You are wrong. Wrong about what a scientific theory is, and wrong about the level of evidence for the theory. It is far from being theoretical in the popular sense of the word, and much closer to the popular understood meaning of the word 'fact.'
True, you can measure the speed of change. And the speed of change of the human genome has been increasing, not decreasing. The write up, however, presents a view of evolution as directed motion, not temperature. It presents a view where there are objective, external measures for fitness, where a species can be qualified as a success without reference to its environment. And it presents the rather odd view that our social environment and the natural environment are somehow different in regards to our genes.
In short, the write up presents some outdated evolutionary ideas as mainstream, and the mainstream of evolutionary thought as novel.
The write up is misleading on many levels, and reflects a very nineteenth century understanding of evolution. Fitness criteria are constantly changing, and success changes the fitness landscape. Of course culture will impact evolution. The idea that it could somehow protect from selection pressures is just silly. Culture may protect you from the cold, by giving you a fur coat. Or you could evolve a fur coat, but would you then claim that the fur coat protected you from selection pressures and 'slowed down' evolution? Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.
What I want to know is, how did the Federation develop such advanced technology when they obviously have no more than half a dozen scientists or engineers capable of making any kinds of break-throughs? I mean really, nobody ever thought of inverting the phase before?
Well, it wasn't a work for hire. The artists still owns all the rights. If the US government wanted it differently, they should have written the contract with the artist to reflect that. The US taxpayers may own the memorial, but not the rights to reproduce the image for other purposes. The government screwed up on this one, but the artist is being a douche, too.
I ran into a related problem recently. My mom just died of pancreatic cancer, and we needed some photos blown up for the memorial. The best ones we had were from Olan Mills. I took them to Walgreens, they took one look at the Olan Mills logo in the bottom corner and said, "No dice. Olan Mills owns the rights to those photos, nobody can reproduce them without permission." So I tried Kinkos, with the same results. My mom is dead, but some damn portrait studio will own the rights to her image until 2065 because she got her picture taken there and didn't read the contract.
According to the helpful folks at Kinos, nearly all large portrait studios will try to do this to you, not just Olan Mills. They must have a large legal outreach team, too, to make sure every minimum wage copyshop and photohut employee in the world knows not to copy these photos.
Here's the quote: "The penalty for drinking untaxed alcohol is still death or blindness." That statement is not specific to industrial alcohol. It was a top level comment, without preceding context. I don't think your claim stands up to scrutiny.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I don't think we have enough information to decide for sure what's going on, I'm just advocating skepticism. If you read that story, you will see that Citibank has been accused of this sort of thing before, so at this point it's a he said/she said kind of deal.
It wouldn't surprise me to find Citibank has homophobes working for them. It also wouldn't surprise me to find the CEO of a new website stretched the truth for the sake of publicity.
I've never done it myself, my experience is limited to making cordials from kits, but I knew if I put it out there, some booze-geek would come along and fill in the blanks.
If surgeons on the front lines in Korea can do it, anyone can. Plus, we've got this thing called the Internet nowadays. In the twenty first century, humans can find out the right way to do a great many things, very easily.
I think the home brewing and other do-it-yourself alcohol production communities would beg to differ with you. You only run into any real risk when you start distilling anyway.
Wow. People are STILL getting trolled by this, days later? This was perhaps the best I've ever done.
However, after taking the handicap for the obvious ease of trolling Apple fans, the final score isn't my highest. I'd give it a 42 'cause it's got a good beat and I can dance to it.
A Citibank spokesman tells The Reg that the situation has "nothing to do" with the content of the Fabulis site. "Any suggestions that this was the case were incorrect," he says. But he also says that company reserves the right to not open an account or close it if there's illegal or discriminatory content on its website. "We're required by law to do our due diligence to understand the nature of a business that wants an account."
Oh, and to be clear, I am not lashing out in a predetermined pattern. First, I am not lashing out. I am calmly and rationally discussing this story. Second, it's not a predetermined pattern. It's unique to this story, and these circumstances.
Finally, I am not personally attacking the CEO of Fabulis. As I mentioned, my theory is that his statement isn't even really a lie, just stretching the truth for publicity, and that is something nearly any CEO would do.
I've been very clear all along this is only a theory, and very civil even when you have not been. Perhaps you are engaging in a little psychological projection when you tar me as not reacting rationally, grasping reality, and lashing out? Again, just a thought.
Not according to modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause. You'll note that the conservative justices have been moving to limit the powers of the commerce clause recently. Except, as might be expected, where medical marijuana is concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong. Wrong about what a scientific theory is, and wrong about the level of evidence for the theory. It is far from being theoretical in the popular sense of the word, and much closer to the popular understood meaning of the word 'fact.'
True, you can measure the speed of change. And the speed of change of the human genome has been increasing, not decreasing. The write up, however, presents a view of evolution as directed motion, not temperature. It presents a view where there are objective, external measures for fitness, where a species can be qualified as a success without reference to its environment. And it presents the rather odd view that our social environment and the natural environment are somehow different in regards to our genes.
In short, the write up presents some outdated evolutionary ideas as mainstream, and the mainstream of evolutionary thought as novel.
