That's when you go back to the old Mom question of "If all the other countries were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?"
(puts on senator hat)
Two questions: 1. Can I in some way say it's for the children, morality, economy, or national security? 2. What's the fastest way to the nearest bridge?
The Internet sees censorship as damage, it will route around you.
The internet for some users yes. But not for everyone and not for every game. Is this scheme going to be applied to Xbox live for example? Because I can tell you from personal experience that XBLA sees any censorship and damage (and, well, normal functions if I'm being honest) as a signal to give up completely. And commit console suicide probably as well.
Some slashdotters will scoff at those people sure, but I trust a lot of you recognize that not being very computer literate and using consoles shouldn't mean the government should get to tell you what videogames you can and can't play in your freetime.
It is interesting that there are exactly 3 people groups and not four or five for some of that number. It is not at all impossible that all people on Earth today descended from the three sons of Noah. This is a very simple theory and as far as theories go, the simpler ones are more likely correct.
Simpler theory: coincidence. The three branches were actually from 3 different groups of people migrating away from each other. Simpler because it doesn't involve interesting explanations that the genetic pool of humanity was in some way different (an explanation that is without evidence). Also scientists have round that a population of any organisms with less than 50 reproductive units (in this case, a man and a woman) tend to die off. A reproductive unit of 1 is unlikely to go anywhere as a population.
Again, yes this is assuming the rules that seem to be in place now are the same ones back then. But that's a safer assumption than "they were different" because I don't see any hard evidence to suggest otherwise, and fossil studies suggest they were the same.
3 is a pretty common number, so the fact that 2 threes come up is not proof of anything. There are 3 nucleotides per codon, this is something that is obviously not because of Noah's 3 sons.
No, not the degree of genetic similiarity between those 3. I mean how fast the 3 groupings of people have diverged... since then if you accept the 3 sons bit. The rate of genetic variation isn't constant. Even if we did know all 3 started with 3 brothers, that wouldn't tell you anything about the genetic variation SINCE then.
The genetic differences between these three groups wouldn't have been from the 3 brothers, it would have been from differences accrued since they split. If you take 2 genetically identical populations of mice, humans, bacteria, whatever, seperate them, and let them independantly proliferate for thousands of years, they're going to be genetically different from each other. How much is not certain. And if you further subdivide those two populations (similar to how, say, the european branch was subdivided into normans, saxons, vandals whatever... not really familiar with ancient european history so those might be all the same thing) you don't know anything about the variation that will arise between them, since again, the rate of variation is not a constant.
So it's entirely possible that the variation between african Zulus and Hutus would be about the same as the variation between Zulus and Saxons. I guess the authors of the study expected that to be the case for reasons I'm not familiar with. But that turned out to be wrong.
So even if you accept the biblical story, you wouldn't know anything about how genetically similar or dissimilar these groupings would be.
What are you talking about? The competition was "Invent Your World Challenge." Kid makes an energy system. Missed the mark entirely: algae power is not a world.
Even so, the bible doesn't mention anything about the degree of genetic similarity between those three branches. So that's still a suprise. The finding was more along the lines of "French people are genetically similar to british people by X. Hutus are genetically similar to Zulus by something close to X. Zulus to french though are similar by far less than X."
Unless you're really reaching, there's nothing quanityfing it in the bible.
RTFBible, because it's clear you're ignorant on some important "facts".
Wow, a preaching troll.
Anyway, I have more important things to read. Like a stack of molecular biology papers thicker than the bible. And Fallout 3, although come to think of it that's not really reading. A lot more interesting and relevant though.
I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.
Then you misinterpreted it. The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups. The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated, but they weren't based on genome studies. Using those old "studies" you couldn't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the, er, clades? Maybe you could have/did assume, but that would have been without any evidence.
The suprise is not that there are 3 groups, the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups.
(Terminology is a bit off because, well, I'm not in this field)
I don't think anyone's fretting about it at all. AC is just wondering out loud.
Anyway, the worst that will happen is some group will protest the finding. The only people who are going to take the findings to conclusions about racial superiority are people who are using it to validate their pre-existing racism. Knuckle-dragging racists aren't made by facts, they're made by ignorance.
There's the problem of one man starting a whole new population would lead to inbreeding for a while, so that's the bigger problem. But if that happened and maybe Noah and his wife/wives didn't have any negative recessive genes, or the inbred populations didn't die off, or if you fiat it away (as theists often do), then it's totally possible for three initially identical subpopulations to diverge over many generations.
If Noah's sons all looked alike and went to different corners of the earth, it's still possible for black populations, white populations, and east asian populations to arise.
There's still that bigger inbreeding problem. And the total lack of real evidence. And maybe not enough time for that to actually happen with a strict interpretation of the torah/old testament/whatever.
