Yeah, I totally agree with you, but arresting her at this point is like beating a dead horse. I think she has suffered enough embarrassment, derision as well as financial hardship to make up for any punishment she deserves.
Ok, nothing personal, but I think you have not read what you are quoting correctly.
As you will note all I said was the whole point of Darwin's discovery is that evolution is not random. Had he not discovered that part he would not be a household name. This does not say that he is 100% correct and he has not been extended and I am not sure how you have come to that interpretation. All it says is that, irrespective of what they believe, if they didn't know Darwin thought evolution not to be random then I don't know which cave they have climbed out of! It is as embarrassing as saying that Newton thought gravity was incalculable!
I dare say you may have been expecting dogmatism and so are seeing it in places where they are not?
Evolution has been refined hundreds of times since its inception and has been combined with genetics and other sciences to get to the theory it is today. However the core of the theory is very simple: heritability + slight variation in offspring + limited resources causing only some to survive = evolution. The core is the simple part and has withstood scientific scrutiny for two centuries and has been applied to software engineering and used by companies to design new technologies. However its understanding the "so what then" part is what we have been working on and refining for centuries.
Awesome... simply mind blowing. You, sir, continue to push the boundaries and innovate in this exciting art form! I will watch you with keen interest as I expect great things from you in the future.
Reading the article, my guess is that this is a lot of nonsense that is going to leave the authors with red faces.
"What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed"
WTF?? Darwin was the one that explained the process FFS! This more than anything shows that the authors have no idea what they are talking about. Expect to see it in the next Discovery Institute press release.
To me McCain's use of fear-mongering (especially by his VP) is much more frightening than Obama's broken promise(s). That someone would stoop so low as to employ such tactics speaks of a character I would not put in charge of a petrol station, let alone the white house. Apart from that Spanish ad Obama has largely steered clear of such tactics.
Palin, of course, with her anti-science and anti-intellectual nonsense is another reason why that ticket didn't get chosen by me.
If there was a version of Obama running against him that kept that promise I would have voted for him over this Obama... however the reality is that you had to make a choice between two people and he was in my opinion the better of the two. Its not that I support all of this campaign promises, or support all of his election tactics - you don't get to pick and chose aspects of a candidate, you have to go for the whole shebang.
I know that this will not be the last broken promise - however I still think as presidents go he will be very good.
Nice to see someone else who knows all the different varieties...
If anyone is interested, all the different favours of socialism where on display on the republican side of the Spanish civil war and they implemented their policies in the areas they controlled - its really fascinating to see so many different ideas on how to run society existing at the same time! (until 1938 when the commies wiped out all the opposing parties).
Well lets be perfectly honest - John McCain took public financing because he thought he couldn't get much money anyway and this way he could appear extra legit - same reason as Obama. Once Obama saw he could make more money through donations he promptly did an about face and broke the promise.
What I don't understand is what is the point of accepting / not accepting public financing if your party can still raise money for you anyway?? Would all the people who would donate to you just donate to your party instead??
Retrotransposons are very interesting from an evolutionary perspective as they have co-evolved with their host. No doubt some are harmful, but some have beneficial properties as well (co-operation is more stable then competition). I can't remember now where I have read the article on them but one example is mentioned here tho no details are provided http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14497.abstract
It really depends on your definition of purpose: some of the junk is virus DNA that got incorporated that seems to have some purpose (retrotransposons), others are believed to have some regulatory function, while the rest could conceivably serve as constantly randomising raw material for new genes. There is also the possibility of self-replicating parts of the DNA (ie. the real selfish genes) that have no use for the body which would be the true junk DNA.
It has been known for a long time that junk DNA wasn't junk. However its one of those catchy memes that has persisted it the general public far longer then it was believed to be true.
The way you form thoughts and opinions in your brain is very much like decisions by consensus (although its a shouting match between various drives too). It is essentially distributed decision making. There is no seat of volition in your brain - there is no "you" (one proof of this is people with strokes often undergo a change of personality as the dead parts of their brain no longer contribute to the persona). When you become addicted and go cold turkey you essentially have a conflict between two drives so intense that ends up with collateral damage (the various symptoms of withdrawal) which to me invokes rather strong parallels with civil war. It certainly felt that way to me.
You make a good point that not *all* addictions are true "addictions", but it's a point we already know.
All addictions are psychological addictions so anything that makes you feel good ends up rewiring your brain (this is why you constantly think about what you are addicted to, your brain is looking for ways to feel good again) - and hence your brain rebels against you when you try to quit (it literally becomes a civil war inside your head). So its not really a matter of what are "real" addictions - they are all real because you make them real - even if to the outside observer there looks to be no addictive component.
