Sure they do: humans move them. 10,000 years ago, humans did not travel from where I am (UK) to Austrailia. We're still the sams species.
10.000 years are just 400 generations, not enough for speciation. And humans travelled during the whole history. Not necessarily a single person from the British Islands directly to Australia, but Britons to continental Europe, continental Europeans to the Persian Mountains, Persians to India, