except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA
If 'faulty' mtDNA can cause problems then mtDNA has an effect. It produce's ATP which gives our cells energy. Conceptually, if a gene can be 'faulty' it only means it can mutate and if it can mutate in can evolve. Consider, if you had the most efficient mtDNA for producing ATP. Now, if a person is born that produces ATP slightly more efficiently will your genes now be 'faulty'? Of course not. In other words, differences in mtDNA might account for people who naturally have lots of energy versus those that don't.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if a 'faulty' gene can cause a noticeable difference then so can a change in the gene. Genes aren't really faulty. They're just different and either they keep copying or they don't.
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
Interesting. The people that can't see the middle ground are generally the ones most worried about the "slippery slope". I suggest, they are also the cause. If everything wasn't a slippery slope we might actually be able to solve some of our problems.
The most imminent use of the cables, the authors say, might be to install them to span the short distances between servers on giant 'server farms', used by large Web companies such as Facebook."
This is why movie studios aren't concerned about "a single file getting out there", since they know the vast majority of people don't want to bother with finding movies the hard way.
Then why would they bother with DRM in the first place?
There is no argument needed to make you personally care about other members of our species. If caring about other members of our species benefits the replication of human DNA then caring about other members will be selected for. If not, then it will be selected against. You're right that there's no need to worry about it. It would be interesting to take a snapshot of all DNA now and compare it to 100 years from now. I wonder how much DNA after making it billions of years doesn't make it in the next 100 years or any 100 year sample for that matter.
I still disagree that it is deception, since they are not actually being deceptive.
It's very deceptive to elderly people who don't see contrast well. The only reason not to make ads stand out much is to be deceptive. Whether that merits regulation or not is another question.
Evolution is replication with error and selection. The DNA in the bacteria is replicating and is still prone to whatever mutation rates bacterial DNA normally has. The only thing that is happening is the DNA doesn't confine itself to the organism it created. It replicates away and spreads to the organisms around it. Selection acts on that. The DNA is still under all of the rules of evolution.
At a molecular level, DNA is a replicating molecule. It just so happens, that if you replicate something and it's not a perfect copy each time you're going to wind up with evolution. There is always some kind of selection going on. Whether it's that there is oxygen or there isn't there's going to be selection.
Lateral genes don't spread widely without the effects of natural selection. It may occur faster than what we see in more complex organisms but it's still there. If there were not pressure for antibiotic resistance the genes wouldn't have spread any faster than any other neutral genes that we don't notice. And detrimental genes aren't going to spread far.
The male isn't really transferring genes laterally though. They're being combined with the females egg and falling squarely in the realm of fertilization/reproduction. With that said. There is some evidence that there is a lateral transfer of genes between the mother and baby. Male DNA has been found in the brains of mothers' of sons. My understanding is it's harder to find evidence that the sons receive genes from the mother laterally since he will already have an X chromosome from her.
It works when 1 party control most of the property. As more parties get involved infrastructure typically moves towards a co-op system. As the number of parties increases, eventually, a central authority becomes responsible for infrastructure. At some point, right of ways become a major issue. I'm not basing this on any ideology, just observation.
You are correct. It would appear the AC only thinks sexism occurs with regards to women. As for the moderators, I would have been fine with a -1 off-topic, but -1 overrated is just someone who uses mod points to disagree.
tl;dr - Population growth is a good thing. Necessity is the mother of invention. Knowledge is the resource for invention.
We tend to run at capacity only in certain locations and generally it's more a problem of social structure than a lack of resources. So there are generally wars going on somewhere. Even so, war can have the tendency to actually increase populations in the long run. Baby booms are common at the end of wars. Wars don't tend to decrease libido.
Personally, and contrary to everyone I've ever met I think population growth is a good thing. I have not thought about this lightly either. In the end, all resources are a matter of energy, knowledge and need. Whether it's energy to desalinate water, energy for food production and distribution, or energy to make take a previously valuable metal like aluminum and make it ubiquitous.
Concerns over energy are tempered in the long run with the knowledge that not only does more energy from the Sun fall on the Earth than we can use for the foreseeable future, but the percentage that falls on the Earth is negligible compared to the Sun's total energy output. While it may be dirty we also have plenty of coal and as well as natural gas to keep our energy production up for a while. The advantage of being human is that our minds have always been our best resource.
There are a few quotes from this page that reflect this has been a concern of people for thousands of years.
Confucius (551 – 479 BC) wrote that, “excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife.”
I recognize that there can be periods of ups and downs and that local populations can vary a lot. I just can't escape that 200 years ago, no one would have believed that the Earth could hold 7 billion people. Yet, here we are. Our growth is a reflection of our technology. The summary states Africa's current population at 1.1 billion. China and India each have as many people. Famine isn't the result of the population. Shouldn't be resources either as Japan doesn't suffer even though Japan has 127 million people itself. It just comes down to a foundation of knowledge. Then necessity can yield solutions.
When the day finally comes that human beings have bent the entire biosphere of Earth towards our needs then I will agree the Earth can hold no more. I also assume, by then, we would have the means to colonize other bodies in the Solar System.
Slashdot Mirror
except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA
If 'faulty' mtDNA can cause problems then mtDNA has an effect. It produce's ATP which gives our cells energy. Conceptually, if a gene can be 'faulty' it only means it can mutate and if it can mutate in can evolve. Consider, if you had the most efficient mtDNA for producing ATP. Now, if a person is born that produces ATP slightly more efficiently will your genes now be 'faulty'? Of course not. In other words, differences in mtDNA might account for people who naturally have lots of energy versus those that don't.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if a 'faulty' gene can cause a noticeable difference then so can a change in the gene. Genes aren't really faulty. They're just different and either they keep copying or they don't.
