Would not this better be stated as 'people with higher instances of moderate to severe depression are more likely to spend time browsing sexually gratifying websites, gaming sites, and online communities'?
In linguistic theory, it is correct grammar in that particular dialect, in this case what is usually considered american eubonics. Whether the listener uses the same grammar or not alters there perception of what is correct. If I told you that I arbeit, and that was proper usage in the german-american pig-den through which I communicate, than that grammar is correct for me but not you.
This is all a matter of subjective observation, there is no right answer. The confusion boils down to how linguists define grammar, which is much different than the non-linguist usage of the word.
The annoying part is when people trained in linguistics use their technical jargon without explaining the difference in meaning to how non-trained people will understand it, perpetuating a pointless argument.
The idea of 'junk' DNA is being modified. This DNA has been found to contribute to epigenetic processes, which is a profound discovery. Whether the 'junk' provides chemical structure, aides in protein folding, or does anything to affect the translation of genetic material into functioning systems (organs), I do not know. But we do now know that the discovery of iteration of nucleic acids is the foundation of passing on information through generations.
That we have discovered the basis of a process does not mean that we understand how it works. As an employee at a home improvement store, I can tell you where just about anything you want to complete a project is. But I can not tell you your local codes, the best way to finish your project, or what materials you should buy. I offer suggestions; the result is a amalgam of what the individual chooses to buy and how they use those materials.
Tradesmen know some of these things. They know what material to choose and how to install it. Some are better than others, they will choose a material that fits the project and is most effective, whether effectiveness is speed, durability, asthetic, et al.
Genetic material is beyond that, as it has accumulated knowledge for what I assume to be in the billion year range. One mistake that is often made is to call a genetic phenomena a "trait" or a "gene for something". There is a lot more that goes into creating an organ than one sequence of DNA. The location of that DNA, the chemistry around it, and the physical structure around it are precisely why it becomes what it becomes.
While I am long talking, the final point. Most significant pieces of DNA migrate with 'junk' DNA. It is not just the code for the particular protein that migrates, but the structure that allows that protein to form in any translation environment that is important.
In the course of a shit-load of time (3,000 years since Noah built his ark), expression of DNA has changed quite a bit. All mammals build bone from calcium. So do reptiles. Mammals have mammary glands. Reptiles do not. They produce calcium in shells to protect their DNA as it matures into... young reptiles.
'Junk DNA' has been overlooked in the concept of introns and extrons for a long time. However, the biochemical material that surrounds codons has to have a large influence on how that genetic material is manufactured into mature biological molecules. To argue otherwise is naive and short-sited.
From my understanding, not one of the extra-solar planets or other solar systems that have been studied are similar to ours because of one key element, dense planets near a sun. Many have been studied but it seems that the easiest to study are stars much bigger than ours. The most important discovery would be a small to medium star with a rocky planetismal interior and outer gas giants or a large amount of mass outside of the interior rocky circulation. Planets are created, yes, but many of them are near-stars of gas or small rocky objects so dense that their gravity dwarfs their size. Their is not a single extra-solar planet, that I know of, that fits into a similar solar system as that occupied by the planets of our Sun.
Did anybody else notice the story about the prevalence of bad citations a few days ago on slashdot, and then notice the fact that the bottom of this article includes a "Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:" section at the bottom of this article?
Not that Science Daily doesn't have their citation ducks in a row, but reading a "Science News" story is not a substitute for reading, understanding, and then elaborating or building upon research.
"If any of my slashdot posts are read, it is because I stood on the shoulders of journalists, and became a scientist"
-bda
Actually 'Rain Man' does exist, his character is based on Kim Peek, a savant with an extremely interesting life.
I find it fascinating that although he was not ASD (he had another X-related disease), his social skills increased late in life (2004, according to his father).
Kim died in December, I did not notice in the US media any mention of the passing of this remarkable man. Everyone should at least read his wikipedia bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek.
