Goats are a better example. There are plenty of small islands where they have wiped out all sizable life, including themselves, by over grazing and destroying the soil (via erosion after the plants have been stripped off it).
I've seen convincing evidence of information flowing in the other direction too often to write off a claim that it happened previously. This doesn't mean that the claim is valid in this case, but it does mean I won't summarily reject it just because it's not what they taught in school.
IIUC, the induced immunity is lifelong, but the strength of the immunity starts declining after about 7 years. It never really goes away, but when it gets weak enough it can't prevent infection, but only weakens the attack by speeding up the immune response. OTOH, as you get older, your entire immune system becomes weaker...so, e.g., special flu vaccines are prescribed for the elderly.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.
I'm okay with Trump being blamed for this, but that's just because I dislike him. Honestly if you dug I bet you'd find more Democrat influence than Republican, because it's usually the Democrats bowing to the media companies.
Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.
That analogy doesn't work because the dye doesn't have any effect on the water continuing to persist. A better argument could be shaped around blood types and disease resistance, and it might be in favor of your stance, but this isn't clear because the DNA in fossils is highly degraded, and not evenly so for all nucleotide groups, as some are more resistant to weathering than others.
The remarkable thing is that we have any residual evidence at all, but it sure is far from complete.
You need to rethink your geography. Also the Neanderthals and Denisovians were as human as the Cro-Magnon, artistic depictions to the contrary notwithstanding. There's also no evidence that one group was smarter than the others, but Cro-Magnons did tend to live in larger groups, so they coud exchange ideas more readily. They also had a shoulder that was more adapted to throwing, so they didn't need to get in as close to kill a prey. This was less dangerous.
You could equally well argue the other way. There's no way to estimate how many of our genes were Neanderthal in source, because most of them were identical in the two populations. And don't forget the Denisovians, who were also the contributors of many specialized genes, though mainly in Asia.
FWIW, the idea of species is (usually) a gross oversimplification when descussing closely related populations. There *do* appear to have been reproductive barriers, but they were clearly not insurmountable. I suspect that one of them had to do with the shape of the babies head and the shape of the female birth canal leanding to high mortality amoung Neanderthan women who bore Cro-Magnon babies. This would explain the absence of Neanderthal mitochondria in modern populations.
The problem is, it's worse than a risk. Over time it's a certainty.
OTOH, it could be helpful right now...I just don't expect it to be. And the devil is in the details. Those promises are so vague that they could mean anything from real protection to "the business, as usual". Who decides what's reasonable?
Actually, glaciers are often stopped by boundaries. But the boundaries need to be *REALLY* sturdy. A mountain range will usually work.
OTOH, if all you want to do is slow down the melting, then redirecting warm ocean currents might suffice. And that seems to be what they're talking about. This doesn't mean it's sensible or practical, but it's not quite as foolish as you're assuming.
To the extent that this is true, you are talking about the distribution of global warming, not the level of global warming.
OTOH, glaciers reflect a lot more light than does dirt, so the existence of glaciers *does* retard global warming. That's one reason the melting of Arctic sea ice is such a problem. (Ocean is darker than ice.)
However, what I'm really wondering is what other effects building those "massive sea walls" would have. The antarctic is one of the major sources of food for the southern oceans. That's why whales migrate down there. That's why penguins adapted to live in the horrendous Antarctic climate.
Well, last week I left a job running overnight, and in the morning it still wasn't finished. It did eventually finish, so you can argue that I don't *need* a faster computer, but I'd sure like one.
Possibly. But she *is* a justice commissioner, whatever that means, and Facebook *is* coming in front of the EU Court.
That said, it could reasonably be argued that she has valid experience with the Facebook environment, and has valid reasons based on actual interactions, i.e. evidence and expertise.
Personally, I find her sentiments quite believable, based on the reports of many other women who have had publicly noticeable accounts on this or that internet forum. There's a question in my mind as to whether this is specific to Facebook, however, as many of the reports cited some other public media.
OTOH, given how poorly AMTRAK serves the passengers, it might have been justifiable if they'd tried for quality and durability rather than speed. (They *aren't* going to compete with an airplane anyway.)
"Deep fakes" can reputedly be created a lot more cheaply and consistently than can a hand edited video stream.
Calling the process that does it AI is technically correct, but currently it's far from a general AI and doesn't understand the objective context of the pixels it is editing. That will come eventually, however. So worrying about future developments is proper.