Excepting the 1994 Airbus case, where US intelligence publicized that Airbus had provided bribes in their bid to win the contract; basically uncovering an illegal operation.
So they just happened to be listening in?
I remember watching a program about this and there was a similar case with the players reversed (ie French intelligence busted Boeing bribing some south American govt. - tho I could have remembered it wrong)
Thereby demonstrating not the truth of your assertion but your agreement with socialism, in particular with the belief of Rudd's that you claim causes you to dislike him, that "the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government".
I understand where you are coming from but I have thought about this a lot - on paper it seems like a 'libertarian' society is best - until you live in such a country and see the results. If people are too poor to pull themselves out of it (by getting re-educated, by being able to afford to look presentable etc) or too sick to work and hence too poor to get better, nobody benefits. Apart from the practical consideration there is a benefit to everyone else as well in that they have a certain assurance that something will catch them if they have bad luck, rather then living in fear and doing anything to keep their jobs as they know they cannot survive otherwise.
Yes I do agree with many aspects of socialism, and aspects have been shown to be very beneficial to society - the 40h work week, 2 day weekend, sick days, holidays are all socialist ideas that have become so mainstream that few realise its socialist origins. How to balance this to ensure that people don't come to rely on the government for everything? I don't know - perhaps this move by Rudd is a sign that Australia is moving past a point I am comfortable with.
I would assert that it is not the place of the government to determine the correct number of children for people to have, this again springs from an assumption that you cannot determine such a thing for yourself and need "mother country" to decide for you. For many people though, the FTB is less than their total tax burden, making it pointless from a financial point of view to take the tax in the first place unless there is a social control agenda. Mind you, you admitted it is all about social control anyway, you just have a different perspective on what that agenda is.
Why should people who don't have children yet pay more tax? That is exactly their best time to be accumulating assets and savings for the time when they do have children. Why should they be paying for the children of others?
I don't disagree - I was just making the point that the desired effect of that policy was more children rather than making people dependent on the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The poor lander all alone out there, a million miles away from home
Now you made me all depressed. A rescue mission I say!
Release the fruit flies!
We're not talking about video games here. Some people use computers for important work, not just for screwing around.
How dare ye!
Yeah, I totally agree with you, but arresting her at this point is like beating a dead horse. I think she has suffered enough embarrassment, derision as well as financial hardship to make up for any punishment she deserves.
Plus they might all go there to try and convert the heathens.
Ok, nothing personal, but I think you have not read what you are quoting correctly.
As you will note all I said was the whole point of Darwin's discovery is that evolution is not random. Had he not discovered that part he would not be a household name. This does not say that he is 100% correct and he has not been extended and I am not sure how you have come to that interpretation. All it says is that, irrespective of what they believe, if they didn't know Darwin thought evolution not to be random then I don't know which cave they have climbed out of! It is as embarrassing as saying that Newton thought gravity was incalculable!
I dare say you may have been expecting dogmatism and so are seeing it in places where they are not?
Evolution has been refined hundreds of times since its inception and has been combined with genetics and other sciences to get to the theory it is today. However the core of the theory is very simple: heritability + slight variation in offspring + limited resources causing only some to survive = evolution. The core is the simple part and has withstood scientific scrutiny for two centuries and has been applied to software engineering and used by companies to design new technologies. However its understanding the "so what then" part is what we have been working on and refining for centuries.
Awesome... simply mind blowing. You, sir, continue to push the boundaries and innovate in this exciting art form! I will watch you with keen interest as I expect great things from you in the future.
I salute your dedication and commitment to the trolling cause. Long live the replies!
Reading the article, my guess is that this is a lot of nonsense that is going to leave the authors with red faces.
"What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed"
WTF?? Darwin was the one that explained the process FFS! This more than anything shows that the authors have no idea what they are talking about. Expect to see it in the next Discovery Institute press release.
To me McCain's use of fear-mongering (especially by his VP) is much more frightening than Obama's broken promise(s). That someone would stoop so low as to employ such tactics speaks of a character I would not put in charge of a petrol station, let alone the white house. Apart from that Spanish ad Obama has largely steered clear of such tactics.
Palin, of course, with her anti-science and anti-intellectual nonsense is another reason why that ticket didn't get chosen by me.
If there was a version of Obama running against him that kept that promise I would have voted for him over this Obama... however the reality is that you had to make a choice between two people and he was in my opinion the better of the two. Its not that I support all of this campaign promises, or support all of his election tactics - you don't get to pick and chose aspects of a candidate, you have to go for the whole shebang.
I know that this will not be the last broken promise - however I still think as presidents go he will be very good.
Nice to see someone else who knows all the different varieties...
