This is probably rather pointless, as it appears now you're just trying to be cute. I guess there's no choice other than to join in the fun.
Thermodynamics is a set of laws about the changes in temperature, pressure and volume in physical systems. And yet the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed in over a century. How hilariously ironic!!!!1111
The experts in the fields involved should be the ones to set standards, for instance scientists shoud set science standards, not politicans... the way a child is taught should not be mandated so long as they meet the requirement set by experts.
But don't you see the recursive problem here? Who decides which people are "experts", which areas are "fields", which people are "scientists", etc.?
Do you believe anyone should create educational standards, or do you believe it should be total educational anarchy?
If you believe there should be educational standards, would the people who made those standards not qualify as "government"?
Do you believe that education should be required by law for children? If so, how would you determine what qualifies as "education"?
Only other choice I can see is some kind of private enterprise system where companies decide what counts as education. That strikes me as even less wise than having no standards.
It's as much a part of a government's (in the case of the US, local or state government's) job as it is to decide whether recess counts as gym class, or working at the hardware store should get you credit for shop class, or that basket weaving should not count as a science credit.
First, if you believe there have been no changes in theories behind the mechanism of evolution in the last 10, 20, 30, etc. years, you haven't been paying attention.
Second, it's a bit specious to claim that if a science doesn't change its theories, it must somehow be suspect. Only if new contradictory evidence comes up must a theory be changed or discarded. If all the new evidence just reinforces it, there's no big surprise there.
The fact that we have the time and energy to post articles on the internet griping about how inconvenient our gadgets can sometimes be is proof that ours lives are much easier. Whether they are more fulfilling has little to do with this. However, it is hard to have a fulfilling life if you're working 100 hours a week at backbreaking labor to simply get enough food to keep you from starving.
it would have been way better if they would have stuck more to the book
It would have been a different movie if they had stuck more to the book. Whether or not it would have been a good movie is up in the air. In any case, BR is a good movie, so let's just count ourselves lucky and enjoy what we have.
I used to use the VM2, but their failure to produce a wireless model has kept my Logitech G7 firmly in hand. I've found that using the Kinesis keyboard has been sufficient to reduce all of my hand pain.
Gah. Did anyone actually read my post? I already said it's not legal in some states in the US to do what you are saying. My question was about what's legal in BRITAIN, where people are pointing out that the age of consent is lower. If the ages of consent for pornographic performances is still 18, then it's a moot point that there's a different age of consent there versus here.
First off, use google. This has been discussed way to many times for me to be explaining it to you now. Second off, keep in mind that I said "in states in the US." I didn't say "in all states in the US."
In addition to what Alaren posted, there are plenty of other legit needs for image hosting sites. Mainly they're used as sites to host images (often user-created) that then get posted to web boards or get linked to. Basically, the same reason youtube exists. As to why an uncensored one - many sites do not allow the posting of pornographic images. Yes, many of those images will be copyrighted (though not all, as there is a pretty large amount of home-grown porn photos and artwork out there). So they'll be just as legitimate as imageshack and other sites that currently exist.
Just curious, but is it legal for photography/video? And is it legal for downloading said materials of people that age?
Because even in states in the US where it's legal for two underage people to have sex, it's usually not legal for them to make photographs/video and distribute them.
Too lazy to try to google the answer. And kind of scared of what results I might get...
While I think it sucks when chain stores drive out local businesses, I'm not sure how this would have been different in the long run. If BB can't survive with its much lower overhead and cash reserve to get it through rough patches, what makes you think several mom and pop video stores would?
Interesting information. I wonder also how it applies to multiple photos stitched together. If I take a few photos so as to get all of the Eiffel Tower in it, and then later stitch them together, I would think this would count as a single photo. Likewise, Street View photos are HUGE, consisting of a ton of photos all stitched together. It can't really ever be said that any one person is the main subject of the photo.
When I say "sibling" I really just mean "kin." Not literal brother and sister. Inbreeding in the wild is the rule, not the exception. It's fairly widespread, even if it is sometimes counterproductive. And there is a lot more than just antigens going on in the smell arena. In addition to smell, it's likely that vision and sound play into it in organisms that have developed those senses.
I'm not really sure why you seem to be arguing with me. You asked if I thought an organism couldn't distinguish between its siblings and its own self. I'm pointing out that this is a moot point and that the real key in kinship bonding is rooted in the genes. In humans and other animals it may be performed different and more complex ways that can be fooled, but all of this is rooted in the genes. Of course the genes don't do it directly. The reason I said you are stuck on the high level stuff is because you seem to not understand why I'm saying that plant root recognition and animal kin recognition have a similar genetic reasoning. It's easy to get distracted in the mechanism they use at the higher level and miss this. I believe that's what the original poster was doing, thinking that "recognizing kin" was different from "can't distinguish between kin and self." I wanted to point out that those two things are actually pretty much the same, at the genetic level.
The genes are in the driver's seat, even though they are still constrained by staying on the road the environment provides. They are in the driver's seat because they are actively trying to reproduce their genetic code. Nothing inorganic in the environment is trying to do this.
As I mentioned in my other reply, you're thinking at too "high" a level. Genes can recognize siblings. They've developed all sorts of interesting ways to do it. Of course, the more complicated the way, the less foolproof it is. Yes, adoption can often fool the system. But that failure in a smaller percentage of cases doesn't invalidate a system that works very well in most others. Also, many studies have shown that there's a lot more than goes on at a conscious level. Google oxytocin for some interesting information.
