To their senses, the window looks like a nice pool of water to land in. As do parked cars.
Whoa could this explain why birds specifically poop on cars so much? Maybe they have some kind of instinct to aim their poop at water sources (oddly enough).
I'll have to see how much bird poop my car attracts when I paint it with plasti-dip which should look different.
Also an interesting fact about the Lac Megantic disaster: some people near the source of the explosion are assumed to have been vaporized. Nobody knows for certain, but that's the best guess as to what happened to these people who completely disappeared.
I won't argue. It was an attempt to make a compromise between a decently working system (Canadian-style health care, which would kill off a whole industry in the US) and a total clusterfuck (the status quo of US-style health care). So it's still kind of a total clusterfuck.
Oh the goalposts are definitely moving, but I'm not the one doing it. Fortunately we have a full history of their locations.
The bullshit (regarding the relationship between evolution and migration) started here:
Mobility and behaviors that encourage certain sorts of movement patterns are classic evolution responses to selection pressure from being in a place that sucks.
Now, nothing is an *evolutionary response* unless it involves the the changing of an inherited trait. For life as we know it, that means a change to the genome or gene expression. Please see the "mainstream" definition of evolution. I won't use any of your special definitions.
Migration enables selection by allowing some organisms to preferentially survive and reproduce by not being in places that suck more.
Selection is one of the three key parts of evolution. Hence, that makes migration a cause of evolution, a thing I said. Note I never said that migration is part of evolution. That a thing you said.
Now you may be confusing a "cause of evolution" with a "selective pressure," these are not the same thing. It's understandable if you don't know all these terms, given your level of science knowledge. If an animal is forced to migrate its new environment may bring on selective pressures. But a cause of evolution is a mechanism through which inherited traits can be changed - recombination, mutation, epigenetics for example. If an animal moves to a new area its DNA will not be altered unless perhaps that area is highly radioactive - even then, the cause of evolution would be mutation, not migration.
If everything that could cause a selective pressure ("enables selection") were a cause of evolution, then literally everything in the universe that a lifeform interacts with in any way could qualify as well.
Also, since this seems to be part of the error of your thinking, migration is more than just the action of moving from one place to another. It is also the traits that enable that migration such as behavior and physical characteristics. A number of organisms such as herd animals and many bird species have evolved to specialize in migration.
No, migration IS just the action of moving from one place to another. It has nothing to do with the traits of any animals. Not. One. Thing. It sounds like you want to use one of your special definitions again, and I won't use those, no matter how many times you declare yourself logical and reasonable and therefore authoritative.
Say you have 100 different blogs with different names, different usernames for the admin, slightly different looks etc. but they all conveniently re-blog the same content. Next, you have a domain name that points to a load-balancing server which hosts no web content, but redirect the traffic so that none of these blogs hit the control quota. If one approaches the quota, the load-balancer will detect it and shut that particular blog down. A single-source DoS attack won't work against this system because that's only one unique visitor who just really likes the site:-)
But I'm just being a smartass. The best solution is to host the blog on a darknet and use a non-Russian darknet portal site to allow convenient (but not anonymous or secure) web access.
We're using the definition of a scientific term. Migration isn't part of evolution any more than hibernation or defecation is.
I would rationally argue that since evolution is a change in traits being inherited between generations of animals (oh noes this definition traces back to an authoritative source! Do you reject/redefine this too?), it does not include migration since location is not a trait of the animal at all.
I'm not using your special definition of evolution. Find an authoritative source that says migration is a cause of evolution or you're just wrong and I'll have to just accept another field of science that you simply deny the reality of.
Evolving traits that encourage or enhance mobility falls under evolution, moving to new habitats does not. I've never seen migration listed as a cause of evolution. Please prove me wrong.
But does that really matter when you later say that any species that are killed off by our habitat destruction just have an "inability to adapt problem?" Talk about victim-blaming! Those pandas should have evolved wings to migrate to other bamboo forests. And by now, evolved the intelligence to invent agriculture. Or the ability to breed like rabbits or something, if they really wanted to survive, right?
