Slashdot Mirror

Except you bring zero evidence that cogitation has anything to do with your genetic inheritance in humans

Sure but there's existing evidence around: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text

So given current scientific evidence regarding heritability and intelligence, I suggest that my claim that "most of it is born" with respect to mathematically geniuses is highly plausible.

Teaching is still very important just like coaches, training and practice are still very important for sprinters.

But the evidence is that geniuses are mostly born not made just like top sprinters are mostly born not made.

You can teach almost anyone to fight or do math or to run, but not all will be top fighters, math geniuses or world record sprinters.

And like it or not in many fields the top count more than the rest. Few care about the sprinter who finished 10th. Few care if you are the 10th to independently discover the Theory of Relativity (unless you do it when you are four or something ;) ).

But in other areas it's not so important, so people who aren't going to be the best in the "Star fields" may be better off in those other areas.

It's not average or even above intelligence they care about here. They are looking for the best.

Analogy: they are not looking for those who can merely run fast. They are looking for what makes the top sprinters the top sprinters.

Like it or not, there's at least some research that indicates I'm more likely to be right than wrong:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text

So for your claims that I'm wrong that most of it is born, I'd say show me some scientific evidence first. If most of intelligence is linked to genetics (based on research as mentioned) then arguably most of "math genius" is likely to be linked to genetics too.

Maybe I can help.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing!
911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
Pentagon 9/11

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Flight 93
9/11 investigators tell of piecing together mystery of Penn. crash
Direct Evidence
9/11: The Day of the Attacks
Response and Recovery - Shanksville, Pennsylvania

OK, then explain Canada. Very similar to Australia demographically...lots of land, with 90% of the population living on something like 5% of the land. I live in a relatively out-of-the-way part of BC, and I get rock solid 25Mbps down, 5Mbps up for less that $70/month. Many of my friends in densely populated parts of the US can't get that.

Simple. We piggyback on the connectivity that the US has built up. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to run trunk lines over land than it is over oceans...this added to the fact that "an estimated 75% of Canadians live within 161 km (100 miles) of the U.S. border" adds up to (theoretically) very low cost-per-bit data rates for us Canucks, even in the more remote areas. The fact that we generally have less people per square km competing for the same local tubes as compared to the U.S. doesn't hurt, either.

This map illustrates the undersea cable situation pretty well, despite being a couple of years out of date.

Tesla Motors hopes to open Va. dealership http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/tesla-motors-plans-to-open-tysons-corner-dealership/2013/10/08/03547620-3020-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html Bonus Nikola Tesla link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-nikola-tesla-surprising-facts-statue-museum-science/

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Too fucking easy.

Dealing with your 'blockquote' style is way too hard. I suspect this is a rathole, and nobody else is reading it, and that you know what you said, so I'll omit the quotes.

So, your assertion is that changes in CO2 levels is NOT caused by human activity, or that the contribution by humans is negligible. Sadly, most authorities disagree with you. I have no way of measuring the effect, so I can't weigh in, other than to mention that I trust folks who do this for a living far more than I trust you. Here are a few links:

EPA
IPCC
NOAA
More IPCC
RealClimate

According to folks that study this, the sea level is rising. Here are some links:

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Geographic
EPA
NASA, scroll down.

The ice core mystery has been explained in such a way that the time differences are in the noise. Here is a link that attempts to explain it: arstechnica. However, one obvious reason why CO2 might follow temperature rises is that lots of CO2 is released in the arctic tundra when the permafrost melts. As solar cycles cause warming CO2 is released. However, it could easily be a situation where small changes in temperature cause CO2 spikes, which then contribute to a feedback loop. Since nobody was there, nobody really knows for sure. However, this article describes a paper in Nature 2012 that describes the feedback loop. Note the paper assumes that excess CO2 causes temperature rises. That is pretty much not contested at this point, I believe, due to a strong theoretical understanding of the interactions. Since there were no excess sources of CO2 in the Pleistocene, the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. Since we are artificially increasing CO2, we trigger the warming effect without a requirement for excess solar radiation.

I have read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Taubes. The book is very convincing. The view of nutrition as a power game, with no real science behind it is quite interesting. Sadly for your case, there is LOTS of science to back up the assertions of Global Warming caused by human activity. Too many to simply dismiss.

If there is no problem with CO2 causing global warming, and we are going to be ok despite these emissions, well, that would be wonderful. Due to lobbying by Koch and friends, that is probably what we are going to end up with anyway. However, if there is only a 1% possibility that the worst will happen, and hundreds of millions of people will die because of it, I will still support doing whatever we can to prevent it. Can you really be so sure of your facts, many of which are supported by papers paid for by Koch subsidiaries who have a real financial interest in stopping any action on climate change?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070420-extinctions.html Other researchers found that time periods Earth is exposed to large amounts of cosmic rays is correlated with mass extinction events. This is a possible explanation.

Essentially, yes. National Geographic's piece had this quote:

"Basically, it was a Y2K problem, where some software didn't roll over the calendar date correctly," said A'Hearn. The spacecraft's fault-protection software (ironically enough) would have misread any date after August 11, 2013, he said, triggering an endless series of computer reboots aboard Deep Impact.

As far as I can tell the significance of that date is that it is approximately 2^32 tenths of a second into the millennium.

THIS is the 1%. These are the perpetrators of NSA surveillance, to further their needs...NOT yours. People with connections to these firms need to be removed from any position of power, especially government. Their future actions need to be monitored by the rest of society, if for no other reason then to limit their power.

While this may all be true, there is really nothing you can do about it. They own you and your kids, and they will continue to own you and your kids. All you can really do is keep your head under the radar, and hope to hell they don't spot you. If they do, they have cyber weapons, armies, crime organizations, banks (but I repeat myself) and police to deal with you.

In order to win, you need to play another game. They already have all the property, and have hotels on all of them. The best you can do is concede, and try another game. There are lots of them to choose from. Religion, Science, Philosophy, Sports. Maybe even sailing, running, hiking. You and I, however, are never going to win at their game, which is Monopoly, until this civilization turns belly up. And then, you'll probably be excluded as well, because whoever takes charge will keep you out of their club, which typically consists of the folks who are the most ruthless. Chances are, you are not one of them.

Interesting side note. Turns out that genetic testing concludes that most europeans today come from the stock of kings. If you are from Mongolia, you are quite likely to be descended from Genghis Khan. Poor people just don't survive as well as the 1%. That means breeding, as a game, is probably also lost to you as well, since the poor will starve, or maybe be eaten in whatever apocalypse comes next.

It's important also, if you want to properly understand the study, to realize that it only looks at the negative effects. To get a good understanding of AGW, you need to look at both the positive AND the negative effects.

For an example, this recent study published in PNAS suggests that Hurricane Sandy type storms would become less likely as a result of global warming.

Anyone who only shows you the negative of something is trying to manipulate you. That's a heuristic.

But sarcasm aside, isn't it about time we had some tangible breakthroughs in battery tech?

It sure is... or better yet, how about some breakthroughs in supercapacitors that would allow us to get away from battery technology entirely.

Most deserts around the world are situated in the subtropical zones where the dry air from the Hadley cells descends, around 30 degrees north and south. Global warming appears to be expanding the Hadley cells somewhat which will move the desertified zones a little further toward the poles without necessarily shifting the other edges of those zones further from the equator thus expanding the desert area. For example there is evidence that southern Europe is getting drier but the southern edge of the Sahara Desert shows no signs of shifting northward.

These articles seem to disagree:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8150415.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange
http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/desertification.php

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/supp_coral04a.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral04_reefs.html
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0103/feature2/
"For 20,000 years, since the peak of the last ice age, its coral base has gradually followed the rising sea level and slowly developed into the splendid, living atoll it is today."

The reef is constantly growing and shifting. As water levels incrementally rise, new coral will build up over the "dead stuff"
It really isn't a big deal. Witness history. The Maldives have been there for a very long time, and water levels have been rising for a very long time, considerably more rapidly than now.

