained myself- that you have to be a fucking asshole about it proves that you have lost this argument

  49. Joe G:

    Random mutations directed towards a goal = ID. Random mutations accumualting any way they can = BWE

    Good job Joe. You just spent the last 500 posts arguing that the mutations AREN’T random but are being actively caused by the GA.

    I doubt you could make yourself look any more clueless if you tried, but do keep on.

  50. Thorton: Non sequitur.You have not established that there are GAs or “goals” inside of living cells.

    ALL GAs have goals you moron- and you have yet to establish anything for your position.

Comments are closed.