Are you kidding me!? Of course they will experience other embarassments like anybody else! But this was about being embarrassmed when rejected due to the rejector being heterosexual. How can you not understand that!? I didn't say that socially accepting homosexuals will solve all their problems, I said that socially accepting homosexuals will stop the embarrassment due to the misunderstanding of one party being homosexual and the other being heterosexual. You can't be for real.
Noundi - It most likely will be published soon. The paper is just working its way through peer review right now. The last set of journal reviewers were quite kind and had very good feedback for us to improve the Salmon story.
Yali - It is a different statistical issue than the Vul et al. non-independence error. While a great many papers have been written on how to complete multiple comparisons correction in fMRI there is still a problem in that not everyone is doing it. This leaves the door open to false positives, the number of which remain unknown.
So basically while the problem has been brought to attention before, it has been ignored by some leaving some studies uncertain but considered as valid. This stunt was to prove that if you trust in the results of such studies, you might as well trust in brain activity in dead fish. I can see why some would ignore, or even get offended by it. Still it's a valid point.
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
Maybe it's because you're skinny or have acne, not much money, not socially confident etc, etc. No matter how well gays are accepted everyone still risks rejection when they ask someone out. I'm not sure that "No, I'm not gay" is more hurtful than "No, I don't like you" as a rejection. I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable. You just have to learn to deal with it, part of that being more selective who you ask.
True but you're offtopic. If you follow the chain of replies, you see that this was about the GP wanting to see if the "Gaydar" points him out as homosexual, and then the reply by newcastlejon who thinks it's a good idea since it would allegedly save people from embarrassment, and then me who say that the embarrassment wouldn't occurr in the first place if homosexuals were socially accepted. Then you came along and accused me of claiming that only homosexuals fear rejection. Get ready to get modded down in 3, 2, 1...
And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.
Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, why the hell did I read this nonsense post?
Can we conclude from this data that the salmon is engaging in the
perspective-taking task? Certainly not. What we can determine is that random
noise in the EPI timeseries may yield spurious results if multiple comparisons
are not controlled for. Adaptive methods for controlling the FDR and FWER
are excellent options and are widely available in all major fMRI analysis
packages. We argue that relying on standard statistical thresholds (p 8) is an ineffective control for multiple
comparisons. We further argue that the vast majority of fMRI studies should
be utilizing multiple comparisons correction as standard practice in the
computation of their statistics.
And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.
... and second they were suffering effects of extreme overpopulation...
The parallel between Malthusian limit and the plague is very vague. To simply assume that the deaths of millions of Europeans caused by a disease spread from central Asia is due to overpopulation is a prime example of fallacy of the single cause.
While I don't disagree entirely with the concept of Malthusian limit, I do however strongly doubt that it is related to this.
The problem is that journalism used to be a respected profession, but then some publisher along the way figured "Hey we don't need to report the truth, we only need to report what's 'amazing'", and people bought it.
You wouldn't happen to be talking about this guy, would ya? Or the Big Cheese himself? Heh, Kinda like Nobel and his dynamite...
I would probably happen to be talking about exactly these guys. Many thanks for this!
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
The way I see it this is about paid services trying to offer the same bullshit as free services do. Can anybody honestly say that they trust news sources any more than they trust gossip? The problem is that journalism used to be a respected profession, but then some publisher along the way figured "Hey we don't need to report the truth, we only need to report what's 'amazing'", and people bought it. When the internet came the cost for deliverance of these "news" was cut to almost nothing. Now these bullshit publishers, who were already living off advertisement and the cost for the paper itself was more or less the production cost minus human labour, got to reduce that last cost which was the cost for the paper, thus solely existing due to ad exposure. Some tried the hybrid model, which seems to have failed, while still offering the same bullshit content. How can anybody expect to get paid for that?
I'm not against paid services, infact I very much hope someone brings forth a news service that reports truth, and if someone does I have no reason not to pay for it. But pay for lies? Hell I can just ring my neighbours doorbell for that.