Which election are you thinking about, and which media. There isn't one in which all the media were on the same side, and there isn't one in which the most corrupt politician didn't get a lot of support. This is certainly true all the way back to Jackson, and possibly further.
The media used to be less powerful, because the politicians used to directly talk to people. This gave us high-toned political campaigns featuring competing slogans like: "Ma, ma, where's my pa?
Gone to the white house ha ha ha!" and "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine,
Continental liar from the state of Main"
What magic method is the AI supposed to use to determine that a particular video is fake? If it's "the eyes aren't properly blinking" the faker can then learn to blink the eyes. Etc.
Search for the experiment about the man in the gorilla suit, or about the stabbing murder with a banana. Average recollection isn't more reliable. People tend to see what they expect to see.
What's really weird about people is that with all the things Trump has done, so many people are fixated on whether he's into golden showers. That's really, really, trivial. Contributing to a huge death toll in Puerto Rico is nearly ignored.
The only significant thing about the pee tape is that if it's true it's another thing Putin has as a hold over Trump, but it's my guess that his real hold is that Trump's a physical (at least) coward, and Putin threatened to have something physical done to him if he didn't obey. I really don't think that Mr. "Grab-em by the pussy" would be obeying to avoid embarrassment.
We have already got a legal system that has for (at least) decades trusted the honesty of the prosecutor handling the evidence, so this is a very small increment in reasonable distrust.
Possibly I should have said centuries, but I'm not sure how long the current prosecutor/defense attorney system has been in place, and analogs have been in place back to the Classical Greeks. (I.e., the Romans had an analog, but I'm not sure how the Greeks managed things, or whether they all did it the same way.)
That's the official standard all right. But it doesn't have much to do with how verdicts are often related. Do you really find it difficult to believe that the prosecutor intentionally fudged some evidence and withheld other evidence? It happens all the time, and has frequently been proven, admittedly often years after the conviction.
Slashdot Mirror
Goats are a better example. There are plenty of small islands where they have wiped out all sizable life, including themselves, by over grazing and destroying the soil (via erosion after the plants have been stripped off it).
I've seen convincing evidence of information flowing in the other direction too often to write off a claim that it happened previously. This doesn't mean that the claim is valid in this case, but it does mean I won't summarily reject it just because it's not what they taught in school.
IIUC, the induced immunity is lifelong, but the strength of the immunity starts declining after about 7 years. It never really goes away, but when it gets weak enough it can't prevent infection, but only weakens the attack by speeding up the immune response. OTOH, as you get older, your entire immune system becomes weaker...so, e.g., special flu vaccines are prescribed for the elderly.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.
I'm okay with Trump being blamed for this, but that's just because I dislike him. Honestly if you dug I bet you'd find more Democrat influence than Republican, because it's usually the Democrats bowing to the media companies.
Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.
Agreed. But it's not an immune disease, except in an extremely indirect way.
That analogy doesn't work because the dye doesn't have any effect on the water continuing to persist. A better argument could be shaped around blood types and disease resistance, and it might be in favor of your stance, but this isn't clear because the DNA in fossils is highly degraded, and not evenly so for all nucleotide groups, as some are more resistant to weathering than others.
The remarkable thing is that we have any residual evidence at all, but it sure is far from complete.
You need to rethink your geography. Also the Neanderthals and Denisovians were as human as the Cro-Magnon, artistic depictions to the contrary notwithstanding. There's also no evidence that one group was smarter than the others, but Cro-Magnons did tend to live in larger groups, so they coud exchange ideas more readily. They also had a shoulder that was more adapted to throwing, so they didn't need to get in as close to kill a prey. This was less dangerous.
No. Sickle cell disease isn't an immune disorder. The red blood cells do it to themselves, and then physically clog up the small blood vessels.
You could equally well argue the other way. There's no way to estimate how many of our genes were Neanderthal in source, because most of them were identical in the two populations. And don't forget the Denisovians, who were also the contributors of many specialized genes, though mainly in Asia.
FWIW, the idea of species is (usually) a gross oversimplification when descussing closely related populations. There *do* appear to have been reproductive barriers, but they were clearly not insurmountable. I suspect that one of them had to do with the shape of the babies head and the shape of the female birth canal leanding to high mortality amoung Neanderthan women who bore Cro-Magnon babies. This would explain the absence of Neanderthal mitochondria in modern populations.