Slashdot Mirror
Who creates the test?
This is probably rather pointless, as it appears now you're just trying to be cute. I guess there's no choice other than to join in the fun.
Thermodynamics is a set of laws about the changes in temperature, pressure and volume in physical systems. And yet the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed in over a century. How hilariously ironic!!!!1111
I feel dirty now.
*sigh*
Do you believe anyone should create educational standards, or do you believe it should be total educational anarchy?
If you believe there should be educational standards, would the people who made those standards not qualify as "government"?
Do you believe that education should be required by law for children? If so, how would you determine what qualifies as "education"?
Only other choice I can see is some kind of private enterprise system where companies decide what counts as education. That strikes me as even less wise than having no standards.
It's as much a part of a government's (in the case of the US, local or state government's) job as it is to decide whether recess counts as gym class, or working at the hardware store should get you credit for shop class, or that basket weaving should not count as a science credit.
First, if you believe there have been no changes in theories behind the mechanism of evolution in the last 10, 20, 30, etc. years, you haven't been paying attention.
Second, it's a bit specious to claim that if a science doesn't change its theories, it must somehow be suspect. Only if new contradictory evidence comes up must a theory be changed or discarded. If all the new evidence just reinforces it, there's no big surprise there.
Fact or truth, no. Scientific, yes. There's a big difference between those two categories.
The fact that we have the time and energy to post articles on the internet griping about how inconvenient our gadgets can sometimes be is proof that ours lives are much easier. Whether they are more fulfilling has little to do with this. However, it is hard to have a fulfilling life if you're working 100 hours a week at backbreaking labor to simply get enough food to keep you from starving.
I used to use the VM2, but their failure to produce a wireless model has kept my Logitech G7 firmly in hand. I've found that using the Kinesis keyboard has been sufficient to reduce all of my hand pain.
In the US or the UK? And what does "(NT)" stand for in your subject?
Gah. Did anyone actually read my post? I already said it's not legal in some states in the US to do what you are saying. My question was about what's legal in BRITAIN, where people are pointing out that the age of consent is lower. If the ages of consent for pornographic performances is still 18, then it's a moot point that there's a different age of consent there versus here.
First off, use google. This has been discussed way to many times for me to be explaining it to you now. Second off, keep in mind that I said "in states in the US." I didn't say "in all states in the US."
Did you actually read my question?
In addition to what Alaren posted, there are plenty of other legit needs for image hosting sites. Mainly they're used as sites to host images (often user-created) that then get posted to web boards or get linked to. Basically, the same reason youtube exists. As to why an uncensored one - many sites do not allow the posting of pornographic images. Yes, many of those images will be copyrighted (though not all, as there is a pretty large amount of home-grown porn photos and artwork out there). So they'll be just as legitimate as imageshack and other sites that currently exist.
From a legal standpoint, they'll be just as safe as any other image hosting site out there.
Just curious, but is it legal for photography/video? And is it legal for downloading said materials of people that age?
Because even in states in the US where it's legal for two underage people to have sex, it's usually not legal for them to make photographs/video and distribute them.
Too lazy to try to google the answer. And kind of scared of what results I might get...
The software that speakeasy uses for VOIP has a selective acceptance feature. You can enter phone numbers or digit patterns for the whitelist.
Kinda pricey for VOIP, though.
While I think it sucks when chain stores drive out local businesses, I'm not sure how this would have been different in the long run. If BB can't survive with its much lower overhead and cash reserve to get it through rough patches, what makes you think several mom and pop video stores would?
Well, dinosaurs existed before the metric switch, after all.
Interesting information. I wonder also how it applies to multiple photos stitched together. If I take a few photos so as to get all of the Eiffel Tower in it, and then later stitch them together, I would think this would count as a single photo. Likewise, Street View photos are HUGE, consisting of a ton of photos all stitched together. It can't really ever be said that any one person is the main subject of the photo.
When I say "sibling" I really just mean "kin." Not literal brother and sister. Inbreeding in the wild is the rule, not the exception. It's fairly widespread, even if it is sometimes counterproductive. And there is a lot more than just antigens going on in the smell arena. In addition to smell, it's likely that vision and sound play into it in organisms that have developed those senses.
I'm not really sure why you seem to be arguing with me. You asked if I thought an organism couldn't distinguish between its siblings and its own self. I'm pointing out that this is a moot point and that the real key in kinship bonding is rooted in the genes. In humans and other animals it may be performed different and more complex ways that can be fooled, but all of this is rooted in the genes. Of course the genes don't do it directly. The reason I said you are stuck on the high level stuff is because you seem to not understand why I'm saying that plant root recognition and animal kin recognition have a similar genetic reasoning. It's easy to get distracted in the mechanism they use at the higher level and miss this. I believe that's what the original poster was doing, thinking that "recognizing kin" was different from "can't distinguish between kin and self." I wanted to point out that those two things are actually pretty much the same, at the genetic level.
The genes are in the driver's seat, even though they are still constrained by staying on the road the environment provides. They are in the driver's seat because they are actively trying to reproduce their genetic code. Nothing inorganic in the environment is trying to do this.
As I mentioned in my other reply, you're thinking at too "high" a level. Genes can recognize siblings. They've developed all sorts of interesting ways to do it. Of course, the more complicated the way, the less foolproof it is. Yes, adoption can often fool the system. But that failure in a smaller percentage of cases doesn't invalidate a system that works very well in most others. Also, many studies have shown that there's a lot more than goes on at a conscious level. Google oxytocin for some interesting information.