Against what? Interpol are basically diplomats - they are an organisation that handles the exchange of information between police agencies, not an police organisation unto themselves. They need the immunity as they have opened up an office in the US which may contain data that they may not be able to release to the US. A whole range of international agencies have the same privileges (i.e. red cross). As with any organisation if a member did something outrageous and caused embarrassment they would be kicked out fairly quickly. As others have stated they already had a lot of these privileges and they have been expanded as needed for their physical presence - as had been recommended by the state department under the previous Govt.
My understanding is that the problems with feeding animals antibiotics is the same as with giving it excessively to humans - i.e. it causes antibiotics to appear everywhere in nature in small doses through waste - which is the perfect environment for bacteria to develop resistance. If we eliminate its use in animals at least part of the problem is solved.
Yes they are different but were we not exactly like them once? As societies develop and stabilise they generally become liberal. Chinese so far have gone in this direction. People said things like this about many of the traditional conservative countries in Europe as well but over time they too opened up. People are not somehow fundamentally different - but they have different cultures - and these change over time. They are not going to turn into liberals immediately, but as the average education improves, as the financial situation improves society will open up from within.
I don't even know where to begin with this... I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a troll and not actually someone seriously saying that...
What are you an idiot? Why? Because its fucking convenient. As in to describe shit. You know like when you are talking to someone and you want to indicate that something is a process that is not human intervened. You say its natural. You certainly can be a philosopher and claim (for instance) that all colours are a continuum and labels are misleading but at the end of the day you want to tell someone the colour of something you give them a discrete label and philosophy be damned.
I don't know - that is just something I thought up in 2 mins - I know that a lot of human behavioural studies use genetic twins separated at birth (some of this research is quite interesting - some really specific behavioural quirks appear despite often vastly different upbringing) to distinguish innate vs learned behaviour. I can recommend Steven Pinker - "the blank slate" for an general reader overview of this kind of research in humans. As for animals I can't say I have looked into it much.
Like I said the whole probability thing is a perception that atheists have of agnostics - both groups hold straw-men opinions about that other.
Labels are tricky so I would say you are better off being that "ornery old cuss who'll question absolutely anything" - to a point that is - scepticism, with wine, needs a measured dose.
Some days I would agree with you... We are basically a species evolved to survive challenges that are completely different to the kinds of situations we find ourselves in today - in a word we are somewhat maladapted to the world we have created. In movies and the like you always see a bad outcome to toying with human genes and a purely rational people are seen as almost evil - but I think that we can do a lot better than we are now if we head in that direction.
I wonder if it would be cost effective to pay someone to take out a major online retailer (esp at christmas) so as to get more traffic yourself (assuming you are a rival online retailer)?
Because its a convenient label to separate human intervening processes from those that are not and not a conspiracy to sleight the rest of the biosphere.
Adaptation (when referring to a process) is a process that selects from variation based on some measure of success which over time causes the system to become more successful. Evolution by natural selection (or selective breeding) is an instantiation of this generic adaptation process - so is learning and the scientific method. Evolution by itself is not necessarily adaptive.
From the wiki article on evolution "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations". We tend to automatically associate evolution with natural selection and this causes issues in cases like this. I suspect if the scientists in charge of the experiments where even half competent they would have thought up some effective measure and breed based on this. Learned behaviour vs innate also can be isolated with proper experiment controls (i.e. separate them from their parents or use control population for parents - given more time and expertise you can usually solve most of these kinds of issues).
Atheists say agnostics are 50/50 about the existence of god and they themselves are not claiming to know that god doesn't exist but merely not to believe in the existence of something without proof. Agnostics claim atheists (as above) claim to know there is no god and themselves only admitting that such an question cannot be answered yet. If you think about it both positions are essentially the same (tho I think the atheist wording is a bit better) and really all this wankery between the two groups is utterly pointless. You will not find an atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist, and you will not find an agnostic who truly believes its 50/50 that god exists.
Selective breeding is evolution but not by natural selection. Exactly same process - i.e. only some survive to pass their genes on to the next generation based on traits. Not sure where you are going with this existing information crap - also no such thing as devolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution.
I imagine that the software actually did pull out numbers out of the transmissions but that they were basically semi-random and then all it takes is a bit of over-analysis and you have a credible source:D
I'm sorry you took personally what I said previously - I can only hope that the last line is not how you talk with people in the real world. You mentioned some quite silly things about memory - I called you out on it, and gave a link where you could find more information about it. I'm sorry you weren't able to find what you were looking for in two paragraphs so I will bring it out more clearly.