The fact that most of us consider a car with a door that closes with a silent click as a well crafted car, or the fact that people make a living off it?;-)
Remember -- the latter wouldn't exist without the former.
My brother studied audio production, and in one of his classes, I think it was acoustics, he was taught this very interesting bit about sound engineers. I remember, incidently, he specifically told me that there are sound engineers whom make sure that the sound a closing car door makes is in a certain way. You might not have thought about it but when you close the door to an old car you can actually hear that it is old if you would close your eyes. But when you hear that, almost silent, click the door of a new car makes as it closes you get the feeling that it is a new car, and even a good car. I hadn't bothered to look it up but it seems that these engineers have a lot to do with how your car turned out in the end. Well paid proffession as well, I've been told. So it's not about only engines. It seems to stretch from your car door closing, to the windows going up and down, and now how your car "should" sound like as you're driving it.
The last time I looked, there were something like 230 million paid users of MS Office, and another 200 million illegal copies of MS Office floating around peoples desktops. Globally there have been (approximately) 135 million downloads of OpenOffice. You can't say that OO is totally unknown if it's got a fanbase exceed the 100M mark.
Still that's just HALF of the number of pirated copies of MS Office. If MS Office was garbage then why would so many people be going out of their way to steal it when free or other alternatives exist?
You're completely ignoring that Office is an industry standard with proprietary formats leaving any company wanting to migrate in some form of trouble when exchanging documents with others. I happen to work within such a company (20k employees worldwide) and we use OOo as much as possible, and by as much as possible I mean for users that exchange documents internally only.
Now some anecdotale stuff, which you'll just have to take my word for. I've personally seen businesses running Novell and Domino (not at the same time, obviously) backends AND MS SharePoint. Novell makes a SharePoint connector for petes sake! So, if it's all about borging the masses, why has SharePoint become the most popular document management system on the planet? Are we all borged, or is there something that the market likes about SharePoint?
Look, I don't intend to flamebait here, but your word, not to mention as an AC, is worth as much as molded horse shit. You want to change minds? Provide proof, this isn't the Church of Scientology.
You talk a lot of statistics but provide no data along with your claim. This feels like arguing with a teen and I really have no interest in it.
Meh , you would wonder if Icaza is intentionally misleading or just clueless. He is a capable developer so I'll pick the former. There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
It is fair to argue that "Linux" is the defacto name of the whole OS, but Icaza shouldn't be claiming that GNU/Linux is an attempt to rename Linux... It is just an attempt to give credit to GNU for the tools that make the kernel actually usable. People calling the OS GNU/Linux, have not changed the kernel's name. I would have no qualms if Icaza simply said that it was an attempt to give GNU more credit than it deserved, I guess it is arguable. But to call it an attempt to rename Linux is simply misleading, and that's the problem . Icaza lately has been playing too much for the other side, so I am not even sure anymore if he is being intentionally misleading or if it was just a honest mistake from his part.
You know the biggest problem RMS has is either his ego or his faith in humanity. Anybody who gives a shit already knows that Linux is accompanied generally by a GNU environment. Why complicate things even more for the dimwhits? It wouldn't make a difference other than cause confusion for that majority of people who wouldn't care in the end, just to gain recognition or for the sole principle of it. RMS does a lot of good for the FOSS community, no doubt, and his function remains to be the extremist whom pushes the machinery slightly to the other direction. But recognition has nothing to do with FOSS. I guess it's about pride. One of the worst reasons to do anything.
The reason people buy MS products has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. MS makes good products. You have to admit that Office is a pretty amazing application, and I know first hand that SharePoint has been a godsend to many organizations.
No I would never admit to such nonsense. You can't just throw it out there as if it was some sort of de facto. Some people buy MS products because they consider it good, but most people buy it because they don't have (or know that they have) a choice (except joining the third reich of Apple) which tend to cost much more than PCs with Windows.
No one has ever asked for GPL v3. It's FSF's vista. Well, that and hurd.
Yeah you seem to know a lot about GPL. How is that slashdot summary reading as your only source of information going for you? And in contrast to your shitty Vista example, GPLv2 code will never be forced to migrate to GPLv3. Different licenses for different purposes.