The coral is considerably above the rock at this point, just due to continuing to grow as water rises and rock subsides.

Far be it from me to argue with a famous astrophysicist and media personality, but I really think Tyson is wrong on this one.

Think of all the high risk (for the time) tasks that were done by private industry. Heavier than air flight, oil rigging and skyscrapers come to mind. There's probably a lot of other examples.

Yes, space is dangerous, but so are a lot of other things.

And most importantly, I think we're finding that space travel is expensive primarily because of the way governments do it. Having worked for a government contractor, I've seen first hand that our government has lost the ability to do anything at all at reasonable cost. To keep costs at reasonable (effective but not exorbitant) levels requires, I believe, the mind set that "I'm spending my own money on this", not "I'm spending someone else's money".

Giant Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice Sheet

While flying over the ice sheet, scientists over the past three decades have measured the depths of the canyon using a radar system that operates at frequencies transparent to radio waves—from around 50 megahertz to 500 megahertz. A pulse of energy is sent down to penetrate through the ice, bounce off the bedrock, and travel back to the radar system. (Also read: "'Shocking' Greenland Ice Melt: Global Warming or Just Heat Wave?")

'Grand Canyon' of Greenland Discovered Under Ice Sheet

Exactly. There was an article in National Geographic on our sugar lust recently. It says that the substitution of fat and cholesterol led to greatly increased use of sugar in many foodstuffs. The consequences have been dire after a decade or so, and everywhere that follows this trend.

Well, it's certainly cheaper than having some internet billionaire salvage your rocket parts off the sea floor for you.

Of course with precedents like Howard Hughes, the Glomar Explorer and project Jennifer and Robert Ballard finding the Titanic while secretly researching the Scorpion & Thresher wrecks , it leads one to wonder what internet billionaire Jeff Bezos is really up to.

Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?

As someone that worked in a lab before, rabbits are great because: They make enough milk, can be easily handled, studied, etc. and frankly we know a LOT about their genetic makeup. Oh - and it is easier to do egg manipulations and implantations on these creatures. Making changes in genes is a pain in the butt. Some animals are better suited for specific jobs. We used to get insulin from pigs since it was the best we could do at that time. We got better and now harvest a lot of it from insects.

Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?

Why are we not pushing hard towards bacteria based production of biofuels instead of these huge complex pants? Seems to be that bacteria given the right conditions could convert a lot more CO2 into O2, eat a lot more waste, and produce a lot more complex fuels then corn, sugarcane, or other big plants...

Heck I think a few are going this direction, but to me it is the only way it makes sense at all..
Engineered Bacteria Make Fuel from Sunlight
Electrofuels: Charged Microbes May "Poop Out" a Gasoline Alternative

I like the idea of going all solar, and for individual houses, I can understand it, but for oil (you know, grease), plastics(you know, for our 3D printers), and even yes energy storage for some vehicles we are going to keep needing large quantities of hydrocarbons for a long time to come. Add to that the need to scrub our air of CO2 and other pollutants, and we have a great symbiosis.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good joke.

Of course, most "population replacements" are actually mostly cultural changes. The "Anglo-Saxons" of Britain are mostly Neolithic-Celtic, the "previous" "Celtic" population being a Celtic adjunct to the Neolithic population, which in turn can be traced to the original post-last Ice Age Late Paleolithic settlement. Very rarely in history someone "dies off" to be replaced, but, as I said, you don't have to ruin the joke by that.

Do you sit in a classroom with an orca at the board?) and polled them at a scientific level? Even if they did, what does "almost all" mean?'

