One more time: mutation is a normal, regular part of reproduction. Using the word "mistake" to describe mutations is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of biological processes.
Quote: '... actually much fewer mistakes, or mutations, are made.'
This is a very wrong statement. Mutation is a basic natural process, a normal occurrence during reproduction. That's how DNA works! To call it a "mistake" is idiotic and implies some entity somehow "preferred" no mutation ever.
We left LA after our daughter was born in part because we couldn't stand the risk involved in driving through that city, not with a baby in the car. To illustrate how insane it is, when you're at a red light and it turns green, people don't start to drive, they wait several seconds, because there are ALMOST ALWAYS one or two idiots who will drive at full speed through the newly turned-red light, although they could very easily have stopped. But it's LA, so the right thing to do is to drive through the red light, and assume that people who have the green light won't start going soon enough to crash into your car; otherwise, if you're the one with an opportunity to drive through the red light but you actually brake, the idiot behind you is going to rear-end you, since they assume that you'll accelerate through the light, so they get a chance to play with other people's lives as well. I have never seen as many cars with evidence of accidents on their body as in LA, not in any European or North American city.
As a pedestrian it's insanely dangerous as well, since car drivers think they should drive through their red light and you are an object that they don't think exists. And given the clement climate, one would decently expect that biking is a pleasant, common activity, with lots of bike lanes throughout the city. The car drivers use the few bike lanes to cut corners, or to park, and they are too busy with their cell phones to even try to leave a bit of space for bikers.
I've recently moved from California to Colorado. The Google Maps app on my android-running phone insists that I am at my old address in CA (with the exact house number, btw) -- it doesn't even check the GPS signal. If I turn off the wifi signal of the house the phone uses the GPS signal and correctly locates me at my new address in CO.
I discovered this two weeks ago and figured Google has been mapping the location of my password-protected wifi base and decided that they can use it to "assist" GPS location. There is a very stupid assumption that the base doesn't change location.
Because they never concentrate. They don't understand what it means to focus. They don't know what grokking a problem and thinking about solutions requires.
And then they either assume that you must be just like them, spur-of-the-moment babbling apes, or they realize that you are actually using your mind -- and they resent your ability and humanity.
Well then please explain how chemistry makes the survival of partial cellular material impossible -- I know it doesn't but you seem to be deluded. Absolutely no T.Rex bones have ever been carbon-dated to a few thousand years.
There are vast differences between lies, observation, and prediction. And there is a huge divide between facts that contradict a theory and facts that offer avenues to refine that theory. The taxonomy of blood types is a good, simple example of scientific theory in action; I suggest you study its historical development. Assuming you are rational, once you discover a set of circumstances where your theory does not hold as originally stated, what do you do? reject theory as such? find a refinement that makes it more systematic, encompassing, specific, and predictive because your grasp of cause and effect has improved? or do you assume that whenever something unexpected happens all existing knowledge is thereby rendered invalid? it seems that a tenuous grasp of the scientific method and hatred of evolution are blinding you.
And no, I did not need Google to know how to define science. Did you have any evidence for that question? do you understand what the concept "evidence" subsumes? do you see the connection between this paragraph and the previous one?
NOT EVEN FALSE. You're just waving your hands and throwing mud at the wall. The theory of evolution is not based on faith but on facts and systematic theory, fully integrated with ALL OTHER SCIENCES. That's why any theologian's attempt to deny evolution requires them to undermine all sciences, i.e. to reject the very methods of science.
Yes, of course science is open to new evidence. However what you're throwing around is not evidence but arbitrary strings of hypotheticals. That's not how science operates. There must be SOME evidence for what you claim. Otherwise you deserve to be treated as a trolling nut. Arbitrary noises ARE NOT EVEN FALSE. Until you grok, grasp, understand that last sentence, you have no business discussing scientific theory.
It doesn't really matter what your motivation is when you deny the validity of the theory of evolution. You're wrong no matter what cloak you wear.
In order to succeed you'd have to also undermine all science, from physics to biology, via geology, chemistry, mathematics, paleontology, tectonics, astronomy, etc.
So yes, you'd deserve to be branded as a nut. Which type of nut is a trivial detail.
Quoting the IPCC is not evidence but agit-prop. The IPCC is a political group devoted to an ideological, anti-industrial platform, not a source of facts.
If you talk to real scientists, and ask them what factors cause climate changes, and what evidence they have for their theories, you will find that they have a bunch of leads and simply don't know for certain what the primary and secondary causes are. Which means that there is no proven "global warming is driven by humans" scientific theory.
