The GP would probably agree that this applies to most if not all religions.
As a Minister in the CoTFSM, I naturally have complete faith in the FSM and utterly believe it to be a true description of the universe. (However I also have faith in the FSM's sense of humour in having created a universe that appears to follow the laws of physics, and see no contradiction in both proselytizing my religion, and being a working geologist operating in the "real world".)
And when I get my Rapture, the Beer Volcano WILL be a real Volcano, and it WILL gush forth beer (GOOD beer!), and it WILL be next to the Stripper Factory. And I WILL be in the land of the Eternal Field Trip. And there shall be NO HANGOVER.
I don't believe that I suffer from the same sorts of delusions as the deranged followers of other religions. They're mad ; I'm not.
You have to contend with atmosphere (which is why they're always on mountains)
... except for the ones that are not. Which are principally radio telescopes.
To extend your discussion... in addition to ground based telescopes having the potential to be much bigger than space telescopes (the colloquial description is a "light bucket"), they also have the advantages such as being able to receive consumables (e.g liquid helium for cooling IR telescopes, despite being at the bottom of a IR-dirty atmosphere) ; new designs of detector are (relatively) easy to install, trial and improve on a ground-based telescope (I recall that Hubble received an upgrade from 386-equivalent to 486-equivalent processing power in the 1999 servicing mission ; that's some 8 years behind the curve).
Someone else mentioned interferometry... hard enough to achieve on the ground ; not so easy to achieve in space. But on the ground, you can test things out, revise your telescope designs and light paths... literally be at the "bleeding edge".
Hardware that gets put into space, particularly where it's not going to get servicing missions, tends to be pretty conservative. Witness the Opportunity rover on Mars, which has recently completed Sol 2900 of it's 90-Sol mission - over-engineered conservative hardware and software, and that's not an insult!
otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific
... which doesn't stop some people from thinking that way. I'm looking specifically at Simon Conway Morris, who as a highly respected palaeontologist, ought to know better. (His big thing is that there is a lot of convergence in evolutionary outcomes, implying a significant degree of predictability.)
[Me] I'm not going to consider either Apples (been there, don't want to return) or WinBoxen. What do you have?
[Salesman] Would you be interested in this WinBox?
[Me?] Why? It's a WinBox, so not condidered.
[Salesman] But... shouldn't you consider it?
[Me] Why? You're the minion ; why are you telling me what to ignore?
[Salesman] Ignore your opinion ; suck my commission penis.
[Me] I think that you've misunderstood the nature of the kicking you are going to get for being so rude to your customers. (sharpens teeth, "come here!)
Investing in shares for time spans of months is of general benefit to the economy,
Many would argue that investing for periods of less than a [report cycle] is simply going to encourage [Management] to play to the short-term crowd.
My employers have managed about 8% year-on-year growth for the 20 years that I've been an employee. But if we'd been a publicly-traded company, we'd probably have been shut down and lost the personnel asset several times in that period. 1.08^^20 = 4.7 ; good enough?
No, probably not for the sharks. I must remember to use power tools to sodomise the next shark I gain control of. Painfully. Without consent. Using my definition of "shark".
Different tile frequencies - and presumably values too? Makes sense.
I used to have a friend who was a serious Scrabbler (I suspect that he's got unwell since I met him regularly). He would probably have enjoyed the challenge of winning at Scrabble, played in for example English, but with Dutch letter frequencies and scores.
What kind of problems? Iâ(TM)m not sure you want to know.
In the local case I heard about, someone's phone traffic pulsing in reception of SMS traffic when the aircraft came back within reach of onshore base stations caused the aircraft's radar system to switch between Navigation, Weather and Ground Return modes without being manipulated by the pilots. Since the phone was in the owner's pocket (therefore, sealed under his survival suit), then it wasn't outgoing SMS (unless there were queued messages in the phone, perhaps?), bt incoming.
At which point, I stopped even bothering to try to take my mobile to work with me. Which most of the time I didn't bother to do anyway, because of the frequent confiscation of cameras too.
(Incidentally, the ban on cameras is partly a safety rule - though it undoubtedly helps scandal control too - because many installations have flash-detection systems to detect electrical malfunctions and small fires. So, photography requires a work permit, communications checks, suppression of normal fire-control systems. As has often been said (by people who actually do health and safety work), real health and safety rules are often written in the blood of unanticipated events.
The problem with Qi is its about as "english language" as Shinjitai.
... which doesn't matter in the slightest. If the word is in the reference dictionary that you agreed on at the start of the game, and isn't flagged as an acronym (some local rulesets may not insist on that ; there are variants of the game, played with the same equipment according to local rules), then the word is valid to use.
Would you expect "Le Scrabble" to insist on the words being English, if the players are French.
I almost wonder what the French (or other language) rules are for things like diacritic marks. Or if tile sets are available in non-Latin character sets such as Cyrillic? Probably.
Some scanners and scan software will refuse to capture the image of what they think is actual currency
Define "actual" currency. The currency of the manufacturing nation (Yuan, probably) ; the designing nation (euros, US Dollars?) ; the nation of sale (whatever); the nation of delivery (as whatever) ; or any of the nations of transmission of the equipment or the data?
Maybe, sending scans of a currency whose export from the home country is flat-out illegal, to their local embassy, would be a better test? Manats, or Shillings (Tz).
No matter how many fossils we find, there will always be missing one.
Generations are discrete, so eventually you'd reach a point where there are no missing links.
Which would be the point at which you're looking at a complete genetic profile of every member of the species in question.
We're nearly there for some rare species in captive breeding programmes (when the motivation of the genetic work is to try to preserve the largest possible amount of the remaining genetic variation in the species) ; we're not going to get there for organisms which are not currently alive, because DNA decays rapidly in most circumstances.
it is because modern biology does not consider it necessary for any link to even exist and they are therefore not missing. Google 'punctuated equilibrium' for details.
You have either misunderstood punctuated equilibrium really badly, or expressed it terribly.
The distinction between conventional neo-Darwinian ideas and punctuated equilibrium ideas is in the temporal distribution of rate of change of the species. Conventional noe-Darwinian ideas have relatively steady, frequent small changes in response to environmental changes ("evolution by creeps", in the famous joke) and therefore lots of opportunities for the fossilisation of intermediate forms. In contrast, punctuated equilibrium posits organisms accommodating to their environmental changes most of the time in ways that are not visible in their anatomy (say, by behavioural change, or subtle biochemical changes) - that's the "equilibrium" part of the idea. However eventually the required degree of change exceeds what can be accommodated by cryptic changes, and substantial change occurs in the body over a comparatively short period of time (the "punctuation", or in the old joke, "evolution by jerks"). In consequence, the intermediate forms are only around (and potentially fossilisable) for a short period of time and so are relatively unlikely to to be found in the fossil record.
The "missing link" forms do exist in both ideas, but for differing periods of time. With fossilisation (and human discovery of and identification of the fossil) being essentially a random sampling event, the probability of actually seeing the intermediate forms is crudely proportional to the length of time that the intermediate forms exist for.
In consequence, to distinguish between the two processes is only going to be possible with a good statistical analysis of abundant data across an interval of gradual environmental change with steady sediment deposition. Which data is expensive and time-consuming to acquire.
Of course, it is entirely possible that both styles of change occur, at different times in the same lineage of organisms.
In the laboratory, using fast-generating, high-population organism (i.e. microbes), the evidence seems to be that both processes occur. Which is a typically messy biological result.
The summary indeed strongly suggests that these planets form (part of) the missing dark matter. So let's take that idea and run with it.
... and on the way discard the idea (well-supported hypothesis, actually) that we understand the behaviour of baryonic matter reasonably well... and that it's not enough to describe the universe that we live in.
You can't pick one bit of science and discard the rest. Want electricity or medicine? Accept quantum mechanics and evolution.
For humane reasons, using a commercial/ experienced/ trained/ equipped slaughter house is reasonable. So, you take your (say) cow to the slaughter house ; it's killed while you're cleaning out the transport trailer (rented, most likely) ; the carcass is deposited into your trailer, and you take it home.
Then you butcher it. What you do with the gut contents, is your choice (got pig?).
What you do with the skin is your choice. (Want shoes... go ahead.)
What you do with the intestines is your choice. (Want sausage? Get cleaning.)
What you do with flesh is your choice. (Want steak? What are you going to do with the legs?
No one is prevented from getting what they are used to. But they do regain the knowledge of the source of their meat that their grandparents had. At least freezers are common these days, so you won't need to learn how to smoke and salt meat.
This year, we eat cow ; we'll have pig next year. (The porker is eating the human-inedible bits of cow.)
Due to being a communist totalitarian state (or slightly socialist to non-Americans), squatters aren't a problem ;
due to not being massively overpopulated, nosy neighbours aren't a problem (for your summer house) ; raccoons are SEPs (Someone Else's Problem) ;
squirrels are too busy nut-hunting ;
math addicts get their longitude right ;
trees... well, if you're silly enough to build your house too close to trees, what do you expect? ;
water pipes don't freeze if you do your shut-down procedures correctly (corollary : you need to do your start-up procedures too, but that's why you wrote them down as a couple of checklists).