This is not to negate your very valid comment about ASD, but there is a story behind Rain Man.
There was an article in the most recent National Geographic about a hunter gatherer people in Tasmania. They spent something like 4-6 hours a day looking for food, ate what they wanted when they wanted, and slept where they wanted when they wanted. Loosely banded into clans of a maximum of thirty they come and go as they please. They are quite peaceful among themselves, healthy, and live in abundance. Not everywhere in the world is as fruitful, but hunter gatherers have been successful in most places. Example, there is a cultural monitoring program at the Virgin Space Port construction site because there was an ancient population in the New Mexican high desert.
Interestingly enough, when these people die there is very little ceremony, they just are buried the group moves on. It is a less individualistic world view, rather a group dynamic. One is gone, but the group will live on as a cultural individual. Westerners do not seem to have that perspective, not through selfishness, but because our society is more individualistic. If we were a little more like this, though, a mountain of money would be saved on futile end of life care that prolongs life only for a short period.
Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris' for eons.
Really, private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions. While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit, private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line.
Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration? Yes.
Will the 'public', government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic, or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident? No.
Private industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, will probably do it more efficiently than public industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, add on growing bureaucracy.
This was in the MPLS Star Trib. The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine, whose average readership is 35.
Really? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video, or am I just too critical of marketing science?
OT, I know nothing and I need help. My father has been internet dating and has exchanged e-mails with an 'artist' who refers to Robert Redford and Martin Scorsese as RR and Marty respectively. She often inculudes hyperlinks in her emails that refer to the artist's website, and has talked on the phone the same way. Is this a dangerous 'e-match', and is there any way for me to expose it? PS: I brought up to my father that opening the links was a bad idea, and my father told me to 'go away' because there is no way a link to the artist's page could be false. Please help/.ers, I know knothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Would not this better be stated as 'people with higher instances of moderate to severe depression are more likely to spend time browsing sexually gratifying websites, gaming sites, and online communities'?
In linguistic theory, it is correct grammar in that particular dialect, in this case what is usually considered american eubonics. Whether the listener uses the same grammar or not alters there perception of what is correct. If I told you that I arbeit, and that was proper usage in the german-american pig-den through which I communicate, than that grammar is correct for me but not you. This is all a matter of subjective observation, there is no right answer. The confusion boils down to how linguists define grammar, which is much different than the non-linguist usage of the word. The annoying part is when people trained in linguistics use their technical jargon without explaining the difference in meaning to how non-trained people will understand it, perpetuating a pointless argument.
Has anybody asked the musicians if they care about this? I thought this whole DRM thing was about the creators of the media.
The idea of 'junk' DNA is being modified. This DNA has been found to contribute to epigenetic processes, which is a profound discovery. Whether the 'junk' provides chemical structure, aides in protein folding, or does anything to affect the translation of genetic material into functioning systems (organs), I do not know. But we do now know that the discovery of iteration of nucleic acids is the foundation of passing on information through generations. That we have discovered the basis of a process does not mean that we understand how it works. As an employee at a home improvement store, I can tell you where just about anything you want to complete a project is. But I can not tell you your local codes, the best way to finish your project, or what materials you should buy. I offer suggestions; the result is a amalgam of what the individual chooses to buy and how they use those materials. Tradesmen know some of these things. They know what material to choose and how to install it. Some are better than others, they will choose a material that fits the project and is most effective, whether effectiveness is speed, durability, asthetic, et al. Genetic material is beyond that, as it has accumulated knowledge for what I assume to be in the billion year range. One mistake that is often made is to call a genetic phenomena a "trait" or a "gene for something". There is a lot more that goes into creating an organ than one sequence of DNA. The location of that DNA, the chemistry around it, and the physical structure around it are precisely why it becomes what it becomes. While I am long talking, the final point. Most significant pieces of DNA migrate with 'junk' DNA. It is not just the code for the particular protein that migrates, but the structure that allows that protein to form in any translation environment that is important. In the course of a shit-load of time (3,000 years since Noah built his ark), expression of DNA has changed quite a bit. All mammals build bone from calcium. So do reptiles. Mammals have mammary glands. Reptiles do not. They produce calcium in shells to protect their DNA as it matures into... young reptiles. 'Junk DNA' has been overlooked in the concept of introns and extrons for a long time. However, the biochemical material that surrounds codons has to have a large influence on how that genetic material is manufactured into mature biological molecules. To argue otherwise is naive and short-sited.