It is interesting whenever science finds something and you can find something in holy literature that can seem to be a metaphor for it. Carl Sagan pointed out how the evolution of the human brain, the neocortex specifically, paralells the story of the apple of knowledge in interesting ways. Increased neocortical mass may be what really seperates us from animals, gives us shame and self consciousness, and interestingly may cause labor pains for women. Interesting, but it would be a mistake of course to interpret that as evidence for anything.
Obviously, no one should take that as proof of anything, as you can interpret anything you want. Still, it is interesting.
Do you really think whipping up a perl script is beyond the abilities of somebody who has the ability to run a spamming "business"?
Maybe you mistook that for a rhetorical question, sorry for that misleading question, it was semi-honest. I really don't know how much effort goes into a spamming buisiness. Never met anyone who identified themselves as a spammer, so I don't know if they're as dumb as they seem. For that matter, I've never written a perl script.
Just seems to me like if you have a decent head on your shoulders you'd be doing more than the equivalent of agressively begging for change on the sidewalk.
Man you have a strange sense of what "doing right" is.
The peanut gallery, not GP. He wasn't saying they never did anything right, he was saying they never get CREDIT from critics for doing anything right. Walmart pays workers less, people protest. Walmart raises worker pay, people find things wrong with that. Walmart keeps worker pay the same, people protest that.
Note that was just a hypothetical example, I've never heard of walmart raising wages.
The question isn't whether or not it could be done - obviously it's possible. The issue is that spammers, for the most part, choose to go after the low hanging fruit rather than messing with perl.
Choose to, or that's all they have the brainpower for?
Actually, a majority of the population supports decriminalization of marijuana.
I'd believe that most people don't really care if it's decriminalized or not, and I could believe that several polls have concluded the above. I could even believe that some reputable polls concluded that. Of course, decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing.
What I doubt until I see proof otherwise is that most likely voters would support a candidate who was in favor of legalizing pot.
This link backs me up suggesting that while the numbers of people who said they would like to legalize it is going up, it's still not a majority. It mentions that the highest gallup has ever found was 36%. And that's not that they'd vote FOR it, just that they would favor it.
So no, it's really nowhere near it.
And it's not only popular, it's a really good idea in virtually every imaginable way. It's such a smart thing to do, in fact, that there's no way it'll ever get done.
That's an absurd overstatement. Or naive. No public policy of any type can ever truly be a "good idea in virtually every imaginable way."
I suspect this whole thing was only to try to get kids interested in government. Which, assuming they like most generations eventually get their heads screwed on straight, is a good thing.
Seriously, from all the important topics available for discussion, they care with marijuana legalization and President's birth place?
Of all the important topics available for discussion, yes, the internet users who happened to hear about this and cared enough did choose those. The only people who still care about Obama's place of birth congregate online. This is not a good example of american mentality, unless you define american mentality as what you run into in the dark corners of the net.
I have a few guesses at some of the other items that were high on the list
-What's at area 51 really?
-Who shot JFK really?
-Did we actually land on the moon?
None of which are concerns for most americans.
I'm sure most people don't know that marijuana is the most common cause of acute psychosis in adolescents.
I'm sure I don't care, and I'm also sure that even though I have no desire to see it legalized, that's a terrible reason to keep it illegal for everyone who is not an adolescent.
I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.
Fixed that for you.
An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed. Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population. No age restrictions. And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums. Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this. Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.
I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.
Initially I thought they were on crack. Then I realized what would happen if they actually won. Consider the implications for a minute or two and then see if you don't agree...
I have no frame of reference for this comparison, but I'm mad I wasted all that money on dinners, movies, flowers, chocolates etc. A garden hose would have been cheaper.
That's all fine and good, but again, none of it justifies trying to ban it.
Re:I stopped reading the summary
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
What's a cretin? Some sort of outdated term for a developmental disorder caused by a lack of iodine here used as a pompous insult while announcing Pop69 was so offended by a mistake in the question that he couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it?
I hear some campuses here in california are banning smoking while standing, you have to be walking, so students walk around the building. And of course they're working on banning it completely on campus.
Again, I don't smoke, but if that passes, I would be tempted to buy a bunch of pipe tobacco and burn it (not inhale it) as close to the nearest student union as possible. I might take up chewing tobacco as well.
Do you think this will foster any improvements from telcos? Somehow I doubt it.
It seems to me (and I'm neither an economist nor an evolutionary biologist), that competition works on companies much the same that natural selection and competition works in evolution on species: it often doesn't improve either, it kills off the weaker one. TDS isn't going to compete here at all, and that's a good thing.
Of course, I don't see this replacing telecos everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the Xbox 360 sees Tuesday (Tuesday here is defined as every day of the week) as a reason to commit console suicide.
Fixed that for you. Although I think I covered that with my "and, well, normal functions if I'm being honest) as a signal to give up completely."
