I think what you are referring to is another learning mechanism which bypasses redundant mental steps on tasks that you repeatedly do. So when neurons A B C and fired in sequence often enough it will create a connection between A and C, so that the task is preformed quicker - essentially "you are doing things without thinking" is a very good description of what is happening!
I did a pubmed search on selfish gene and found nothing which you talk about - I tried adding starfish as well but there is nothing relevant there. The article dosent mention selfish genes either so I'm not sure where you got it from.
Sickle cell anemia (two recessive genes) is 100% lethal if modern medicine is not available (constant transfusion of haemoglobin), its not lethal in a carrier form (one recessive gene) as I mentioned. Not sure how that is a straw man.
Like you said - DDT loses effectiveness over time. It started out as 95% effective - and ended up being 5% effective in the regions it was most used in. So we couldn't have kept using it forever anyway.
When they were about to start the first nuclear chain-reaction they calculated it had a very small chance of never stopping and causing the universe to be destroyed (They werent 100% sure if it would stop by itself as we now know it does).
I sort of find it scary that they went ahead anyway. I mean sure if there is a chance of you getting killed - or even a whole area getting destroyed - that's a decision you can make, but the whole universe? Who has the right to gamble everyone's lives?
I'm not saying we should stop all of science on the off chance that something bad could happen - but we should be more careful about what we are doing when we play with dangerous experiments.
You'll find that the genome developed resistance to that kind of attack a long time ago (random recombination of chromosomes on duplication prevents genes from gaming the system). Plus the situation you describe (a lethal recessive gene) occurs in humans and we do just fine (sickle cell anaemia). The only reason the recessive gene hangs around is that in a carrier state it gives protection from malaria.
Read the article chief - this is a gene being added which prevents the development of mosquitos if they don't have an antibiotic in the environment. So in this case what will happen is that this gene will be dropped quick-smart (more mosquitos without it will survive) and the insect population will move on. What needs to be done is to include some kind of benefit from having the gene as well or this project is going to fail so fast it will be very embarrassing.
I thought this too (two sets of genes) - but its useless if they find a gene for a rare disease in a person if its not expressed (and hence not detected by the researchers). Hence having two sets of genes does nothing but complicate things further (as they now have to find which particular gene out of the two is the one causing the problem).
Furthermore another issue is that the genome is one huge causality network - for all but the most simplest disorders you'll need to have a cascade of genes to get a particular outcome - which increases further the number of people they need to detect disorders.
Ron Paul is for "smaller government" - which inevitably means more privatisation, deregulation and tax cuts which invariable make the rich / corporations better off at the expense of everyone else.
Not only that but he doesn't believe in evolution, and supports an economic model which the overwhelming majority of economists think is a joke (and interestingly enough is referred to as the creationism of economics, in economic circles). So why anyone thinks he is some kind of political messiah is beyond me.
I do not doubt that you are not to blame for what has happened for you and I fear you have jumped on my statement due you your obvious and understandable anger and people who accuse you of such.
The point I was making was a response to a statement which appeared to claim that there was no external factors to a rape other than the rapist himself - which in my view was obviously false. However the notion of having influence over an event is not the same as being to blame for it. As an example in an car accident both drivers have influence over events, but only one might be to blame for the negative results.
For what you say in the first sentence to be true, the rapist's target has to be chosen randomly, and it most certainly is not. Therefore behaviour by the victim modifies their chance of becoming a victim, and hence they play a part in becoming a victim.
Naturally this of course has nothing to do with the sentencing of rapists, but is just common sense. Denying it in the name of PC will not help the situation.
The thingie about lowering taxes to increase revenue only works when you are not in the optimal part of the laffer curve. If you are below it then increasing taxes will increase revenue. Needless to say if you reduce your tax rate to 0 the government revenue is not going to increase.
The mess in Afghanistan is a Nato operation in the sense that US troops operate under the Nato structure. They are still the people who call the shots as to what happens and form the great majority of troops that actually fight (as opposed to a number of other countries that have ordered their troops out of any potential danger zones making them largely useless). Therefore any future president will have to make the decisions about Afghanistan.
While I don't like Hillary remember that she is an individual distinct from Bill, and mistakes and transgressions that he made don't automatically translate as Hillary's problems too.
Slashdot Mirror
While the guy may take photo-ops with his laptop open, the fact that he suggested such a stupendous plan argues against his technical competency.
It goes from "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" to "Balance of probabilities" in civil courts.
I think what you are referring to is another learning mechanism which bypasses redundant mental steps on tasks that you repeatedly do. So when neurons A B C and fired in sequence often enough it will create a connection between A and C, so that the task is preformed quicker - essentially "you are doing things without thinking" is a very good description of what is happening!
I did a pubmed search on selfish gene and found nothing which you talk about - I tried adding starfish as well but there is nothing relevant there. The article dosent mention selfish genes either so I'm not sure where you got it from.
Sickle cell anemia (two recessive genes) is 100% lethal if modern medicine is not available (constant transfusion of haemoglobin), its not lethal in a carrier form (one recessive gene) as I mentioned. Not sure how that is a straw man.
Like you said - DDT loses effectiveness over time. It started out as 95% effective - and ended up being 5% effective in the regions it was most used in. So we couldn't have kept using it forever anyway.
When they were about to start the first nuclear chain-reaction they calculated it had a very small chance of never stopping and causing the universe to be destroyed (They werent 100% sure if it would stop by itself as we now know it does).
I sort of find it scary that they went ahead anyway. I mean sure if there is a chance of you getting killed - or even a whole area getting destroyed - that's a decision you can make, but the whole universe? Who has the right to gamble everyone's lives?
I'm not saying we should stop all of science on the off chance that something bad could happen - but we should be more careful about what we are doing when we play with dangerous experiments.
You'll find that the genome developed resistance to that kind of attack a long time ago (random recombination of chromosomes on duplication prevents genes from gaming the system). Plus the situation you describe (a lethal recessive gene) occurs in humans and we do just fine (sickle cell anaemia). The only reason the recessive gene hangs around is that in a carrier state it gives protection from malaria.
Read the article chief - this is a gene being added which prevents the development of mosquitos if they don't have an antibiotic in the environment. So in this case what will happen is that this gene will be dropped quick-smart (more mosquitos without it will survive) and the insect population will move on. What needs to be done is to include some kind of benefit from having the gene as well or this project is going to fail so fast it will be very embarrassing.
Well not that it matters for customers - as you are playing on a server that has less than 10k people neway.
I thought this too (two sets of genes) - but its useless if they find a gene for a rare disease in a person if its not expressed (and hence not detected by the researchers). Hence having two sets of genes does nothing but complicate things further (as they now have to find which particular gene out of the two is the one causing the problem).
Furthermore another issue is that the genome is one huge causality network - for all but the most simplest disorders you'll need to have a cascade of genes to get a particular outcome - which increases further the number of people they need to detect disorders.
Ron Paul is for "smaller government" - which inevitably means more privatisation, deregulation and tax cuts which invariable make the rich / corporations better off at the expense of everyone else.
Not only that but he doesn't believe in evolution, and supports an economic model which the overwhelming majority of economists think is a joke (and interestingly enough is referred to as the creationism of economics, in economic circles). So why anyone thinks he is some kind of political messiah is beyond me.
Wow, slashdot is the battleground for the new world order!
conspiracy FTW!
It's unfortunately the latter my friend.
I do not doubt that you are not to blame for what has happened for you and I fear you have jumped on my statement due you your obvious and understandable anger and people who accuse you of such.
The point I was making was a response to a statement which appeared to claim that there was no external factors to a rape other than the rapist himself - which in my view was obviously false. However the notion of having influence over an event is not the same as being to blame for it. As an example in an car accident both drivers have influence over events, but only one might be to blame for the negative results.
Who placed blame on you? I cannot comprehend the kind of poor comprehension that would lead to that conclusion.
For what you say in the first sentence to be true, the rapist's target has to be chosen randomly, and it most certainly is not. Therefore behaviour by the victim modifies their chance of becoming a victim, and hence they play a part in becoming a victim.
Naturally this of course has nothing to do with the sentencing of rapists, but is just common sense. Denying it in the name of PC will not help the situation.
I don't think you know what representative democracy is.
Perhaps you took the astrology course by mistake?
It means the asteroid will have a breakdown due to comically improper set-up before it reaches mars.
The thingie about lowering taxes to increase revenue only works when you are not in the optimal part of the laffer curve. If you are below it then increasing taxes will increase revenue. Needless to say if you reduce your tax rate to 0 the government revenue is not going to increase.
The mess in Afghanistan is a Nato operation in the sense that US troops operate under the Nato structure. They are still the people who call the shots as to what happens and form the great majority of troops that actually fight (as opposed to a number of other countries that have ordered their troops out of any potential danger zones making them largely useless). Therefore any future president will have to make the decisions about Afghanistan.
While I don't like Hillary remember that she is an individual distinct from Bill, and mistakes and transgressions that he made don't automatically translate as Hillary's problems too.
Continuing the religion analogy that would be like saying that the worst case scenario for religious folks is to meet god.
Didn't you listen to the parent? Its got an intrinsic value!
With a glorious world wide following of 75 economists.
Yes but it allows you to make a fortitude roll to negate the side-effects.