Meteorites are not much of a concern to most Noggins I drink with.
If the plants were unable to self-pollinate (as in Australia and few other regions),
The Australian Aborigines were perfectly well aware of agriculture as practised widely on the Papua / New Guinea archipelago to the north (itself probably peopled from Australia). They didn't do agriculture (before the European invasion and theft) because they didn't need the food, there being adequate in their environment for their hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Necessity is the mother of invention ; they didn't need it, so they didn't invent it.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Minister in the CoTFSM, I naturally have complete faith in the FSM and utterly believe it to be a true description of the universe. (However I also have faith in the FSM's sense of humour in having created a universe that appears to follow the laws of physics, and see no contradiction in both proselytizing my religion, and being a working geologist operating in the "real world".)
And when I get my Rapture, the Beer Volcano WILL be a real Volcano, and it WILL gush forth beer (GOOD beer!), and it WILL be next to the Stripper Factory. And I WILL be in the land of the Eternal Field Trip. And there shall be NO HANGOVER.
I don't believe that I suffer from the same sorts of delusions as the deranged followers of other religions. They're mad ; I'm not.
Giordano Bruno would like to toast you on that point, but I think he'd have preferred it if you just poured the drink on the fire to put it out.
... except for the ones that are not. Which are principally radio telescopes.
To extend your discussion ... in addition to ground based telescopes having the potential to be much bigger than space telescopes (the colloquial description is a "light bucket"), they also have the advantages such as being able to receive consumables (e.g liquid helium for cooling IR telescopes, despite being at the bottom of a IR-dirty atmosphere) ; new designs of detector are (relatively) easy to install, trial and improve on a ground-based telescope (I recall that Hubble received an upgrade from 386-equivalent to 486-equivalent processing power in the 1999 servicing mission ; that's some 8 years behind the curve).
Someone else mentioned interferometry ... hard enough to achieve on the ground ; not so easy to achieve in space. But on the ground, you can test things out, revise your telescope designs and light paths ... literally be at the "bleeding edge".
Hardware that gets put into space, particularly where it's not going to get servicing missions, tends to be pretty conservative. Witness the Opportunity rover on Mars, which has recently completed Sol 2900 of it's 90-Sol mission - over-engineered conservative hardware and software, and that's not an insult!
[Me] I'm not going to consider either Apples (been there, don't want to return) or WinBoxen. What do you have?
[Salesman] Would you be interested in this WinBox?
[Me?] Why? It's a WinBox, so not condidered.
[Salesman] But ... shouldn't you consider it?
[Me] Why? You're the minion ; why are you telling me what to ignore?
[Salesman] Ignore your opinion ; suck my commission penis.
[Me] I think that you've misunderstood the nature of the kicking you are going to get for being so rude to your customers. (sharpens teeth, "come here!)
I remember rejecting the idea a decade and a half ago ... have I been convinced to start?
No, I think not.
Many would argue that investing for periods of less than a [report cycle] is simply going to encourage [Management] to play to the short-term crowd.
My employers have managed about 8% year-on-year growth for the 20 years that I've been an employee. But if we'd been a publicly-traded company, we'd probably have been shut down and lost the personnel asset several times in that period. 1.08^^20 = 4.7 ; good enough?
No, probably not for the sharks. I must remember to use power tools to sodomise the next shark I gain control of. Painfully. Without consent. Using my definition of "shark".
I'm playing Go with someone who has been dead for a couple of millennia. Does that count?
And can one route through Norway? Or Russia?
I used to have a friend who was a serious Scrabbler (I suspect that he's got unwell since I met him regularly). He would probably have enjoyed the challenge of winning at Scrabble, played in for example English, but with Dutch letter frequencies and scores.
In the local case I heard about, someone's phone traffic pulsing in reception of SMS traffic when the aircraft came back within reach of onshore base stations caused the aircraft's radar system to switch between Navigation, Weather and Ground Return modes without being manipulated by the pilots. Since the phone was in the owner's pocket (therefore, sealed under his survival suit), then it wasn't outgoing SMS (unless there were queued messages in the phone, perhaps?), bt incoming.
At which point, I stopped even bothering to try to take my mobile to work with me. Which most of the time I didn't bother to do anyway, because of the frequent confiscation of cameras too.
(Incidentally, the ban on cameras is partly a safety rule - though it undoubtedly helps scandal control too - because many installations have flash-detection systems to detect electrical malfunctions and small fires. So, photography requires a work permit, communications checks, suppression of normal fire-control systems. As has often been said (by people who actually do health and safety work), real health and safety rules are often written in the blood of unanticipated events.