If anyone is interested, all the different favours of socialism where on display on the republican side of the Spanish civil war and they implemented their policies in the areas they controlled - its really fascinating to see so many different ideas on how to run society existing at the same time! (until 1938 when the commies wiped out all the opposing parties).
i.e. drudge report, new republic :D
I'm sure all the homeless out in the street are ecstatic at the possibilities your American Dream presents them.
Well lets be perfectly honest - John McCain took public financing because he thought he couldn't get much money anyway and this way he could appear extra legit - same reason as Obama. Once Obama saw he could make more money through donations he promptly did an about face and broke the promise.
What I don't understand is what is the point of accepting / not accepting public financing if your party can still raise money for you anyway?? Would all the people who would donate to you just donate to your party instead??
I've noticed some graphics people do prefer CRTs - why is that?
The only thing I can think of is the refresh rate might be better on CRTs...
Retrotransposons are very interesting from an evolutionary perspective as they have co-evolved with their host. No doubt some are harmful, but some have beneficial properties as well (co-operation is more stable then competition). I can't remember now where I have read the article on them but one example is mentioned here tho no details are provided http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14497.abstract
It really depends on your definition of purpose: some of the junk is virus DNA that got incorporated that seems to have some purpose (retrotransposons), others are believed to have some regulatory function, while the rest could conceivably serve as constantly randomising raw material for new genes. There is also the possibility of self-replicating parts of the DNA (ie. the real selfish genes) that have no use for the body which would be the true junk DNA.
Its illegal for American companies to pay bribes, even if its overseas - so they can still be persecuted for it in the US.
It has been known for a long time that junk DNA wasn't junk. However its one of those catchy memes that has persisted it the general public far longer then it was believed to be true.
The way you form thoughts and opinions in your brain is very much like decisions by consensus (although its a shouting match between various drives too). It is essentially distributed decision making. There is no seat of volition in your brain - there is no "you" (one proof of this is people with strokes often undergo a change of personality as the dead parts of their brain no longer contribute to the persona). When you become addicted and go cold turkey you essentially have a conflict between two drives so intense that ends up with collateral damage (the various symptoms of withdrawal) which to me invokes rather strong parallels with civil war. It certainly felt that way to me.
On a more serious note - there is a small chance it could survive the freeze and restart once enough sun returns to fill its batteries.
You make a good point that not *all* addictions are true "addictions", but it's a point we already know.
All addictions are psychological addictions so anything that makes you feel good ends up rewiring your brain (this is why you constantly think about what you are addicted to, your brain is looking for ways to feel good again) - and hence your brain rebels against you when you try to quit (it literally becomes a civil war inside your head). So its not really a matter of what are "real" addictions - they are all real because you make them real - even if to the outside observer there looks to be no addictive component.
Excepting the 1994 Airbus case, where US intelligence publicized that Airbus had provided bribes in their bid to win the contract; basically uncovering an illegal operation.
So they just happened to be listening in?
I remember watching a program about this and there was a similar case with the players reversed (ie French intelligence busted Boeing bribing some south American govt. - tho I could have remembered it wrong)
Thereby demonstrating not the truth of your assertion but your agreement with socialism, in particular with the belief of Rudd's that you claim causes you to dislike him, that "the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government".
I understand where you are coming from but I have thought about this a lot - on paper it seems like a 'libertarian' society is best - until you live in such a country and see the results. If people are too poor to pull themselves out of it (by getting re-educated, by being able to afford to look presentable etc) or too sick to work and hence too poor to get better, nobody benefits. Apart from the practical consideration there is a benefit to everyone else as well in that they have a certain assurance that something will catch them if they have bad luck, rather then living in fear and doing anything to keep their jobs as they know they cannot survive otherwise.
Yes I do agree with many aspects of socialism, and aspects have been shown to be very beneficial to society - the 40h work week, 2 day weekend, sick days, holidays are all socialist ideas that have become so mainstream that few realise its socialist origins. How to balance this to ensure that people don't come to rely on the government for everything? I don't know - perhaps this move by Rudd is a sign that Australia is moving past a point I am comfortable with.
I would assert that it is not the place of the government to determine the correct number of children for people to have, this again springs from an assumption that you cannot determine such a thing for yourself and need "mother country" to decide for you. For many people though, the FTB is less than their total tax burden, making it pointless from a financial point of view to take the tax in the first place unless there is a social control agenda. Mind you, you admitted it is all about social control anyway, you just have a different perspective on what that agenda is. Why should people who don't have children yet pay more tax? That is exactly their best time to be accumulating assets and savings for the time when they do have children. Why should they be paying for the children of others?
I don't disagree - I was just making the point that the desired effect of that policy was more children rather than making people dependent on the government.