Okay, I understand now that the smell itself is flagged by the animals as a warning sign. It was a genuine question I had, yet some begrudged slashdotter felt the need to mod me as a troll...
Well this is the most common mistake people make about evolution. There is no "divine intervention" so there is no purpose, however I wouldn't call it "accident". It's much more like a filter.
You have 3 cockroaches, one is dead and two are living. One of the two living is fat and hates the smell of other dead cockroaches. The other is thin and doesn't get bothered by the smell of dead cockroaches. The dead cockroach was killed by an airborne disease. The fat cockroach stays away while the thin cockroach doesn't care. The result? The thin cockroach dies from the same disease, thus the genes of the fat cockroach get passed along, making the chance of future cockroaches being fat and repellant to the smell of other cockroaches much higher than if both had lived. Thus nature has selected.
50 years later this strain of cockroach has migrated to a more difficult terrain. Offspring is never a copy, but an alternation, and every now and then the fat cockroaches get thin offspring. Now 2 cockroaches both feel repelled by the smell of a dead cockroach, except one is thin and the other is fat. The terrain requires mobility in order to survive so naturally the fat cockroach dies and the thin lives on to have offspring of its own. Now the strain is generally thin and is generally repelled by the smell of dead corpses. As time passes new dangers and threats emerge, and old ones disappear. During this entire period the species are filtered to only sustain those fit enough to live.
So it's not an accident, it's a filter. If you are adapted well enough to pass it you may, if not then you get stuck and so does your genes. As a side note there was a study done in the 70's, I think, where a scientist bred 12 generations of mice and had their tails cut off. The result? Nothing, the new mice kept having the same type of tail that their ancestor had. So we don't evolve as peers, we evolve as species through death.
"...my mental map of DC swapped north for west. I started getting more lost than ever as the two spatial concepts of DC did battle in my head."
And this is surprising how? If you're navigating by landmark and familiarity, you're probably going to be in for a shock when you suddenly move to a coordinate mapping system. This also shows that the creator of this device doesn't look up very often to get her bearings. Not that I'm surprised -- women will navigate first by landmarks and familiarity, and if that fails they fall back on maps. Men, on the other hand, rarely use anything but a map. If I changed a street sign outside my apartment, my male friends probably wouldn't be able to find the place anymore. My female friends, on the other hand, would show up and likely never notice the sign was changed. Insert obligatory quip about evolution of the sexes, rebuttal about stereotypes, and witty retort here.:\
Also, while I'm sure this is quite fascinating to her, the rest of us will just buy one of those $5 compass globes and stick it in the car, and it'll be cheaper than the parts to build this thing.
That't not true. Google maps streetview is technically not a map.
I imagine there might be some of that Placebo effect taking place.
They did a study a while back where they gave cheap wine to ordinary people and labeled it as expensive wine. Then they did the opposite, labeling the expensive wine as cheap wine. When people were asked which wine they liked better, guess what? they liked the "cheap" wine labeled as expensive wine the best.
While I don't doubt that the Stradivari violins may be top notch, I doubt there is that much variance between a "modern" top notch violin and what he created.
To be fair this could very well prove that ordinary people want to appear as wise, and not that they genuinely enjoyed the cheaper wine. Still the things that tickle our senses are very individual experiences and different methods provide different results. I wouldn't want to drink 50 year old Coke for example, but some people could find it tasteful, and who's to say that I should enjoy anything more than the other except for me? I do admit that I have preferred a more expensive wine at times, but I don't think it was my preference just because of the price. I draw this conclusion from also having chosen less expensive wines at times, but without focusing on the tag or naturally it would be an important factor. As for the example there's a difference between peoples inward opinions and their outward opinions, however I do think that we can be "taught" into liking things to an extent where we can honestly enjoy them. Licorice candy is an excellent example of mine which I learned not only to enjoy but to love. Just because it was recommended to me by someone it doesn't make my preference less "real" than if I would have stumbled upon it without any prior knowledge.