The problem is, it's worse than a risk. Over time it's a certainty.
OTOH, it could be helpful right now...I just don't expect it to be. And the devil is in the details. Those promises are so vague that they could mean anything from real protection to "the business, as usual". Who decides what's reasonable?
Actually, glaciers are often stopped by boundaries. But the boundaries need to be *REALLY* sturdy. A mountain range will usually work.
OTOH, if all you want to do is slow down the melting, then redirecting warm ocean currents might suffice. And that seems to be what they're talking about. This doesn't mean it's sensible or practical, but it's not quite as foolish as you're assuming.
To the extent that this is true, you are talking about the distribution of global warming, not the level of global warming.
OTOH, glaciers reflect a lot more light than does dirt, so the existence of glaciers *does* retard global warming. That's one reason the melting of Arctic sea ice is such a problem. (Ocean is darker than ice.)
However, what I'm really wondering is what other effects building those "massive sea walls" would have. The antarctic is one of the major sources of food for the southern oceans. That's why whales migrate down there. That's why penguins adapted to live in the horrendous Antarctic climate.
Well, last week I left a job running overnight, and in the morning it still wasn't finished. It did eventually finish, so you can argue that I don't *need* a faster computer, but I'd sure like one.
Possibly. But she *is* a justice commissioner, whatever that means, and Facebook *is* coming in front of the EU Court.
That said, it could reasonably be argued that she has valid experience with the Facebook environment, and has valid reasons based on actual interactions, i.e. evidence and expertise.
Personally, I find her sentiments quite believable, based on the reports of many other women who have had publicly noticeable accounts on this or that internet forum. There's a question in my mind as to whether this is specific to Facebook, however, as many of the reports cited some other public media.
Yes. Now THAT was a boondoggle.
OTOH, given how poorly AMTRAK serves the passengers, it might have been justifiable if they'd tried for quality and durability rather than speed. (They *aren't* going to compete with an airplane anyway.)
Are they really? What do they use as plasticizers?
Many brittle plastics are relatively safe, but that's not what is usually desired as a material.
"Deep fakes" can reputedly be created a lot more cheaply and consistently than can a hand edited video stream.
Calling the process that does it AI is technically correct, but currently it's far from a general AI and doesn't understand the objective context of the pixels it is editing. That will come eventually, however. So worrying about future developments is proper.
Which election are you thinking about, and which media. There isn't one in which all the media were on the same side, and there isn't one in which the most corrupt politician didn't get a lot of support. This is certainly true all the way back to Jackson, and possibly further.
The media used to be less powerful, because the politicians used to directly talk to people. This gave us high-toned political campaigns featuring competing slogans like:
"Ma, ma, where's my pa?
Gone to the white house ha ha ha!"
and
"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine,
Continental liar from the state of Main"
What magic method is the AI supposed to use to determine that a particular video is fake? If it's "the eyes aren't properly blinking" the faker can then learn to blink the eyes. Etc.
Search for the experiment about the man in the gorilla suit, or about the stabbing murder with a banana. Average recollection isn't more reliable. People tend to see what they expect to see.
What's really weird about people is that with all the things Trump has done, so many people are fixated on whether he's into golden showers. That's really, really, trivial. Contributing to a huge death toll in Puerto Rico is nearly ignored.
The only significant thing about the pee tape is that if it's true it's another thing Putin has as a hold over Trump, but it's my guess that his real hold is that Trump's a physical (at least) coward, and Putin threatened to have something physical done to him if he didn't obey. I really don't think that Mr. "Grab-em by the pussy" would be obeying to avoid embarrassment.
We have already got a legal system that has for (at least) decades trusted the honesty of the prosecutor handling the evidence, so this is a very small increment in reasonable distrust.
Possibly I should have said centuries, but I'm not sure how long the current prosecutor/defense attorney system has been in place, and analogs have been in place back to the Classical Greeks. (I.e., the Romans had an analog, but I'm not sure how the Greeks managed things, or whether they all did it the same way.)
That's the official standard all right. But it doesn't have much to do with how verdicts are often related. Do you really find it difficult to believe that the prosecutor intentionally fudged some evidence and withheld other evidence? It happens all the time, and has frequently been proven, admittedly often years after the conviction.