Yes, and it is easier for an individual with insurance sock up increased insurance costs and in a way get a lower total salary because they put more of their own salary towards increased insurance.
But you can do this is a public system, and there are many downsides to this monetary model. Sometimes you want a police officer to take risks.
Does that include all citizens that the government currently does not know where they are and what they are doing, or just people actually on missing lists?
And when it is scanning all those people looking for little lost Jullian, does it record who it saw where, and alert police if it sees a crime?
You make a lot of interesting points, but you have to admit that any private law enforcement that was created today would be created in such a way that it would be worse than any existed public law enforcement.
And You example of insurance/bonded is wrong IMHO. "Didn't come out of the treasury; it came out of your privately funded insurance and/or bond money." Except that it did come out of the treasury, because his pay has to cover his insurance costs, and those costs included operation expenses, money to promote their services in the form of ads and the like, and profit for CEOs.
Except just like all statistical models, it is not the entire population. And in fact, we know it is just one particular part of it. Yes it is a far bigger sample size, but who is to say that tech savvy pirates are at all a good indicator of what everyone else is watching.
Well if you are irresponsible enough to not know where your money is and what it is doing, than you are as responsible as a gun owner who does not know where his gun is or what it is doing.
Not really, but if they could not produce fertile offspring that is what others are claiming. But there is enough difference in modern humans to create a few species or subspecies within the current population.
If this dwarfism is genetic and inheritable, and the uncontrolled motherer is the same. Such that we have a population of 3 foot humans and another one of 10. Well yes those would obviously be different species. A asian village filled with 3-4 footers and an african one where everyone is over 6 are different species, in so many ways (possibly even the giant african male could not breed successfully with the tiny asian).
morphological is not something separate from evolution and the definition of a species.
The mule example is an easy to explain and understand definition that is taught to grade 9s. It is not like that in the real world. It is entirely possible that a Chimp and a Human could produce viable and fertile offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee). That does not make us the same species, and I guarantee you that both use and Chips could breed with proto-humans and produce viable offspring.
The idea of evolution only works because different species can interbreed and produce viable offspring. There are no distinct borders, and I could inseminate something, that could itself mate with something else, and so on and so forth all the wary down to green slimly algae, if you included all species who ever existed
Thanks for the involved explanation, but the fact that we all use the same DNA does make all species far more compatible than if we used different ways to encoding genetic information. And in fact different Chromosome counts/order is not an absolute interbreeding prevention, to the best of my knowledge see quote: "Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism".
"Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?" Great example, and along the same lines as I what have been saying. Which is not to rule it out. I would say that their is enough difference in modern Humans for some of them to be considered distinct species or subspecies. A different color and geographic location is more than enough to get a pair of similar birds labeled as separate species, for example.
I am not overlooking this. Yes you can do this, and it even could work. You might even just be able to skip the intermediate steps and grow the babies in a test tube.
But you could do that for many many different species. Different species most often can interbreed. A money and a human, for example, hell if you intervened enough you might be able to find something as different as a seal and a human create a living organism together. Also these chains of one species can breed with anouther that can breed with a third, but the first cannot breed with the third directly, happen all the time an part of the reason that defining species is so hard. But that does not invalidate every species involved in this chain and does not means that the first can interbreed with the third, etc..
By that logic, you could breed a human with a proto-human, and then breed that offspring with a chimp, and so on a so forth until you get a lizard. That does not mean we are the same species as a lizard or a chimp.
BTW that human/chimp idea was just off the cuff, but apparently that hybrid actually has a name, a Humanzee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee).
The idea of a species is effected most of all by morphological changes.
When a scientist discovers a new bug, he does not find other bugs that are closely related and put them all in a bucket filled with alcohol and massage oil. He decides if it looks different enough to be labeled a different species.
When a bird watcher finds a new group of birds with completely different bright and distinctive markings that do not interbreed with other birds, he does not say: other than the color this group is almost identifiable to twelve other tropical birds, I am going to inseminate twelve females from each group with the sperm from all the other specie's males (one male to a female) and see if they can technically interbreed.
No, he decides if it is a species based on looks (morphological changes). Mostly interbreeding does not even play a factor, as if they look distinctive than they must not interbreed very often if at all. But similarly , you can define a two distinct species as two groups that do not normally interbreed.
And loads of different species can interbreed, in that if we could force them breed together they could produce offspring. That does not make them the same species...