If you're willing to fight to the bitter end to get the last word in, go right ahead. As for me, I have better things to do with my time than pound a cluestick into someone with a head as thick as yours.
Bravo, clap clap! You pull out claims out of your ass without providing anything proving your case, I provide a wikipedia(!) link which clearly shows that you did infact pull your "facts" out of your ass. Now you walk away as the bigger man. Bravo, that's just fantastic of you. As if it wasn't enough instead of actually being the bigger man and admitting you were wrong you try to prove your case by trying to angle it with:
We expect warnings for all sorts of things these days, such as peanut allergies, toxic hairspray.
So in your world knowing that "coffee is boiled, thus coffee is hot", is equal to knowing that some substances in your hairspray, which you have never even heard of before, are toxic.
No really, you are the bigger man here -- clearly. Go spend your time in that wise way of yours, while the rest of us idiots stay here and provide data with our claims.
Actually, McD's was on the high end for coffee temperature. Not even Starbucks made it that hot. Nor, mind you, does my coffee machine.
I find it ridiculous that I have to convince you that it was at least partly McD's fault here. She should have gotten most of the blame, I happily concede that without being asked.
Serving boiling hot coffee is reckless. Even if she didn't put it in her lap, careless handling by the server could have just as easily caused the same injury.
Really!? Here I thought any professional coffee machine, such as those used in restaurants and cafes boil it to 100 C, and sometimes above if it's an espresso machine, in which case you shoot even hotter steam through the ground beans. Go troll elsewhere. Oh and buy a new coffee machine, yours seem to be broken.
How did you think one made coffee? She was a moron and the case was ridiculous. Anybody with half a brain knows that you boil water up to 100 C when making coffee. It's actually ridiculous that I'm trying to convince you of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the figure out a way to make plastic stronger, I think cellphones shouldn't get much thinner or smaller.
Two words: carbon nanotubes.
Are you kidding me!? Of course they will experience other embarassments like anybody else! But this was about being embarrassmed when rejected due to the rejector being heterosexual. How can you not understand that!? I didn't say that socially accepting homosexuals will solve all their problems, I said that socially accepting homosexuals will stop the embarrassment due to the misunderstanding of one party being homosexual and the other being heterosexual. You can't be for real.
Noundi - It most likely will be published soon. The paper is just working its way through peer review right now. The last set of journal reviewers were quite kind and had very good feedback for us to improve the Salmon story.
Yali - It is a different statistical issue than the Vul et al. non-independence error. While a great many papers have been written on how to complete multiple comparisons correction in fMRI there is still a problem in that not everyone is doing it. This leaves the door open to false positives, the number of which remain unknown.
So basically while the problem has been brought to attention before, it has been ignored by some leaving some studies uncertain but considered as valid. This stunt was to prove that if you trust in the results of such studies, you might as well trust in brain activity in dead fish. I can see why some would ignore, or even get offended by it. Still it's a valid point.
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection? Maybe it's because you're skinny or have acne, not much money, not socially confident etc, etc. No matter how well gays are accepted everyone still risks rejection when they ask someone out. I'm not sure that "No, I'm not gay" is more hurtful than "No, I don't like you" as a rejection. I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable. You just have to learn to deal with it, part of that being more selective who you ask.
True but you're offtopic. If you follow the chain of replies, you see that this was about the GP wanting to see if the "Gaydar" points him out as homosexual, and then the reply by newcastlejon who thinks it's a good idea since it would allegedly save people from embarrassment, and then me who say that the embarrassment wouldn't occurr in the first place if homosexuals were socially accepted. Then you came along and accused me of claiming that only homosexuals fear rejection. Get ready to get modded down in 3, 2, 1...
Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, why the hell did I read this nonsense post?
... not by probing them.
That probably didn't come out exactly the way you expected.
I was fully aware of it, and the joke was so obvious that if I could I would flick each of these clowns on the nose for being such shitty comics.