There were bits of fishy stuff in two of the articles I read as well

I remember reading of Daniel Dukes the person who was found dead apparently swimming with Tillikum but that's all I read, it was a very short piece.
Got a lot more from their local paper but the way it was written kept me looking for the next literary er whatchamacallit's

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/
marijuana-smoking drifter with a string of petty arrests. (drug addict)

a worn-out Florida Department of Motor Vehicles identification card. (it doesn't work anymore?)

had to scale a 3-foot-high Plexiglas barrier (Must of been a very small person)

On Christmas Day 1998, he was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession in Marion County.(addicted drug addict)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/
The National Geographic refers to Daniel Dukes as a drunk (highly unlikely - but gives one an "ah ha, I see")

"There is strong circumstantial evidence that Tillicum may have killed again," I went on. "He was moved to SeaWorld Orlando,
where a drunk climbed in over the wall one night and was found drowned in the whale's pool the next morning."

Just after that is this:
"This second case, the 1999 death of Daniel Dukes, was more ambiguous, because there were no witnesses." (don't think there were many in Daniel Dukes's
case either) ,/p>

Labeling is stupid because it does nothing but add to the FUD.

That's like when San Fran tried to force wireless companies to label the radiation output of cell phones. It's a figure that is ultimately useless and does nothing for public health, but it creates a psychological effect that causes customer demand to shift anyways, so we could end up in a situation where cell phones are more expensive and possibly heavier because they have to add some kind of shielding or whatever to make a meaningless number go down.

All of that so that some derps have an excuse to complain about their "electromagnetic allergies."

Not only that, but the space on food labels is limited. As a kidney patient I have to concern myself daily with how much protein, phosphorus, potassium, and sodium I consume daily. Only one of those items are required to be on the labels. If I consume too much potassium in a day, I am dead as a doornail (the amount contained in three large potatoes is enough) and listing the potassium content on foods is entirely optional.

Believe me there are far higher health priorities than GMO labeling that already don't make it onto food labels. The FDA knows that label space is limited, and they can't possibly expect every food manufacturer to cater to every possible dietary restriction that somebody might possibly have, so they keep the most important ones as requirements and list the rest as optional. And I'm not even the worst - people on dialysis have even tighter dietary restrictions. I think their plight is probably a bit more important than those silly little electromagnetic aller - Oops sorry, I mean GMO fears.

As for making genes unpatentable - if they're found to be naturally occuring, they can't be patented. Period. SCOTUS killed that on June 14th. Now artificially created genes, I think those are worthy of patenting. SCOTUS agrees.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130614-supreme-court-gene-patent-ruling-human-genome-science/

What you're doing is constructing protein structures - the DNA is just the information that tells how to transcribe them. Creating innovative protein structures is something I'd definitely call a work of art, and is absolutely non-trivial and definitely research intensive and time consuming (costly too.) Being able to figure out how they fold and interact with one another isn't exactly simple arithmetic, as is often the case with say software patents. It would be pretty damn lame if you poured your life's work into the cure or biotech invention of the 22nd century and somebody just rips it off for free, and you have nothing to show for it.

And read my article by the way - the terminator genes already exist and there is a patent for them. But the one company who holds that patent has said it has no intention of ever using it. Will they keep that promise? Who knows. But in the mean time, nobody else can without their permission.

Sure there are lots of scary looking methods of splicing DNA, but those are all done experimentally for research purposes. Those don't ever make it to your dinner plate.

You know the human body contains 3 complete genomes from viruses and about a hundred thousand or so incomplete ones. One of these virus genomes includes genetic material that transcribes to create a critical reproductive function that we could not live without today, and it came from some other animal. So indeed, humans themselves carry DNA from some other animal, and in fact depend on it. In fact, 8% of our genome comes from foreign sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12paleo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/14/we-are-viral-from-the-beginning/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/10/the-lurker-how-a-virus-hid-in-our-genome-for-six-million-years/

GMO has the potential to reduce the need for farmland, which if I were an environmentalist I would be ecstatic for because that means tearing down less forest land to create farms to feed people and end world hunger. In addition, it will make food much less expensive which means your bargaining power goes up, which means less poor people.

In commercially sold GMO, all they do is modify a very tiny number of codons to make the plant resistant to glyphosate. That's it. During natural reproduction, plants go through thousands of mutations, mutations much larger than this one, and we haven't the slightest clue what these mutations do. Yet making a small tiny change where we know exactly what it does has people like you raging? Why? Especially given that the chemical composition of the food that ends up on your plate is not chemically distinct from non-GMO based foods.