Isn't it awesome when reality does the trolling for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
The write up is misleading on many levels, and reflects a very nineteenth century understanding of evolution. Fitness criteria are constantly changing, and success changes the fitness landscape. Of course culture will impact evolution. The idea that it could somehow protect from selection pressures is just silly. Culture may protect you from the cold, by giving you a fur coat. Or you could evolve a fur coat, but would you then claim that the fur coat protected you from selection pressures and 'slowed down' evolution? Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.
What I want to know is, how did the Federation develop such advanced technology when they obviously have no more than half a dozen scientists or engineers capable of making any kinds of break-throughs? I mean really, nobody ever thought of inverting the phase before?
Where... where would all the pins even go?
No, Ross was the geekiest. Chandler was the nerdiest. The show demonstrated the difference between geeks and nerds quite well, I think.
Damn skippy she did. You could cut glass with those THOs.
Oh come on, Chandler was the nerdiest character on Friends, and you've forgotten him already?
Well, it wasn't a work for hire. The artists still owns all the rights. If the US government wanted it differently, they should have written the contract with the artist to reflect that. The US taxpayers may own the memorial, but not the rights to reproduce the image for other purposes. The government screwed up on this one, but the artist is being a douche, too.
I ran into a related problem recently. My mom just died of pancreatic cancer, and we needed some photos blown up for the memorial. The best ones we had were from Olan Mills. I took them to Walgreens, they took one look at the Olan Mills logo in the bottom corner and said, "No dice. Olan Mills owns the rights to those photos, nobody can reproduce them without permission." So I tried Kinkos, with the same results. My mom is dead, but some damn portrait studio will own the rights to her image until 2065 because she got her picture taken there and didn't read the contract.
According to the helpful folks at Kinos, nearly all large portrait studios will try to do this to you, not just Olan Mills. They must have a large legal outreach team, too, to make sure every minimum wage copyshop and photohut employee in the world knows not to copy these photos.
Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.
I hope they can do that Swiftly.
But that just made up for it all.:)
Of course, but the discussion went:
(TFA) The Government is poisoning our alcohol.
(cnaumann) The penalty for drinking untaxed alcohol is death or blindness
(me) Ah, but not in all cases; you can make it yourself
(various replies, then you) The person he replied to was talking about industrial alcohol
(various people pointing out you'd missed the point) Hey, we were talking about home brewing
(you, being dense) No, we weren't
(me) Yes, we were.
(you, on the defensive) No, we weren't
(me, right now) You're boring the fuck out of me with your pedantic defensive backpedaling. We're done here.
Here's the quote: "The penalty for drinking untaxed alcohol is still death or blindness." That statement is not specific to industrial alcohol. It was a top level comment, without preceding context. I don't think your claim stands up to scrutiny.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I don't think we have enough information to decide for sure what's going on, I'm just advocating skepticism. If you read that story, you will see that Citibank has been accused of this sort of thing before, so at this point it's a he said/she said kind of deal.
It wouldn't surprise me to find Citibank has homophobes working for them. It also wouldn't surprise me to find the CEO of a new website stretched the truth for the sake of publicity.
I agree, the commerce clause makes a mockery of the concept of enumerated powers.
I've never done it myself, my experience is limited to making cordials from kits, but I knew if I put it out there, some booze-geek would come along and fill in the blanks.
If surgeons on the front lines in Korea can do it, anyone can. Plus, we've got this thing called the Internet nowadays. In the twenty first century, humans can find out the right way to do a great many things, very easily.
The more you know!
I think the home brewing and other do-it-yourself alcohol production communities would beg to differ with you. You only run into any real risk when you start distilling anyway.
Wow. People are STILL getting trolled by this, days later? This was perhaps the best I've ever done.
However, after taking the handicap for the obvious ease of trolling Apple fans, the final score isn't my highest. I'd give it a 42 'cause it's got a good beat and I can dance to it.
A Citibank spokesman tells The Reg that the situation has "nothing to do" with the content of the Fabulis site. "Any suggestions that this was the case were incorrect," he says. But he also says that company reserves the right to not open an account or close it if there's illegal or discriminatory content on its website. "We're required by law to do our due diligence to understand the nature of a business that wants an account."
From the Register story here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/26/citibank_and_fabulis/
Oh, and to be clear, I am not lashing out in a predetermined pattern. First, I am not lashing out. I am calmly and rationally discussing this story. Second, it's not a predetermined pattern. It's unique to this story, and these circumstances.
Finally, I am not personally attacking the CEO of Fabulis. As I mentioned, my theory is that his statement isn't even really a lie, just stretching the truth for publicity, and that is something nearly any CEO would do.
I've been very clear all along this is only a theory, and very civil even when you have not been. Perhaps you are engaging in a little psychological projection when you tar me as not reacting rationally, grasping reality, and lashing out? Again, just a thought.
You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001 "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...
Not according to modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause. You'll note that the conservative justices have been moving to limit the powers of the commerce clause recently. Except, as might be expected, where medical marijuana is concerned.
I'm pretty sure it was a link from a dairy on dailykos. Feel free to go look it up there.