And it's impressive that Iranians are relatively level-headed and peaceful after all this, even many western cultures wouldn't be able to contain their lust for vengeance in such circumstances.
But I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the Taliban.
Well I can't do anything about your outright denial of the legitimacy of the entire field of paleoclimatology (just after speaking about the ice ages that various animals survived - how do you know they happened?), but you admit that animals have only "adapted" by moving. That's not the same thing as evolving. There may be no habitat left for some species, and then they have nowhere to move to.
Guns are not that important in a practical sense, although they do have a big visual impact. They're not much more useful against a modern, mechanized army than your bare hands. Which on the flip side, means that your bare hands are very nearly as good. Once you have the sheer numbers, their weapons will eventually run out of ammo, fuel, or in a worst-case scenario, get stuck in our guts. They know this and will know when to surrender.
Electronic direct democracy could bring about the next great advancement in human civilization. It would finally free us from democracies that are just various degrees of oligarchy. In China and the US for example the democracy is not much more than skin-deep.
If a party that rules via EDD wins an election, they will make their country a trailblazer of progress and citizens of other countries will want to follow suit. Countries would soon vote for mincome and begin the transition away from capitalism, unleashing the full potential of our technology rather than using it as a prop in a silly game with the very serious consequence of transferring practically all excess wealth to the elite.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess I got that gene!
Haha I have a friend who got hassled by cops for hauling two barrels of race gas on a trailer.
The difference in safety and major spills is infinitesimally small and pipelines cause more minor leaks.
Making the world a worse place, one awful new thing at a time.
The screw-up of...allowing parking spaces to remain empty and freely usable?
Are you suggesting that SF should have a parking system like London? That's not unreasonable, I just want to be clear.
Came here for the bird denialists, leaving satisfied.
I don't buy the "glass mistaken for water" theory.
Why would a non-aquatic bird try to land in water? And head-first at full speed, at that?
I think they just don't see the glass and assume it's an open space. Birds avoid glass with a spiderweb pattern that's visible only in UV light.
To their senses, the window looks like a nice pool of water to land in. As do parked cars.
Whoa could this explain why birds specifically poop on cars so much? Maybe they have some kind of instinct to aim their poop at water sources (oddly enough).
I'll have to see how much bird poop my car attracts when I paint it with plasti-dip which should look different.
I wonder what you'd be saying if this article were about a pipeline spill instead...
I thought the same thing...
Also an interesting fact about the Lac Megantic disaster: some people near the source of the explosion are assumed to have been vaporized. Nobody knows for certain, but that's the best guess as to what happened to these people who completely disappeared.
I won't argue. It was an attempt to make a compromise between a decently working system (Canadian-style health care, which would kill off a whole industry in the US) and a total clusterfuck (the status quo of US-style health care). So it's still kind of a total clusterfuck.
Oh the goalposts are definitely moving, but I'm not the one doing it. Fortunately we have a full history of their locations.
The bullshit (regarding the relationship between evolution and migration) started here:
Mobility and behaviors that encourage certain sorts of movement patterns are classic evolution responses to selection pressure from being in a place that sucks.
Now, nothing is an *evolutionary response* unless it involves the the changing of an inherited trait. For life as we know it, that means a change to the genome or gene expression. Please see the "mainstream" definition of evolution. I won't use any of your special definitions.
Migration enables selection by allowing some organisms to preferentially survive and reproduce by not being in places that suck more.
Selection is one of the three key parts of evolution. Hence, that makes migration a cause of evolution, a thing I said. Note I never said that migration is part of evolution. That a thing you said.
Now you may be confusing a "cause of evolution" with a "selective pressure," these are not the same thing. It's understandable if you don't know all these terms, given your level of science knowledge. If an animal is forced to migrate its new environment may bring on selective pressures. But a cause of evolution is a mechanism through which inherited traits can be changed - recombination, mutation, epigenetics for example. If an animal moves to a new area its DNA will not be altered unless perhaps that area is highly radioactive - even then, the cause of evolution would be mutation, not migration.