Quoting the IPCC will not make go away the following facts: CO2 levels mostly tanged 3-5 times higher than today over the last several 100 million years; temperatures have repeatedly risen and fallen wildly over the last several 100,000 years; there is no proven, causal correlation between CO2 release in the atmosphere and radical global temperature changes; there are multiple candidate causes for climate change, including solar variability and volcanic activity.
I've been reading the relevant scientific literature for 20 years, have you?
You say "how big this effect is is very hard to say" -- and THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
There is no evidence that current climate changes are DRIVEN by human activity. There is on the other hand AMPLE evidence that CO2 levels have wildly fluctuated in the past 500 My (3-5 times higher than today) and that temperatures have wildly fluctuated over even the last 400,000 years (much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with 3-4km-thick ice sheets about 12,000 years ago).
We live in an interglacial period and should be grateful about the greenhouse effect! is there any evidence of "global warming" in the past that may have hurt life on Earth? there have been long periods without ice sheets in the past, i.e. the warm periods between ice ages.
If you weren't blinded by Bush-hatred, you would KNOW that Clinton and Gore never got the US to sign the Kyoto TREATY because they would have had to convince more than half of the 98 senators who voted AGAINST that treaty. That's right the US SENATE voted 98-0.
Actually, the smokers in that Finnish study had already been smoking for many years (20 on average IIRC). While it seems pretty clear extensive demage to the lungs will not be repaired by a late regime of beta carotene -- the study definitely did not focus on whether damage could have been partially *prevented* if they had taken the supplements as soon as they started smoking.
All evidence to date demonstrates that increased intake of anti-oxidants (especially in the form of fresh fruits and veggies) sharply reduce the risk of cancer, as well as the risk of heart disease. Sharply meaning at least 30-70% (depends on type of disease).
Risk management is NOT a "people issue". In order to assess risk, one needs to examine the probability and impact. In order to assess the probability, one needs to examine the facts -- which is exactly what the engineers were asking for, and the managers _refused_to_do_so_. Likely impact was pretty clear to all (total, catastrophic loss of the shuttle). Further, issues and risks are different beasts: one is an existent problem you know about and need to solve (e.g. feeling cold => put a sweater on), the other is a possible future setback (e.g. re-entry may fail due to wing damage). Too many people have a difficult time distinguishing risks and issues.
As for the notion that a manager's "reputation" is somehow positively correlated with the refusal to examine reality just in case it might turn out to not be a deadly problem... well, yes I've seen managers acting by that flawed standard -- but _successful_ managers don't think like that.
(I'm an engineer by experience and at heart -- I've "graduated" to programme/risk management positions in multi-million $ IT projects over the last few years, with countless horror stories to tell. In 90% of the cases, the problem lies in irrational and incompetent managers.)
As has been said, simply use the option key (with a step-like icon, also mis-labelled "alt" on some keyboards). Then explore the keyboard.
Ah, if your name were Håkan, you'd know what option-a does. And see, if your French girlfriend's name were Fran(option-c)oise... Oooh, here comes Bj(option-o)rn.
Out of 500,000 accounts she spammed, "Only 65 completed the surveys, generating just $40 for Ms. Betterly, who says her costs for sending out the messages totaled $250."
In other words, she lost $210 to annoy half a million people she doesn't even know. Suckers are born every day. I'm sure most spammers are losing money in the same way -- but they're too stupid to realize what they're doing.
I know this is anecdotal, but... when doctors found that my mother had a second cancer, they told her when they thought it had started. It happened to be six months earlier, exactly when she had learnt that her brother had a late-stage cancer discovered and v.soon died. The fact that my brother and I spent almost every day with our mother helped her immensely to overcome grief and find the strength to go through cancer treatment, battle depression, and survive. Positive thinking, close support, and adequate medication go a long way; I'm convinced any missing part would be an obstacle to recovery/survival.
Ayn Rand will be glorified and hated because of The Fountainhead --the individual vs second-handers-- and Atlas Shrugged --the egoists vs the altruists. Her books continue to sell in the 500K copies per year, and it's already been 50+ years.
Slashdot Mirror
One more time: mutation is a normal, regular part of reproduction. Using the word "mistake" to describe mutations is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of biological processes.
Quote: '... actually much fewer mistakes, or mutations, are made.'
This is a very wrong statement. Mutation is a basic natural process, a normal occurrence during reproduction. That's how DNA works! To call it a "mistake" is idiotic and implies some entity somehow "preferred" no mutation ever.