I don't know what GMO did to ruin your life, but having a vendetta against it because you're ideologically opposed to it doesn't do anybody else any favors. In fact, it does the world a disservice akin to the new rise of smallpox due to the FUD campaign against vaccines. In fact I'd say it's equally destructive.

Please stop spreading FUD about GMO. Thank you.

Sure there are lots of scary looking methods of splicing DNA, but those are all done experimentally for research purposes. Those don't ever make it to your dinner plate.

You know the human body contains 3 complete genomes from viruses and about a hundred thousand or so incomplete ones. One of these virus genomes includes genetic material that transcribes to create a critical reproductive function that we could not live without today, and it came from some other animal. So indeed, humans themselves carry DNA from some other animal, and in fact depend on it. In fact, 8% of our genome comes from foreign sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12paleo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/14/we-are-viral-from-the-beginning/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/10/the-lurker-how-a-virus-hid-in-our-genome-for-six-million-years/

GMO has the potential to reduce the need for farmland, which if I were an environmentalist I would be ecstatic for because that means tearing down less forest land to create farms to feed people and end world hunger. In addition, it will make food much less expensive which means your bargaining power goes up, which means less poor people.

In commercially sold GMO, all they do is modify a very tiny number of codons to make the plant resistant to glyphosate. That's it. During natural reproduction, plants go through thousands of mutations, mutations much larger than this one, and we haven't the slightest clue what these mutations do. Yet making a small tiny change where we know exactly what it does has people like you raging? Why? Especially given that the chemical composition of the food that ends up on your plate is not chemically distinct from non-GMO based foods.

I don't know what GMO did to ruin your life, but having a vendetta against it because you're ideologically opposed to it doesn't do anybody else any favors. In fact, it does the world a disservice akin to the new rise of smallpox due to the FUD campaign against vaccines. In fact I'd say it's equally destructive.

Please stop spreading FUD about GMO. Thank you.

Supercomputers need data. The forecast for US weather satellites is partly cloudy.

Turbulence Ahead for Weather Satellites

JPSS

The difference is purely semantic. The difference is that dogs didn't evolve from wolves through natural selection, they evolved via human selection (which may still considered natural), but it's still an evolution.

I've seen a few articles, like this one that suggests wolves domesticated humans ... or this one that wolves/dogs domesticated themselves ... to co-exist.

That's behavior that most mammals do when they teethe due to physical discomfort

I think mammals all share a lot more traits than expected. Cats certainly mimic; kittens are taught to use a litter box, to chase mice, etc by their mothers. If you have a cat who was separated from its mother as soon as weaned, it will never be a mouser. When my cats want to be petted, they'll come up and pet YOU.

I saw just this morning that they've demonstrated that dolphins have names. I doubt the researchers were surprised, but newspaper reporters all seemed to be. I would be surprised to find that there is any species of mammal that doesn't have some level of verbal communication, and even names.

It turned out that the organism wasn't really substituting arsenic for phosphorus, the researcher was just incompetent, and still is. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120709-arsenic-space-nasa-science-felisa-wolfe-simon/

It still covers up to 10% of the Amazon basin, is man made, and if we could figure out how they did it:

If recreated, the engineered soil could feed the hungry and may even help fight global warming, experts suggest.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081119-lost-cities-amazon.html

Imagine if manure spread thousands of years ago still grew crops today. The terra preta —"dark earth" — of the Amazon is still working today.

Since we do not know much about extinction events prior to multicellular life, we should not be calling P-T extinction as largest ever. It's just just the largest (so far) in the last ~500 million years.

We are also living though another great extinction which is caused by ourselves, directly. And this extinction is quickly accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

Who knows. Maybe by the time we are done with this planet, P-T will look like a cakewalk in comparison.