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
Interesting. The people that can't see the middle ground are generally the ones most worried about the "slippery slope". I suggest, they are also the cause. If everything wasn't a slippery slope we might actually be able to solve some of our problems.
The most imminent use of the cables, the authors say, might be to install them to span the short distances between servers on giant 'server farms', used by large Web companies such as Facebook."
Congress hasn't declared war since World War II.
This is why movie studios aren't concerned about "a single file getting out there", since they know the vast majority of people don't want to bother with finding movies the hard way.
Then why would they bother with DRM in the first place?
There is no argument needed to make you personally care about other members of our species. If caring about other members of our species benefits the replication of human DNA then caring about other members will be selected for. If not, then it will be selected against. You're right that there's no need to worry about it. It would be interesting to take a snapshot of all DNA now and compare it to 100 years from now. I wonder how much DNA after making it billions of years doesn't make it in the next 100 years or any 100 year sample for that matter.
I still disagree that it is deception, since they are not actually being deceptive.
It's very deceptive to elderly people who don't see contrast well. The only reason not to make ads stand out much is to be deceptive. Whether that merits regulation or not is another question.
It mostly just affects old folks anyway that can't see the contrast between light beige and white very well. Personally I don't care.
Evolution is replication with error and selection. The DNA in the bacteria is replicating and is still prone to whatever mutation rates bacterial DNA normally has. The only thing that is happening is the DNA doesn't confine itself to the organism it created. It replicates away and spreads to the organisms around it. Selection acts on that. The DNA is still under all of the rules of evolution.
At a molecular level, DNA is a replicating molecule. It just so happens, that if you replicate something and it's not a perfect copy each time you're going to wind up with evolution. There is always some kind of selection going on. Whether it's that there is oxygen or there isn't there's going to be selection.
Lateral genes don't spread widely without the effects of natural selection. It may occur faster than what we see in more complex organisms but it's still there. If there were not pressure for antibiotic resistance the genes wouldn't have spread any faster than any other neutral genes that we don't notice. And detrimental genes aren't going to spread far.
The male isn't really transferring genes laterally though. They're being combined with the females egg and falling squarely in the realm of fertilization/reproduction. With that said. There is some evidence that there is a lateral transfer of genes between the mother and baby. Male DNA has been found in the brains of mothers' of sons. My understanding is it's harder to find evidence that the sons receive genes from the mother laterally since he will already have an X chromosome from her.
Why wouldn't the example hold? How does a lateral transfer of genes differ from a vertical transfer of genes as far as evolution is concerned?
I think you're using an overly broad definition of "proto-AI".
I'd give him some leeway.
A pity I'm not longer "smart" enough to figure out what the current X should be.
Don't worry. Even if you figured it out, half of the population would be dead set against you.
Every time I read that book I root for Winston. I keep hoping it will turn out differently.
They're the same people.
If we just stopped most of the welfare programs
Good luck stopping social security and medicare.
Sorry, I meant this link
the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth
More than any other nation on Earth. Civilized or not. We have our own color on the map.
It's one thing to be an AC troll but someone modded this insightful. Did they not read it right?
My x-ray gun is purely for hunting.
You might like the Money as Debt videos.
It works when 1 party control most of the property. As more parties get involved infrastructure typically moves towards a co-op system. As the number of parties increases, eventually, a central authority becomes responsible for infrastructure. At some point, right of ways become a major issue. I'm not basing this on any ideology, just observation.
You are correct. It would appear the AC only thinks sexism occurs with regards to women. As for the moderators, I would have been fine with a -1 off-topic, but -1 overrated is just someone who uses mod points to disagree.
I know this site is mostly read by guys, so I guess we should expect
And that's not sexist how?
We tend to run at capacity only in certain locations and generally it's more a problem of social structure than a lack of resources. So there are generally wars going on somewhere. Even so, war can have the tendency to actually increase populations in the long run. Baby booms are common at the end of wars. Wars don't tend to decrease libido.
Personally, and contrary to everyone I've ever met I think population growth is a good thing. I have not thought about this lightly either. In the end, all resources are a matter of energy, knowledge and need. Whether it's energy to desalinate water, energy for food production and distribution, or energy to make take a previously valuable metal like aluminum and make it ubiquitous.
Concerns over energy are tempered in the long run with the knowledge that not only does more energy from the Sun fall on the Earth than we can use for the foreseeable future, but the percentage that falls on the Earth is negligible compared to the Sun's total energy output. While it may be dirty we also have plenty of coal and as well as natural gas to keep our energy production up for a while. The advantage of being human is that our minds have always been our best resource.
There are a few quotes from this page that reflect this has been a concern of people for thousands of years.
Confucius (551 – 479 BC) wrote that, “excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife.”
I recognize that there can be periods of ups and downs and that local populations can vary a lot. I just can't escape that 200 years ago, no one would have believed that the Earth could hold 7 billion people. Yet, here we are. Our growth is a reflection of our technology. The summary states Africa's current population at 1.1 billion. China and India each have as many people. Famine isn't the result of the population. Shouldn't be resources either as Japan doesn't suffer even though Japan has 127 million people itself. It just comes down to a foundation of knowledge. Then necessity can yield solutions.
When the day finally comes that human beings have bent the entire biosphere of Earth towards our needs then I will agree the Earth can hold no more. I also assume, by then, we would have the means to colonize other bodies in the Solar System.