That's when you go back to the old Mom question of "If all the other countries were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?"
(puts on senator hat)
Two questions:
1. Can I in some way say it's for the children, morality, economy, or national security?
2. What's the fastest way to the nearest bridge?
The Internet sees censorship as damage, it will route around you.
The internet for some users yes. But not for everyone and not for every game. Is this scheme going to be applied to Xbox live for example? Because I can tell you from personal experience that XBLA sees any censorship and damage (and, well, normal functions if I'm being honest) as a signal to give up completely. And commit console suicide probably as well.
Some slashdotters will scoff at those people sure, but I trust a lot of you recognize that not being very computer literate and using consoles shouldn't mean the government should get to tell you what videogames you can and can't play in your freetime.
It is interesting that there are exactly 3 people groups and not four or five for some of that number. It is not at all impossible that all people on Earth today descended from the three sons of Noah. This is a very simple theory and as far as theories go, the simpler ones are more likely correct.
Simpler theory: coincidence. The three branches were actually from 3 different groups of people migrating away from each other. Simpler because it doesn't involve interesting explanations that the genetic pool of humanity was in some way different (an explanation that is without evidence). Also scientists have round that a population of any organisms with less than 50 reproductive units (in this case, a man and a woman) tend to die off. A reproductive unit of 1 is unlikely to go anywhere as a population.
Again, yes this is assuming the rules that seem to be in place now are the same ones back then. But that's a safer assumption than "they were different" because I don't see any hard evidence to suggest otherwise, and fossil studies suggest they were the same.
3 is a pretty common number, so the fact that 2 threes come up is not proof of anything. There are 3 nucleotides per codon, this is something that is obviously not because of Noah's 3 sons.
No, not the degree of genetic similiarity between those 3. I mean how fast the 3 groupings of people have diverged... since then if you accept the 3 sons bit. The rate of genetic variation isn't constant. Even if we did know all 3 started with 3 brothers, that wouldn't tell you anything about the genetic variation SINCE then.
The genetic differences between these three groups wouldn't have been from the 3 brothers, it would have been from differences accrued since they split. If you take 2 genetically identical populations of mice, humans, bacteria, whatever, seperate them, and let them independantly proliferate for thousands of years, they're going to be genetically different from each other. How much is not certain. And if you further subdivide those two populations (similar to how, say, the european branch was subdivided into normans, saxons, vandals whatever... not really familiar with ancient european history so those might be all the same thing) you don't know anything about the variation that will arise between them, since again, the rate of variation is not a constant.
So it's entirely possible that the variation between african Zulus and Hutus would be about the same as the variation between Zulus and Saxons. I guess the authors of the study expected that to be the case for reasons I'm not familiar with. But that turned out to be wrong.
So even if you accept the biblical story, you wouldn't know anything about how genetically similar or dissimilar these groupings would be.
What are you talking about? The competition was "Invent Your World Challenge." Kid makes an energy system. Missed the mark entirely: algae power is not a world.
Kid needs to pay more attention next time.
Even so, the bible doesn't mention anything about the degree of genetic similarity between those three branches. So that's still a suprise. The finding was more along the lines of "French people are genetically similar to british people by X. Hutus are genetically similar to Zulus by something close to X. Zulus to french though are similar by far less than X."
Unless you're really reaching, there's nothing quanityfing it in the bible.
RTFBible, because it's clear you're ignorant on some important "facts".
Wow, a preaching troll.
Anyway, I have more important things to read. Like a stack of molecular biology papers thicker than the bible. And Fallout 3, although come to think of it that's not really reading. A lot more interesting and relevant though.
I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.
Then you misinterpreted it. The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups. The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated, but they weren't based on genome studies. Using those old "studies" you couldn't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the, er, clades? Maybe you could have/did assume, but that would have been without any evidence.
The suprise is not that there are 3 groups, the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups.
(Terminology is a bit off because, well, I'm not in this field)
I don't think anyone's fretting about it at all. AC is just wondering out loud.
Anyway, the worst that will happen is some group will protest the finding. The only people who are going to take the findings to conclusions about racial superiority are people who are using it to validate their pre-existing racism. Knuckle-dragging racists aren't made by facts, they're made by ignorance.
There's the problem of one man starting a whole new population would lead to inbreeding for a while, so that's the bigger problem. But if that happened and maybe Noah and his wife/wives didn't have any negative recessive genes, or the inbred populations didn't die off, or if you fiat it away (as theists often do), then it's totally possible for three initially identical subpopulations to diverge over many generations.
If Noah's sons all looked alike and went to different corners of the earth, it's still possible for black populations, white populations, and east asian populations to arise.
There's still that bigger inbreeding problem. And the total lack of real evidence. And maybe not enough time for that to actually happen with a strict interpretation of the torah/old testament/whatever.