It's definitely out there, in decent quantities.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110726-most-massive-water-cloud-quasar-black-hole-space-science/

Why can't people be polygamists? (just an aside here in my argument, but inter-family marriages have a long history in the houses of the rich and powerful. FDR and Elenaor were distant cousins. Also see: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/09/tut-dna/dobbs-text )
But, back to incest and pedophiles. These are crimes in which we can find a truly injured party. That is why murderers and rapists don't get the same rights as the rest of us and are forced to live in prisons. But, Homosexuality (between consenting adults) has no injured party. Your personal feelings that it is wrong don't count as an injury (sorry). If that were the case no one could do anything.
I say let people be married in whatever form they want polygamy, line marriage, gay marriage whatever they want to do that works for them. So, long as it does no harm to others it should be legal and recognized. The problem with America and freedom is that most people seem to want to limit freedom to only those action that they agree with.

Japan is mining their sea floor for Methane Hydrates to replace their proven unreliable nuclear plants and get some home-grown carbon fuels instead of importing coal. Apparently globally this resource is an order of magnitude more than all the oil, coal and natural gas ever discovered. Warmists aren't going to be happy with this answer though as it's a carbon fuel.

Another side of this lies somewhere between Freud and Konrad Lorentz. The reason people are unfair in the first place is because an unfair system serves the genetically mediated (and archaic) impulses of those who seek power. It's not enough to be rich if everyone else is. The vision of a world in which everyone had more than enough , and is therefore equal, is anathema to the unconscious of this kind of person and they , unconsciously, will always and automatically work to defeat anything that takes society in this direction.

Remember that Freud saw in the run up to WWII a depressing confirmation of this theories of the unconscious, even going so far as to theorize another psychic force, thanatos, or the drive to die. The work of Konrad Lorentz effectively materialized and contextualized a lot of Freud's theories within evolution and specifically the mechanism of genes, which has been carried forward by the development of sociobiology.

Both of these theories say that human behavior, human impulses are structurally locked outside of human awareness , evolved to serve ancient needs, and anyway immune from the prosecution of a more evolved "self" The best we can hope for is to uncover their expression in our world and counter them, consciously, with energy and in the face of resistance . The good life redirects it's energies to love and work and the good society expressed those countermeasures in its customs and norms and codifies them into laws

Personalities like as diverse as Rush Limbaugh , Lance Armstrong, Rupert Murdoch, Harvey Weinstein and Steve Jobs need not just to succeed, they need to succeed differentially. Pushing the other guy down through any means and keeping him there is at least as essential a technique as excelling through work.

It has to do with genetic fitness, materialized in the human partly as attracting females through being "better" , having more stuff. Power itself is an unconsciously interpreted by humans as a presumed form of genetic fitness, Implicitly facilitating the Ghengis Khan Effect. : no need to attract women when you can just take all you want through overwhelming force.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

The impulse is innate, the motivation to behave in certain selfish ways and not other, egalitarian way\ , is unconscious and never sleeps or grows old. The old shriveled dick of these personalty types yearns ever for green pastures, even unto death.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/tony-blair-denies-affair-rupert-1953684

To combine Freud and Lorentz together in one contempoary observation involving these types, if there were no differential to be created, why would anyone fuck them in the first place?

You have to know the true , deep nature of the thing you're proposing to take on is, even if there's till nothing you can do about it.

No you moron. Much further back.

Are people retarded? They don't know a difference between 10,000 years and 2,000,000 years?? That's well over 20 ice ages ago. Get a clue.

The only thing we are moving into the 6th Great Extinction caused by ourselves. Pat yourselves on the back. Your ignorance deserves it.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/

Word of the day: subsidence.

It doesn't matter whether there's a few more or less millimeters of water if you lose an inch of land per year. For NY, it looks like this study says 40% of the change in New York's sea level is due to New York sinking.

It's not how human families naturally work.

TL;DR: Naturally, humans live in small groups (villages when settled), and relationships only rarely last for life. Normal is about 2, 5 or sometimes 10 years. [Not much different other types of relationships (*close* friendships, jobs), IMHO.]
The reason that is not a problem, is because kids are generally raised by the whole tribe, at the center of the village. The place where the women sit when they work, and where politics got started. [For most of the time, humans actually were matriarchic, exactly because of this.] And if the kids are old enough, they help the grown-ups and learn in the process.
That's normal human behavior.