Can we conclude from this data that the salmon is engaging in the perspective-taking task? Certainly not. What we can determine is that random noise in the EPI timeseries may yield spurious results if multiple comparisons are not controlled for. Adaptive methods for controlling the FDR and FWER are excellent options and are widely available in all major fMRI analysis packages. We argue that relying on standard statistical thresholds (p 8) is an ineffective control for multiple comparisons. We further argue that the vast majority of fMRI studies should be utilizing multiple comparisons correction as standard practice in the computation of their statistics.
And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.
... and second they were suffering effects of extreme overpopulation...
The parallel between Malthusian limit and the plague is very vague. To simply assume that the deaths of millions of Europeans caused by a disease spread from central Asia is due to overpopulation is a prime example of fallacy of the single cause.
While I don't disagree entirely with the concept of Malthusian limit, I do however strongly doubt that it is related to this.
The problem is that journalism used to be a respected profession, but then some publisher along the way figured "Hey we don't need to report the truth, we only need to report what's 'amazing'", and people bought it.
You wouldn't happen to be talking about this guy, would ya? Or the Big Cheese himself? Heh, Kinda like Nobel and his dynamite...
I would probably happen to be talking about exactly these guys. Many thanks for this!
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
The way I see it this is about paid services trying to offer the same bullshit as free services do. Can anybody honestly say that they trust news sources any more than they trust gossip? The problem is that journalism used to be a respected profession, but then some publisher along the way figured "Hey we don't need to report the truth, we only need to report what's 'amazing'", and people bought it. When the internet came the cost for deliverance of these "news" was cut to almost nothing. Now these bullshit publishers, who were already living off advertisement and the cost for the paper itself was more or less the production cost minus human labour, got to reduce that last cost which was the cost for the paper, thus solely existing due to ad exposure. Some tried the hybrid model, which seems to have failed, while still offering the same bullshit content. How can anybody expect to get paid for that?
I'm not against paid services, infact I very much hope someone brings forth a news service that reports truth, and if someone does I have no reason not to pay for it. But pay for lies? Hell I can just ring my neighbours doorbell for that.
I love watching the hoops you people jump through to convince yourself that what you're doing is preventing the problem.
Oops, did I just find the other side of the coin?
Thanks for the link, that's crazy.
The fact that most of us consider a car with a door that closes with a silent click as a well crafted car, or the fact that people make a living off it? ;-)
Remember -- the latter wouldn't exist without the former.
This tickled my interest so I consulted the google machine. http://soundinthemachine.org/2009/01/21/the-swaying-car-door.aspx
My brother studied audio production, and in one of his classes, I think it was acoustics, he was taught this very interesting bit about sound engineers. I remember, incidently, he specifically told me that there are sound engineers whom make sure that the sound a closing car door makes is in a certain way. You might not have thought about it but when you close the door to an old car you can actually hear that it is old if you would close your eyes. But when you hear that, almost silent, click the door of a new car makes as it closes you get the feeling that it is a new car, and even a good car. I hadn't bothered to look it up but it seems that these engineers have a lot to do with how your car turned out in the end. Well paid proffession as well, I've been told. So it's not about only engines. It seems to stretch from your car door closing, to the windows going up and down, and now how your car "should" sound like as you're driving it.
The last time I looked, there were something like 230 million paid users of MS Office, and another 200 million illegal copies of MS Office floating around peoples desktops. Globally there have been (approximately) 135 million downloads of OpenOffice. You can't say that OO is totally unknown if it's got a fanbase exceed the 100M mark. Still that's just HALF of the number of pirated copies of MS Office. If MS Office was garbage then why would so many people be going out of their way to steal it when free or other alternatives exist?
You're completely ignoring that Office is an industry standard with proprietary formats leaving any company wanting to migrate in some form of trouble when exchanging documents with others. I happen to work within such a company (20k employees worldwide) and we use OOo as much as possible, and by as much as possible I mean for users that exchange documents internally only.
Now some anecdotale stuff, which you'll just have to take my word for. I've personally seen businesses running Novell and Domino (not at the same time, obviously) backends AND MS SharePoint. Novell makes a SharePoint connector for petes sake! So, if it's all about borging the masses, why has SharePoint become the most popular document management system on the planet? Are we all borged, or is there something that the market likes about SharePoint?