It is interesting whenever science finds something and you can find something in holy literature that can seem to be a metaphor for it. Carl Sagan pointed out how the evolution of the human brain, the neocortex specifically, paralells the story of the apple of knowledge in interesting ways. Increased neocortical mass may be what really seperates us from animals, gives us shame and self consciousness, and interestingly may cause labor pains for women. Interesting, but it would be a mistake of course to interpret that as evidence for anything.
Obviously, no one should take that as proof of anything, as you can interpret anything you want. Still, it is interesting.
Do you really think whipping up a perl script is beyond the abilities of somebody who has the ability to run a spamming "business"?
Maybe you mistook that for a rhetorical question, sorry for that misleading question, it was semi-honest. I really don't know how much effort goes into a spamming buisiness. Never met anyone who identified themselves as a spammer, so I don't know if they're as dumb as they seem. For that matter, I've never written a perl script.
Just seems to me like if you have a decent head on your shoulders you'd be doing more than the equivalent of agressively begging for change on the sidewalk.
Man you have a strange sense of what "doing right" is.
The peanut gallery, not GP. He wasn't saying they never did anything right, he was saying they never get CREDIT from critics for doing anything right. Walmart pays workers less, people protest. Walmart raises worker pay, people find things wrong with that. Walmart keeps worker pay the same, people protest that.
Note that was just a hypothetical example, I've never heard of walmart raising wages.
The question isn't whether or not it could be done - obviously it's possible. The issue is that spammers, for the most part, choose to go after the low hanging fruit rather than messing with perl.
Choose to, or that's all they have the brainpower for?
Actually, a majority of the population supports decriminalization of marijuana.
I'd believe that most people don't really care if it's decriminalized or not, and I could believe that several polls have concluded the above. I could even believe that some reputable polls concluded that. Of course, decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing.
What I doubt until I see proof otherwise is that most likely voters would support a candidate who was in favor of legalizing pot.
This link backs me up suggesting that while the numbers of people who said they would like to legalize it is going up, it's still not a majority. It mentions that the highest gallup has ever found was 36%. And that's not that they'd vote FOR it, just that they would favor it.
So no, it's really nowhere near it.
And it's not only popular, it's a really good idea in virtually every imaginable way. It's such a smart thing to do, in fact, that there's no way it'll ever get done.
That's an absurd overstatement. Or naive. No public policy of any type can ever truly be a "good idea in virtually every imaginable way."
I suspect this whole thing was only to try to get kids interested in government. Which, assuming they like most generations eventually get their heads screwed on straight, is a good thing.
Seriously, from all the important topics available for discussion, they care with marijuana legalization and President's birth place?
Of all the important topics available for discussion, yes, the internet users who happened to hear about this and cared enough did choose those. The only people who still care about Obama's place of birth congregate online. This is not a good example of american mentality, unless you define american mentality as what you run into in the dark corners of the net.
I have a few guesses at some of the other items that were high on the list
-What's at area 51 really?
-Who shot JFK really?
-Did we actually land on the moon?
None of which are concerns for most americans.
I'm sure most people don't know that marijuana is the most common cause of acute psychosis in adolescents.
I'm sure I don't care, and I'm also sure that even though I have no desire to see it legalized, that's a terrible reason to keep it illegal for everyone who is not an adolescent.
I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.
Fixed that for you.
An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed. Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population. No age restrictions. And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums. Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this. Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.
I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.
Initially I thought they were on crack. Then I realized what would happen if they actually won. Consider the implications for a minute or two and then see if you don't agree...
Uh... They would be able to buy a LOT of crack!
ASCAP just wants money from the carrier's commercial ringtone sales. It's got nothing to do with anything else.
Not true, it also has to do with an odd mindset where one talks with one's lawyers before talking to one's brain.
I have no frame of reference for this comparison, but I'm mad I wasted all that money on dinners, movies, flowers, chocolates etc. A garden hose would have been cheaper.
That's all fine and good, but again, none of it justifies trying to ban it.
What's a cretin? Some sort of outdated term for a developmental disorder caused by a lack of iodine here used as a pompous insult while announcing Pop69 was so offended by a mistake in the question that he couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it?
I hear some campuses here in california are banning smoking while standing, you have to be walking, so students walk around the building. And of course they're working on banning it completely on campus.
Again, I don't smoke, but if that passes, I would be tempted to buy a bunch of pipe tobacco and burn it (not inhale it) as close to the nearest student union as possible. I might take up chewing tobacco as well.
Do you think this will foster any improvements from telcos? Somehow I doubt it.
It seems to me (and I'm neither an economist nor an evolutionary biologist), that competition works on companies much the same that natural selection and competition works in evolution on species: it often doesn't improve either, it kills off the weaker one. TDS isn't going to compete here at all, and that's a good thing.
Of course, I don't see this replacing telecos everywhere.