Long-term memories, on the other hand, are maintained by more stable and permanent changes in neural connections widely spread throughout the brain.
What is says here is that memory is a result of neural connections - you can find out more about this on the main page for long term memory. Contrast this to your thoughts on RNA, electricity or "quantum storage". I don't think much more needs to be said here.
You mention that you are really talking about storing consciousness which is quite confusing given that you only briefly mention something about it at the end, after spending your whole post talking about memory encoding. You have either confused the two concepts which are separate (note that plenty of animals show long-term memory but few consciousness) or god knows what.
I hate to be rude but this is some of the most retarded shit I have seen in some time. Instead of wasting time theorising nonsense just do some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Long-term
Mate, are you kidding or what? He wasn't always a total recluse - he became one after this episode. He did lecture tours, collaborated, collected prizes etc. He published his results. I.e. not a vacuum. Plenty of politics to boot.
Where have I said its more important? What I am saying is that you don't live in a vacuum, and if you don't want things turning to shit you sometimes have to do something about them. That inevitably includes politics. I hardly consider giving up mathematics and being a hermit as an example life for any scientist.
Its speculation in that I don't really understand the mathematics so I don't know who is in the right. According to the new yorker article Perelman certainly thinks he has been slighted by Yau and others, and Yau has claimed his contribution was more significant.
While what you say is true in that its the mathematical community's duty to reward him if his claim is true - at the end of the day if you are not willing to fight for what is right then don't be surprised if it fails. By staying a recluse instead of speaking out he is helping those who are (allegedly) trying to rip him off. I mean what does he hope to achieve by giving up mathematics, not talking to anyone and living with his mother jobless?? If he was really trying to be above it as some have claimed - then he would have continued business as usual - not pull a stunt like this.
He is raging coz others (in particular Yau) tried to (and to a certain extent succeed) take credit for his work. Instead of issuing a proper and deserved smack-down to these people he just hides. He is refusing the prizes as a protest against the lack of ethics in the mathematical community. In his mind he believes this demonstrates how he is totally committed to mathematics, and that only. Given that he was quite happy to accept prizes before and didn't feel that interfered with his work I suspect this is his way of raging as he is personality wise unsuited to direct confrontation.
Slashdot Mirror
Against what? Interpol are basically diplomats - they are an organisation that handles the exchange of information between police agencies, not an police organisation unto themselves. They need the immunity as they have opened up an office in the US which may contain data that they may not be able to release to the US. A whole range of international agencies have the same privileges (i.e. red cross). As with any organisation if a member did something outrageous and caused embarrassment they would be kicked out fairly quickly. As others have stated they already had a lot of these privileges and they have been expanded as needed for their physical presence - as had been recommended by the state department under the previous Govt.
My understanding is that the problems with feeding animals antibiotics is the same as with giving it excessively to humans - i.e. it causes antibiotics to appear everywhere in nature in small doses through waste - which is the perfect environment for bacteria to develop resistance. If we eliminate its use in animals at least part of the problem is solved.
If you turn on the monitor, the images will come...
Yes they are different but were we not exactly like them once? As societies develop and stabilise they generally become liberal. Chinese so far have gone in this direction. People said things like this about many of the traditional conservative countries in Europe as well but over time they too opened up. People are not somehow fundamentally different - but they have different cultures - and these change over time. They are not going to turn into liberals immediately, but as the average education improves, as the financial situation improves society will open up from within.
I don't even know where to begin with this... I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a troll and not actually someone seriously saying that...
What are you an idiot? Why? Because its fucking convenient. As in to describe shit. You know like when you are talking to someone and you want to indicate that something is a process that is not human intervened. You say its natural. You certainly can be a philosopher and claim (for instance) that all colours are a continuum and labels are misleading but at the end of the day you want to tell someone the colour of something you give them a discrete label and philosophy be damned.
I don't know - that is just something I thought up in 2 mins - I know that a lot of human behavioural studies use genetic twins separated at birth (some of this research is quite interesting - some really specific behavioural quirks appear despite often vastly different upbringing) to distinguish innate vs learned behaviour. I can recommend Steven Pinker - "the blank slate" for an general reader overview of this kind of research in humans. As for animals I can't say I have looked into it much.
I thought it was a witty ending - but your ending is actually better
Like I said the whole probability thing is a perception that atheists have of agnostics - both groups hold straw-men opinions about that other.
Labels are tricky so I would say you are better off being that "ornery old cuss who'll question absolutely anything" - to a point that is - scepticism, with wine, needs a measured dose.