Look, I don't intend to flamebait here, but your word, not to mention as an AC, is worth as much as molded horse shit. You want to change minds? Provide proof, this isn't the Church of Scientology.
You talk a lot of statistics but provide no data along with your claim. This feels like arguing with a teen and I really have no interest in it.
Meh , you would wonder if Icaza is intentionally misleading or just clueless. He is a capable developer so I'll pick the former. There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
It is fair to argue that "Linux" is the defacto name of the whole OS, but Icaza shouldn't be claiming that GNU/Linux is an attempt to rename Linux... It is just an attempt to give credit to GNU for the tools that make the kernel actually usable. People calling the OS GNU/Linux, have not changed the kernel's name. I would have no qualms if Icaza simply said that it was an attempt to give GNU more credit than it deserved, I guess it is arguable. But to call it an attempt to rename Linux is simply misleading, and that's the problem . Icaza lately has been playing too much for the other side, so I am not even sure anymore if he is being intentionally misleading or if it was just a honest mistake from his part.
You know the biggest problem RMS has is either his ego or his faith in humanity. Anybody who gives a shit already knows that Linux is accompanied generally by a GNU environment. Why complicate things even more for the dimwhits? It wouldn't make a difference other than cause confusion for that majority of people who wouldn't care in the end, just to gain recognition or for the sole principle of it. RMS does a lot of good for the FOSS community, no doubt, and his function remains to be the extremist whom pushes the machinery slightly to the other direction. But recognition has nothing to do with FOSS. I guess it's about pride. One of the worst reasons to do anything.
The reason people buy MS products has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. MS makes good products. You have to admit that Office is a pretty amazing application, and I know first hand that SharePoint has been a godsend to many organizations.
No I would never admit to such nonsense. You can't just throw it out there as if it was some sort of de facto. Some people buy MS products because they consider it good, but most people buy it because they don't have (or know that they have) a choice (except joining the third reich of Apple) which tend to cost much more than PCs with Windows.
No one has ever asked for GPL v3. It's FSF's vista. Well, that and hurd.
Yeah you seem to know a lot about GPL. How is that slashdot summary reading as your only source of information going for you? And in contrast to your shitty Vista example, GPLv2 code will never be forced to migrate to GPLv3. Different licenses for different purposes.
Okay, I understand now that the smell itself is flagged by the animals as a warning sign. It was a genuine question I had, yet some begrudged slashdotter felt the need to mod me as a troll...
Well this is the most common mistake people make about evolution. There is no "divine intervention" so there is no purpose, however I wouldn't call it "accident". It's much more like a filter.
You have 3 cockroaches, one is dead and two are living. One of the two living is fat and hates the smell of other dead cockroaches. The other is thin and doesn't get bothered by the smell of dead cockroaches. The dead cockroach was killed by an airborne disease. The fat cockroach stays away while the thin cockroach doesn't care. The result? The thin cockroach dies from the same disease, thus the genes of the fat cockroach get passed along, making the chance of future cockroaches being fat and repellant to the smell of other cockroaches much higher than if both had lived. Thus nature has selected.
50 years later this strain of cockroach has migrated to a more difficult terrain. Offspring is never a copy, but an alternation, and every now and then the fat cockroaches get thin offspring. Now 2 cockroaches both feel repelled by the smell of a dead cockroach, except one is thin and the other is fat. The terrain requires mobility in order to survive so naturally the fat cockroach dies and the thin lives on to have offspring of its own. Now the strain is generally thin and is generally repelled by the smell of dead corpses. As time passes new dangers and threats emerge, and old ones disappear. During this entire period the species are filtered to only sustain those fit enough to live.
So it's not an accident, it's a filter. If you are adapted well enough to pass it you may, if not then you get stuck and so does your genes. As a side note there was a study done in the 70's, I think, where a scientist bred 12 generations of mice and had their tails cut off. The result? Nothing, the new mice kept having the same type of tail that their ancestor had. So we don't evolve as peers, we evolve as species through death.