From my understanding, not one of the extra-solar planets or other solar systems that have been studied are similar to ours because of one key element, dense planets near a sun. Many have been studied but it seems that the easiest to study are stars much bigger than ours. The most important discovery would be a small to medium star with a rocky planetismal interior and outer gas giants or a large amount of mass outside of the interior rocky circulation. Planets are created, yes, but many of them are near-stars of gas or small rocky objects so dense that their gravity dwarfs their size. Their is not a single extra-solar planet, that I know of, that fits into a similar solar system as that occupied by the planets of our Sun.
Did anybody else notice the story about the prevalence of bad citations a few days ago on slashdot, and then notice the fact that the bottom of this article includes a "Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:" section at the bottom of this article? Not that Science Daily doesn't have their citation ducks in a row, but reading a "Science News" story is not a substitute for reading, understanding, and then elaborating or building upon research. "If any of my slashdot posts are read, it is because I stood on the shoulders of journalists, and became a scientist" -bda
Actually 'Rain Man' does exist, his character is based on Kim Peek, a savant with an extremely interesting life. I find it fascinating that although he was not ASD (he had another X-related disease), his social skills increased late in life (2004, according to his father). Kim died in December, I did not notice in the US media any mention of the passing of this remarkable man. Everyone should at least read his wikipedia bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek. This is not to negate your very valid comment about ASD, but there is a story behind Rain Man.
Yes, whoever named this dragonfly certainly must have consumed a lot of spice.
I thought hip-hop originated in US culture during the 1980's. Could you explain how this qualifies as "aboriginal art and expression"?
There was an article in the most recent National Geographic about a hunter gatherer people in Tasmania. They spent something like 4-6 hours a day looking for food, ate what they wanted when they wanted, and slept where they wanted when they wanted. Loosely banded into clans of a maximum of thirty they come and go as they please. They are quite peaceful among themselves, healthy, and live in abundance. Not everywhere in the world is as fruitful, but hunter gatherers have been successful in most places. Example, there is a cultural monitoring program at the Virgin Space Port construction site because there was an ancient population in the New Mexican high desert. Interestingly enough, when these people die there is very little ceremony, they just are buried the group moves on. It is a less individualistic world view, rather a group dynamic. One is gone, but the group will live on as a cultural individual. Westerners do not seem to have that perspective, not through selfishness, but because our society is more individualistic. If we were a little more like this, though, a mountain of money would be saved on futile end of life care that prolongs life only for a short period.
I want a plasma hoverboard.
Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris' for eons. Really, private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions. While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit, private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line. Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration? Yes. Will the 'public', government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic, or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident? No. Private industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, will probably do it more efficiently than public industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, add on growing bureaucracy.
This was in the MPLS Star Trib. The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine, whose average readership is 35. Really? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video, or am I just too critical of marketing science?
Flying jet packs are already here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7637327.stm.
OT, I know nothing and I need help. My father has been internet dating and has exchanged e-mails with an 'artist' who refers to Robert Redford and Martin Scorsese as RR and Marty respectively. She often inculudes hyperlinks in her emails that refer to the artist's website, and has talked on the phone the same way. Is this a dangerous 'e-match', and is there any way for me to expose it? PS: I brought up to my father that opening the links was a bad idea, and my father told me to 'go away' because there is no way a link to the artist's page could be false. Please help /.ers, I know knothing.