Some days I would agree with you... We are basically a species evolved to survive challenges that are completely different to the kinds of situations we find ourselves in today - in a word we are somewhat maladapted to the world we have created. In movies and the like you always see a bad outcome to toying with human genes and a purely rational people are seen as almost evil - but I think that we can do a lot better than we are now if we head in that direction.
I wonder if it would be cost effective to pay someone to take out a major online retailer (esp at christmas) so as to get more traffic yourself (assuming you are a rival online retailer)?
Because its a convenient label to separate human intervening processes from those that are not and not a conspiracy to sleight the rest of the biosphere.
Adaptation (when referring to a process) is a process that selects from variation based on some measure of success which over time causes the system to become more successful. Evolution by natural selection (or selective breeding) is an instantiation of this generic adaptation process - so is learning and the scientific method. Evolution by itself is not necessarily adaptive.
From the wiki article on evolution "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations". We tend to automatically associate evolution with natural selection and this causes issues in cases like this. I suspect if the scientists in charge of the experiments where even half competent they would have thought up some effective measure and breed based on this. Learned behaviour vs innate also can be isolated with proper experiment controls (i.e. separate them from their parents or use control population for parents - given more time and expertise you can usually solve most of these kinds of issues).
Atheists say agnostics are 50/50 about the existence of god and they themselves are not claiming to know that god doesn't exist but merely not to believe in the existence of something without proof. Agnostics claim atheists (as above) claim to know there is no god and themselves only admitting that such an question cannot be answered yet. If you think about it both positions are essentially the same (tho I think the atheist wording is a bit better) and really all this wankery between the two groups is utterly pointless. You will not find an atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist, and you will not find an agnostic who truly believes its 50/50 that god exists.
Selective breeding is evolution but not by natural selection. Exactly same process - i.e. only some survive to pass their genes on to the next generation based on traits. Not sure where you are going with this existing information crap - also no such thing as devolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution.
Oh noes, someone is going to mod you down - it will be on your permanent record!
I imagine that the software actually did pull out numbers out of the transmissions but that they were basically semi-random and then all it takes is a bit of over-analysis and you have a credible source :D
I'm sorry you took personally what I said previously - I can only hope that the last line is not how you talk with people in the real world. You mentioned some quite silly things about memory - I called you out on it, and gave a link where you could find more information about it. I'm sorry you weren't able to find what you were looking for in two paragraphs so I will bring it out more clearly.
Long-term memories, on the other hand, are maintained by more stable and permanent changes in neural connections widely spread throughout the brain.
What is says here is that memory is a result of neural connections - you can find out more about this on the main page for long term memory. Contrast this to your thoughts on RNA, electricity or "quantum storage". I don't think much more needs to be said here.
You mention that you are really talking about storing consciousness which is quite confusing given that you only briefly mention something about it at the end, after spending your whole post talking about memory encoding. You have either confused the two concepts which are separate (note that plenty of animals show long-term memory but few consciousness) or god knows what.
I hate to be rude but this is some of the most retarded shit I have seen in some time. Instead of wasting time theorising nonsense just do some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Long-term
It will be a boon to all involved.
Mate, are you kidding or what? He wasn't always a total recluse - he became one after this episode. He did lecture tours, collaborated, collected prizes etc. He published his results. I.e. not a vacuum. Plenty of politics to boot.
Where have I said its more important? What I am saying is that you don't live in a vacuum, and if you don't want things turning to shit you sometimes have to do something about them. That inevitably includes politics. I hardly consider giving up mathematics and being a hermit as an example life for any scientist.
Its speculation in that I don't really understand the mathematics so I don't know who is in the right. According to the new yorker article Perelman certainly thinks he has been slighted by Yau and others, and Yau has claimed his contribution was more significant.
While what you say is true in that its the mathematical community's duty to reward him if his claim is true - at the end of the day if you are not willing to fight for what is right then don't be surprised if it fails. By staying a recluse instead of speaking out he is helping those who are (allegedly) trying to rip him off. I mean what does he hope to achieve by giving up mathematics, not talking to anyone and living with his mother jobless?? If he was really trying to be above it as some have claimed - then he would have continued business as usual - not pull a stunt like this.
He is raging coz others (in particular Yau) tried to (and to a certain extent succeed) take credit for his work. Instead of issuing a proper and deserved smack-down to these people he just hides. He is refusing the prizes as a protest against the lack of ethics in the mathematical community. In his mind he believes this demonstrates how he is totally committed to mathematics, and that only. Given that he was quite happy to accept prizes before and didn't feel that interfered with his work I suspect this is his way of raging as he is personality wise unsuited to direct confrontation.
And importantly in the analogy when you get a second opinion you go to another doctor, not some nut-case.