"...my mental map of DC swapped north for west. I started getting more lost than ever as the two spatial concepts of DC did battle in my head."
And this is surprising how? If you're navigating by landmark and familiarity, you're probably going to be in for a shock when you suddenly move to a coordinate mapping system. This also shows that the creator of this device doesn't look up very often to get her bearings. Not that I'm surprised -- women will navigate first by landmarks and familiarity, and if that fails they fall back on maps. Men, on the other hand, rarely use anything but a map. If I changed a street sign outside my apartment, my male friends probably wouldn't be able to find the place anymore. My female friends, on the other hand, would show up and likely never notice the sign was changed. Insert obligatory quip about evolution of the sexes, rebuttal about stereotypes, and witty retort here. :\
Also, while I'm sure this is quite fascinating to her, the rest of us will just buy one of those $5 compass globes and stick it in the car, and it'll be cheaper than the parts to build this thing.
That't not true. Google maps streetview is technically not a map.
I imagine there might be some of that Placebo effect taking place.
They did a study a while back where they gave cheap wine to ordinary people and labeled it as expensive wine. Then they did the opposite, labeling the expensive wine as cheap wine. When people were asked which wine they liked better, guess what? they liked the "cheap" wine labeled as expensive wine the best.
While I don't doubt that the Stradivari violins may be top notch, I doubt there is that much variance between a "modern" top notch violin and what he created.
To be fair this could very well prove that ordinary people want to appear as wise, and not that they genuinely enjoyed the cheaper wine. Still the things that tickle our senses are very individual experiences and different methods provide different results. I wouldn't want to drink 50 year old Coke for example, but some people could find it tasteful, and who's to say that I should enjoy anything more than the other except for me? I do admit that I have preferred a more expensive wine at times, but I don't think it was my preference just because of the price. I draw this conclusion from also having chosen less expensive wines at times, but without focusing on the tag or naturally it would be an important factor. As for the example there's a difference between peoples inward opinions and their outward opinions, however I do think that we can be "taught" into liking things to an extent where we can honestly enjoy them. Licorice candy is an excellent example of mine which I learned not only to enjoy but to love. Just because it was recommended to me by someone it doesn't make my preference less "real" than if I would have stumbled upon it without any prior knowledge.
If you're willing to fight to the bitter end to get the last word in, go right ahead. As for me, I have better things to do with my time than pound a cluestick into someone with a head as thick as yours.
Bravo, clap clap! You pull out claims out of your ass without providing anything proving your case, I provide a wikipedia(!) link which clearly shows that you did infact pull your "facts" out of your ass. Now you walk away as the bigger man. Bravo, that's just fantastic of you. As if it wasn't enough instead of actually being the bigger man and admitting you were wrong you try to prove your case by trying to angle it with:
We expect warnings for all sorts of things these days, such as peanut allergies, toxic hairspray.
So in your world knowing that "coffee is boiled, thus coffee is hot", is equal to knowing that some substances in your hairspray, which you have never even heard of before, are toxic.
No really, you are the bigger man here -- clearly. Go spend your time in that wise way of yours, while the rest of us idiots stay here and provide data with our claims.
Actually, McD's was on the high end for coffee temperature. Not even Starbucks made it that hot. Nor, mind you, does my coffee machine.
I find it ridiculous that I have to convince you that it was at least partly McD's fault here. She should have gotten most of the blame, I happily concede that without being asked.
Serving boiling hot coffee is reckless. Even if she didn't put it in her lap, careless handling by the server could have just as easily caused the same injury.
Really!? Here I thought any professional coffee machine, such as those used in restaurants and cafes boil it to 100 C, and sometimes above if it's an espresso machine, in which case you shoot even hotter steam through the ground beans. Go troll elsewhere. Oh and buy a new coffee machine, yours seem to be broken.
100 C is 212 F and that's friggin hot.
How did you think one made coffee? She was a moron and the case was ridiculous. Anybody with half a brain knows that you boil water up to 100 C when making coffee. It's actually ridiculous that I'm trying to convince you of this.