This seems to be a pretty good introduction to what a species is, but I just glanced at it (http://rafonda.com/interbreeding_between_species.html)
First off that is not the definition of a species.
And even using that definition, the would not be considered a species.
We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.
Let us assume that even if you could impregnate a female Mastiff with with Chihuahua sperm that she came to term and game birth and that that pup could be raised with human intervention. If you did the inverse with a female Chihuahua all you would get is a dead Chihuahua. So the genetics of these two species cannot be mixed, so by your definition they are different species.
But, this is all theoretical stuff that would be confined to a laboratory, as they cannot mate. So even by the interbreeding definition of a species they are different species.
But that is really just the populous, easy to quantify, definition of a species. Which is not to say that a better defined definition exists, just that a species is not a distinct easily identified group. No definition really holds water in real world, as most real world examples do not fit within it. Their are loads of different species that can and do interbreed, currently and historically. Our Human ancestors and Neanderthals for example, which are sometimes classified as subspecies because of this fact, but their is probably not a species that ever existed that could not interbreed with at least one other species. That is part of the point of the long and involved mating rituals and bright distinctive markings on animals, to prevent interbreeding when it could physically and biologically occur.
Electricity produced is all planned months in advance.
Power plans are not just giant batteries, they do not produce power on demand they produce a set amount based on a schedule and give it out immediately. If their is less demand it is not stored
So they are trying to raise public awareness of environmental issues by increasing power plant pollution for a day?
This is why raising awareness is a horrible thing to do. Everyone who might actually have done something is sucked into the never ending treadmill of raising awareness for things that everyone already knows about and will never care about anyways. And the last thing that could ever change anything is awareness.
Well this is not restrained to environmental issues. Their is not a single issue out there that does not do more harm towards its issue of choice than good.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and it is easier for an individual with insurance sock up increased insurance costs and in a way get a lower total salary because they put more of their own salary towards increased insurance.
But you can do this is a public system, and there are many downsides to this monetary model. Sometimes you want a police officer to take risks.
Does that include all citizens that the government currently does not know where they are and what they are doing, or just people actually on missing lists?
And when it is scanning all those people looking for little lost Jullian, does it record who it saw where, and alert police if it sees a crime?
You make a lot of interesting points, but you have to admit that any private law enforcement that was created today would be created in such a way that it would be worse than any existed public law enforcement.
And You example of insurance/bonded is wrong IMHO.
"Didn't come out of the treasury; it came out of your privately funded insurance and/or bond money." Except that it did come out of the treasury, because his pay has to cover his insurance costs, and those costs included operation expenses, money to promote their services in the form of ads and the like, and profit for CEOs.
Except just like all statistical models, it is not the entire population.
And in fact, we know it is just one particular part of it. Yes it is a far bigger sample size, but who is to say that tech savvy pirates are at all a good indicator of what everyone else is watching.
Well if you are irresponsible enough to not know where your money is and what it is doing, than you are as responsible as a gun owner who does not know where his gun is or what it is doing.
I do not think that implies to a negative. You cannot say, well we did not see and correlation, but their might still be causation.
Not nearly enough. Every investor needs to share responsibility.
You cannot finance an operation and have no liability towards who it kills/effects.
Yes, and we could create a proto-humans + human + chip mix. We are still not the same species as a chimp.
I for one will miss the pretence of freedom.
Not really, but if they could not produce fertile offspring that is what others are claiming.
But there is enough difference in modern humans to create a few species or subspecies within the current population.
If this dwarfism is genetic and inheritable, and the uncontrolled motherer is the same. Such that we have a population of 3 foot humans and another one of 10. Well yes those would obviously be different species. A asian village filled with 3-4 footers and an african one where everyone is over 6 are different species, in so many ways (possibly even the giant african male could not breed successfully with the tiny asian).
Facepalm. It is like no one is eve listening.
morphological is not something separate from evolution and the definition of a species.
The mule example is an easy to explain and understand definition that is taught to grade 9s. It is not like that in the real world. It is entirely possible that a Chimp and a Human could produce viable and fertile offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee). That does not make us the same species, and I guarantee you that both use and Chips could breed with proto-humans and produce viable offspring.
The idea of evolution only works because different species can interbreed and produce viable offspring. There are no distinct borders, and I could inseminate something, that could itself mate with something else, and so on and so forth all the wary down to green slimly algae, if you included all species who ever existed
Thanks for the involved explanation, but the fact that we all use the same DNA does make all species far more compatible than if we used different ways to encoding genetic information. And in fact different Chromosome counts/order is not an absolute interbreeding prevention, to the best of my knowledge see quote: "Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism".
"Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?" Great example, and along the same lines as I what have been saying.
Which is not to rule it out. I would say that their is enough difference in modern Humans for some of them to be considered distinct species or subspecies. A different color and geographic location is more than enough to get a pair of similar birds labeled as separate species, for example.
Even if this fixes every issue you mentioned it is not worth giving up your freedom of speech for.
We are not even pretending to be a free, open, and democratic society anymore?
I am not overlooking this. Yes you can do this, and it even could work. You might even just be able to skip the intermediate steps and grow the babies in a test tube.
But you could do that for many many different species. Different species most often can interbreed. A money and a human, for example, hell if you intervened enough you might be able to find something as different as a seal and a human create a living organism together. Also these chains of one species can breed with anouther that can breed with a third, but the first cannot breed with the third directly, happen all the time an part of the reason that defining species is so hard. But that does not invalidate every species involved in this chain and does not means that the first can interbreed with the third, etc..
By that logic, you could breed a human with a proto-human, and then breed that offspring with a chimp, and so on a so forth until you get a lizard. That does not mean we are the same species as a lizard or a chimp.
BTW that human/chimp idea was just off the cuff, but apparently that hybrid actually has a name, a Humanzee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee).
The idea of a species is effected most of all by morphological changes.
When a scientist discovers a new bug, he does not find other bugs that are closely related and put them all in a bucket filled with alcohol and massage oil. He decides if it looks different enough to be labeled a different species.
When a bird watcher finds a new group of birds with completely different bright and distinctive markings that do not interbreed with other birds, he does not say: other than the color this group is almost identifiable to twelve other tropical birds, I am going to inseminate twelve females from each group with the sperm from all the other specie's males (one male to a female) and see if they can technically interbreed.
No, he decides if it is a species based on looks (morphological changes). Mostly interbreeding does not even play a factor, as if they look distinctive than they must not interbreed very often if at all. But similarly , you can define a two distinct species as two groups that do not normally interbreed.
No they cannot. It is physically impossible.
And loads of different species can interbreed, in that if we could force them breed together they could produce offspring. That does not make them the same species...
This seems to be a pretty good introduction to what a species is, but I just glanced at it (http://rafonda.com/interbreeding_between_species.html)
First off that is not the definition of a species.
And even using that definition, the would not be considered a species.
We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.
Let us assume that even if you could impregnate a female Mastiff with with Chihuahua sperm that she came to term and game birth and that that pup could be raised with human intervention. If you did the inverse with a female Chihuahua all you would get is a dead Chihuahua. So the genetics of these two species cannot be mixed, so by your definition they are different species.
But, this is all theoretical stuff that would be confined to a laboratory, as they cannot mate. So even by the interbreeding definition of a species they are different species.
But that is really just the populous, easy to quantify, definition of a species. Which is not to say that a better defined definition exists, just that a species is not a distinct easily identified group. No definition really holds water in real world, as most real world examples do not fit within it. Their are loads of different species that can and do interbreed, currently and historically. Our Human ancestors and Neanderthals for example, which are sometimes classified as subspecies because of this fact, but their is probably not a species that ever existed that could not interbreed with at least one other species. That is part of the point of the long and involved mating rituals and bright distinctive markings on animals, to prevent interbreeding when it could physically and biologically occur.
That is the same thing. They would still become different species after their outward appearance changed sufficiently, just like dog breeds.
A 180-pound English Mastiff and a two-pound Chihuahua, are not the same species, by any definition of the term.
Electricity produced is all planned months in advance.
Power plans are not just giant batteries, they do not produce power on demand they produce a set amount based on a schedule and give it out immediately. If their is less demand it is not stored
So they are trying to raise public awareness of environmental issues by increasing power plant pollution for a day?
This is why raising awareness is a horrible thing to do. Everyone who might actually have done something is sucked into the never ending treadmill of raising awareness for things that everyone already knows about and will never care about anyways. And the last thing that could ever change anything is awareness.
Well this is not restrained to environmental issues. Their is not a single issue out there that does not do more harm towards its issue of choice than good.
I might have to pirate that latter.
Would of been better if it was a pirated copy of, "don't copy that floppy".
Unfortunately, they do not even have a copy of that film.
Well the problem is that areas will large civilizations invariably had horrible dysentery filled water.
Beer was the only way to have civilization