If everything that could cause a selective pressure ("enables selection") were a cause of evolution, then literally everything in the universe that a lifeform interacts with in any way could qualify as well.
Also, since this seems to be part of the error of your thinking, migration is more than just the action of moving from one place to another. It is also the traits that enable that migration such as behavior and physical characteristics. A number of organisms such as herd animals and many bird species have evolved to specialize in migration.
No, migration IS just the action of moving from one place to another. It has nothing to do with the traits of any animals. Not. One. Thing. It sounds like you want to use one of your special definitions again, and I won't use those, no matter how many times you declare yourself logical and reasonable and therefore authoritative.
Holy hell look at that name...this bill must be full of draconian nightmare laws!
Yeah and I would entertain that use of the term if this were only one atom thick, but it's not.
Say you have 100 different blogs with different names, different usernames for the admin, slightly different looks etc. but they all conveniently re-blog the same content. Next, you have a domain name that points to a load-balancing server which hosts no web content, but redirect the traffic so that none of these blogs hit the control quota. If one approaches the quota, the load-balancer will detect it and shut that particular blog down. A single-source DoS attack won't work against this system because that's only one unique visitor who just really likes the site :-)
But I'm just being a smartass. The best solution is to host the blog on a darknet and use a non-Russian darknet portal site to allow convenient (but not anonymous or secure) web access.
We're using the definition of a scientific term. Migration isn't part of evolution any more than hibernation or defecation is.
I would rationally argue that since evolution is a change in traits being inherited between generations of animals (oh noes this definition traces back to an authoritative source! Do you reject/redefine this too?), it does not include migration since location is not a trait of the animal at all.
Any more ways you'd like to be proven wrong?
I'm not using your special definition of evolution. Find an authoritative source that says migration is a cause of evolution or you're just wrong and I'll have to just accept another field of science that you simply deny the reality of.
How much longer will there be conventional human soldiers, rather than power-armored soldiers or android drones?
Evolving traits that encourage or enhance mobility falls under evolution, moving to new habitats does not. I've never seen migration listed as a cause of evolution. Please prove me wrong.
But does that really matter when you later say that any species that are killed off by our habitat destruction just have an "inability to adapt problem?" Talk about victim-blaming! Those pandas should have evolved wings to migrate to other bamboo forests. And by now, evolved the intelligence to invent agriculture. Or the ability to breed like rabbits or something, if they really wanted to survive, right?
And it's impressive that Iranians are relatively level-headed and peaceful after all this, even many western cultures wouldn't be able to contain their lust for vengeance in such circumstances.
But I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the Taliban.
I missed the word "like." Sometimes I miss a word.
Well I can't do anything about your outright denial of the legitimacy of the entire field of paleoclimatology (just after speaking about the ice ages that various animals survived - how do you know they happened?), but you admit that animals have only "adapted" by moving. That's not the same thing as evolving. There may be no habitat left for some species, and then they have nowhere to move to.
And you don't feel any attachment to your species either?
Guns are not that important in a practical sense, although they do have a big visual impact. They're not much more useful against a modern, mechanized army than your bare hands. Which on the flip side, means that your bare hands are very nearly as good. Once you have the sheer numbers, their weapons will eventually run out of ammo, fuel, or in a worst-case scenario, get stuck in our guts. They know this and will know when to surrender.
Electronic direct democracy could bring about the next great advancement in human civilization. It would finally free us from democracies that are just various degrees of oligarchy. In China and the US for example the democracy is not much more than skin-deep.
If a party that rules via EDD wins an election, they will make their country a trailblazer of progress and citizens of other countries will want to follow suit. Countries would soon vote for mincome and begin the transition away from capitalism, unleashing the full potential of our technology rather than using it as a prop in a silly game with the very serious consequence of transferring practically all excess wealth to the elite.