The whole "married for life" (like it's a prison sentence) thing came up when churches or other powerful figures wanted to get to decide who gets to make children and who doesn't. That's sex before marriage is such a "taboo" to these sick monsters. So it essentially is a eugenics program.

A short jaunt to wiki tells me what I want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes.

Thankfully wiki has citations too. Wiki link is dead, but theres this article http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text

Anyway I did A lot of reading Nat Geo and other articles between video games. Also talking to people about and discussing it and getting their opinions.

I would recommend everyone ban themselves from Mt. Everest for ten years

Considering how overrun Everest is these days, this would be the best thing to happen to the mountain.

No, they were not vegetarians. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence showing early man ate animals. The fact that most other primates don't is irrelevant.

Yeah chimps TOTALLY don't eat meat, no meat at all. Thats indisputable.

Oh wait... http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

Neither do orangutan.

Oh wait... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21364-vegetarian-orangutans-eat-worlds-cutest-animal.html

And surely not gorillas.

Oh wait... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/

And of course gibbons don't eat meat. Being omnivores.

There's no more Carl Sagan, no more Bill Nye on television, nothing except Mythbusters to inspire future generations of engineers and scientific thinkers.

PBS is the obvious response.

But there are others and there is more to science and to scientific thinking than engineering.

National Geographic Channel

Smithsonian Channel

Science Channel

The Discovery Channel --- in its many incarnations --- has a lot to offer if you are willing to poke around a bit.

Hunger overrides aversion to insects. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_tvinsectfood.html QED on the instincts part.

Aversion to eating dog in Western society is about as strong as their aversion to consciously eating insects, and we can easily see how the former is culturally taught.

There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive.

Bullshit. The Dead Sea.

Nope. New Life-Forms Found at Bottom of Dead Sea.

Okay, I'll calm down. I agree, they will get cheaper. Might I ask you read this article by a NASA astronaut on how our dreams are being hijacked by terrorists? http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/astronaut-leroy-chiao-space-dreams-media-130507.htm This one is also intriguing: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130510-buzz-aldrin-space-mars-moon-nasa-science/

I am happy to pay for these publications because they are well written, well edited, and have content that is not easily available elsewhere.

Sure, except that they're all available online or in a digital format (e.g. eBook).

The Economist's
National Geographic
Harper's
Paris Review
The New York Review of Books
Granta
Foreign Affairs

Granta and The Paris Review appear to only have digital versions available, but the rest provide logins and a means to access the full content of each article online, from what I can gather. And, honestly, if you're interested in supporting these magazines, shouldn't you be reading them on a screen anyway, since the printing and distribution account for some of their largest costs?

I do believe something is lost in the experience when we switch to screens from paper, but I also believe that it is largely outweighed by the convenience of easier access, the availability of more content at any given moment, and the lower costs for content creators. And for someone like you, who seems to believe that content is king, I'm surprised you wouldn't agree.

Do you really not know your idea of maritime piracy is the ludicrously overblown tall-tale version?

Bands of thugs in boats stealing and murdering? No that is exactly what piracy on the high seas is about, and, like slavery, it is continuing to this day. Unless you think all those navy ships patrolling the Indian Ocean are there for shit and giggles.

Yet the government often tried to try (yes, prosecute = to try a case) people for being drug couriers/smugglers/kingpins because the money found on their person had drug residue on it. Unfortunately, the penetrance of drug residue on money is so high that there is not a reliable way to link the person's drug use with the drugs found on the money. See statistics 101 to figure that out.

With those those electric fields, are they fields of wind, sun or coal electricity? or doesn't it matter? Bees can communicate with all types of fields which contain electricity?

Examples of the fields I'm talking about
http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/DM-Resize/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/36/14/dv887019.jpg?w=600&h=600&keep_ratio=1
http://www.screwpile.com.au/app_images/249Solar%20Farm%201.jpg