We left LA after our daughter was born in part because we couldn't stand the risk involved in driving through that city, not with a baby in the car. To illustrate how insane it is, when you're at a red light and it turns green, people don't start to drive, they wait several seconds, because there are ALMOST ALWAYS one or two idiots who will drive at full speed through the newly turned-red light, although they could very easily have stopped. But it's LA, so the right thing to do is to drive through the red light, and assume that people who have the green light won't start going soon enough to crash into your car; otherwise, if you're the one with an opportunity to drive through the red light but you actually brake, the idiot behind you is going to rear-end you, since they assume that you'll accelerate through the light, so they get a chance to play with other people's lives as well. I have never seen as many cars with evidence of accidents on their body as in LA, not in any European or North American city.
As a pedestrian it's insanely dangerous as well, since car drivers think they should drive through their red light and you are an object that they don't think exists. And given the clement climate, one would decently expect that biking is a pleasant, common activity, with lots of bike lanes throughout the city. The car drivers use the few bike lanes to cut corners, or to park, and they are too busy with their cell phones to even try to leave a bit of space for bikers.
I've recently moved from California to Colorado. The Google Maps app on my android-running phone insists that I am at my old address in CA (with the exact house number, btw) -- it doesn't even check the GPS signal. If I turn off the wifi signal of the house the phone uses the GPS signal and correctly locates me at my new address in CO.
I discovered this two weeks ago and figured Google has been mapping the location of my password-protected wifi base and decided that they can use it to "assist" GPS location. There is a very stupid assumption that the base doesn't change location.
I find it really creepy and disturbing.
What about Xerox? they should be at the top of the list of defendants
The real benefit of Hawkeye as well as the three "challenges" granted to each player is that it has had a very positive impact on player behaviour.
Gone are the days of endless bitching at the line judges, swearing at the umpire, and throwing tantrums instead of playing the next point.
If the price to pay for that is a slight risk of inaccuracy, so be it!
Because they never concentrate. They don't understand what it means to focus. They don't know what grokking a problem and thinking about solutions requires.
And then they either assume that you must be just like them, spur-of-the-moment babbling apes, or they realize that you are actually using your mind -- and they resent your ability and humanity.
In this case, space will tell.
Well then please explain how chemistry makes the survival of partial cellular material impossible -- I know it doesn't but you seem to be deluded. Absolutely no T.Rex bones have ever been carbon-dated to a few thousand years.
There are vast differences between lies, observation, and prediction. And there is a huge divide between facts that contradict a theory and facts that offer avenues to refine that theory. The taxonomy of blood types is a good, simple example of scientific theory in action; I suggest you study its historical development. Assuming you are rational, once you discover a set of circumstances where your theory does not hold as originally stated, what do you do? reject theory as such? find a refinement that makes it more systematic, encompassing, specific, and predictive because your grasp of cause and effect has improved? or do you assume that whenever something unexpected happens all existing knowledge is thereby rendered invalid? it seems that a tenuous grasp of the scientific method and hatred of evolution are blinding you.
And no, I did not need Google to know how to define science. Did you have any evidence for that question? do you understand what the concept "evidence" subsumes? do you see the connection between this paragraph and the previous one?
NOT EVEN FALSE. You're just waving your hands and throwing mud at the wall. The theory of evolution is not based on faith but on facts and systematic theory, fully integrated with ALL OTHER SCIENCES. That's why any theologian's attempt to deny evolution requires them to undermine all sciences, i.e. to reject the very methods of science.
Yes, of course science is open to new evidence. However what you're throwing around is not evidence but arbitrary strings of hypotheticals. That's not how science operates. There must be SOME evidence for what you claim. Otherwise you deserve to be treated as a trolling nut. Arbitrary noises ARE NOT EVEN FALSE. Until you grok, grasp, understand that last sentence, you have no business discussing scientific theory.
It doesn't really matter what your motivation is when you deny the validity of the theory of evolution. You're wrong no matter what cloak you wear.
In order to succeed you'd have to also undermine all science, from physics to biology, via geology, chemistry, mathematics, paleontology, tectonics, astronomy, etc.
So yes, you'd deserve to be branded as a nut. Which type of nut is a trivial detail.
Your second "option" is incompatible with chemistry, physics, biology, geology, paleontology, etc.
If you get the drift, it's incompatible with science -- which is a systematic accumulation of principles and theories based on facts.
Charles in Space, includes a blog
Quoting the IPCC is not evidence but agit-prop. The IPCC is a political group devoted to an ideological, anti-industrial platform, not a source of facts.