... which doesn't matter in the slightest. If the word is in the reference dictionary that you agreed on at the start of the game, and isn't flagged as an acronym (some local rulesets may not insist on that ; there are variants of the game, played with the same equipment according to local rules), then the word is valid to use.
Would you expect "Le Scrabble" to insist on the words being English, if the players are French.
I almost wonder what the French (or other language) rules are for things like diacritic marks. Or if tile sets are available in non-Latin character sets such as Cyrillic? Probably.
Seems so.
Define "actual" currency. The currency of the manufacturing nation (Yuan, probably) ; the designing nation (euros, US Dollars?) ; the nation of sale (whatever); the nation of delivery (as whatever) ; or any of the nations of transmission of the equipment or the data?
Maybe, sending scans of a currency whose export from the home country is flat-out illegal, to their local embassy, would be a better test? Manats, or Shillings (Tz).
Which would be the point at which you're looking at a complete genetic profile of every member of the species in question.
We're nearly there for some rare species in captive breeding programmes (when the motivation of the genetic work is to try to preserve the largest possible amount of the remaining genetic variation in the species) ; we're not going to get there for organisms which are not currently alive, because DNA decays rapidly in most circumstances.
You have either misunderstood punctuated equilibrium really badly, or expressed it terribly.
The distinction between conventional neo-Darwinian ideas and punctuated equilibrium ideas is in the temporal distribution of rate of change of the species. Conventional noe-Darwinian ideas have relatively steady, frequent small changes in response to environmental changes ("evolution by creeps", in the famous joke) and therefore lots of opportunities for the fossilisation of intermediate forms. In contrast, punctuated equilibrium posits organisms accommodating to their environmental changes most of the time in ways that are not visible in their anatomy (say, by behavioural change, or subtle biochemical changes) - that's the "equilibrium" part of the idea. However eventually the required degree of change exceeds what can be accommodated by cryptic changes, and substantial change occurs in the body over a comparatively short period of time (the "punctuation", or in the old joke, "evolution by jerks"). In consequence, the intermediate forms are only around (and potentially fossilisable) for a short period of time and so are relatively unlikely to to be found in the fossil record.
The "missing link" forms do exist in both ideas, but for differing periods of time. With fossilisation (and human discovery of and identification of the fossil) being essentially a random sampling event, the probability of actually seeing the intermediate forms is crudely proportional to the length of time that the intermediate forms exist for.
In consequence, to distinguish between the two processes is only going to be possible with a good statistical analysis of abundant data across an interval of gradual environmental change with steady sediment deposition. Which data is expensive and time-consuming to acquire.
Of course, it is entirely possible that both styles of change occur, at different times in the same lineage of organisms.
In the laboratory, using fast-generating, high-population organism (i.e. microbes), the evidence seems to be that both processes occur. Which is a typically messy biological result.
... no, normally you're less amusing.
... and on the way discard the idea (well-supported hypothesis, actually) that we understand the behaviour of baryonic matter reasonably well ... and that it's not enough to describe the universe that we live in.
You can't pick one bit of science and discard the rest. Want electricity or medicine? Accept quantum mechanics and evolution.
While we're burning together, I'll pour burning oil on your back, if you'll do the same for me.
See you in someone else's Hell. Or not.
Result!
It's probably safer than joining the Army (navy, whatever) and trying to shoot foreigners.
For humane reasons, using a commercial/ experienced/ trained/ equipped slaughter house is reasonable. So, you take your (say) cow to the slaughter house ; it's killed while you're cleaning out the transport trailer (rented, most likely) ; the carcass is deposited into your trailer, and you take it home.
No one is prevented from getting what they are used to. But they do regain the knowledge of the source of their meat that their grandparents had. At least freezers are common these days, so you won't need to learn how to smoke and salt meat.
This year, we eat cow ; we'll have pig next year. (The porker is eating the human-inedible bits of cow.)
Meteorites are not much of a concern to most Noggins I drink with.
Post more often. When you're signed in to your account. It's not difficult.
Oh noes! Slows! Requires thought and attention by both TSA goon and passenger. Can't have that - that's discriminatory.
The Australian Aborigines were perfectly well aware of agriculture as practised widely on the Papua / New Guinea archipelago to the north (itself probably peopled from Australia). They didn't do agriculture (before the European invasion and theft) because they didn't need the food, there being adequate in their environment for their hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Necessity is the mother of invention ; they didn't need it, so they didn't invent it.