If you talk to real scientists, and ask them what factors cause climate changes, and what evidence they have for their theories, you will find that they have a bunch of leads and simply don't know for certain what the primary and secondary causes are. Which means that there is no proven "global warming is driven by humans" scientific theory.
Quoting the IPCC will not make go away the following facts: CO2 levels mostly tanged 3-5 times higher than today over the last several 100 million years; temperatures have repeatedly risen and fallen wildly over the last several 100,000 years; there is no proven, causal correlation between CO2 release in the atmosphere and radical global temperature changes; there are multiple candidate causes for climate change, including solar variability and volcanic activity.
I've been reading the relevant scientific literature for 20 years, have you?
You say "how big this effect is is very hard to say" -- and THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
There is no evidence that current climate changes are DRIVEN by human activity. There is on the other hand AMPLE evidence that CO2 levels have wildly fluctuated in the past 500 My (3-5 times higher than today) and that temperatures have wildly fluctuated over even the last 400,000 years (much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with 3-4km-thick ice sheets about 12,000 years ago).
We live in an interglacial period and should be grateful about the greenhouse effect! is there any evidence of "global warming" in the past that may have hurt life on Earth? there have been long periods without ice sheets in the past, i.e. the warm periods between ice ages.
If you weren't blinded by Bush-hatred, you would KNOW that Clinton and Gore never got the US to sign the Kyoto TREATY because they would have had to convince more than half of the 98 senators who voted AGAINST that treaty. That's right the US SENATE voted 98-0.
Hafnium comes from the Latin Hafnia for "Copenhagen", home town of Niels Bohr.
So, welcome to Hafnia Vallis!
Welcome to Hafnium Valley
I'm intrigued by your comment. How would you put these disks together and set up the RAID hw/se? I'd appreciate a URL to a recipe.
Actually, the smokers in that Finnish study had already been smoking for many years (20 on average IIRC). While it seems pretty clear extensive demage to the lungs will not be repaired by a late regime of beta carotene -- the study definitely did not focus on whether damage could have been partially *prevented* if they had taken the supplements as soon as they started smoking.
All evidence to date demonstrates that increased intake of anti-oxidants (especially in the form of fresh fruits and veggies) sharply reduce the risk of cancer, as well as the risk of heart disease. Sharply meaning at least 30-70% (depends on type of disease).
Risk management is NOT a "people issue". In order to assess risk, one needs to examine the probability and impact. In order to assess the probability, one needs to examine the facts -- which is exactly what the engineers were asking for, and the managers _refused_to_do_so_. Likely impact was pretty clear to all (total, catastrophic loss of the shuttle). Further, issues and risks are different beasts: one is an existent problem you know about and need to solve (e.g. feeling cold => put a sweater on), the other is a possible future setback (e.g. re-entry may fail due to wing damage). Too many people have a difficult time distinguishing risks and issues.
As for the notion that a manager's "reputation" is somehow positively correlated with the refusal to examine reality just in case it might turn out to not be a deadly problem... well, yes I've seen managers acting by that flawed standard -- but _successful_ managers don't think like that.
(I'm an engineer by experience and at heart -- I've "graduated" to programme/risk management positions in multi-million $ IT projects over the last few years, with countless horror stories to tell. In 90% of the cases, the problem lies in irrational and incompetent managers.)
As has been said, simply use the option key (with a step-like icon, also mis-labelled "alt" on some keyboards). Then explore the keyboard.
Ah, if your name were Håkan, you'd know what option-a does. And see, if your French girlfriend's name were Fran(option-c)oise... Oooh, here comes Bj(option-o)rn.
Out of 500,000 accounts she spammed, "Only 65 completed the surveys, generating just $40 for Ms. Betterly, who says her costs for sending out the messages totaled $250."
In other words, she lost $210 to annoy half a million people she doesn't even know. Suckers are born every day. I'm sure most spammers are losing money in the same way -- but they're too stupid to realize what they're doing.
I pity her children.
I know this is anecdotal, but... when doctors found that my mother had a second cancer, they told her when they thought it had started. It happened to be six months earlier, exactly when she had learnt that her brother had a late-stage cancer discovered and v.soon died. The fact that my brother and I spent almost every day with our mother helped her immensely to overcome grief and find the strength to go through cancer treatment, battle depression, and survive. Positive thinking, close support, and adequate medication go a long way; I'm convinced any missing part would be an obstacle to recovery/survival.
Ayn Rand will be glorified and hated because of The Fountainhead --the individual vs second-handers-- and Atlas Shrugged --the egoists vs the altruists. Her books continue to sell in the 500K copies per year, and it's already been 50+ years.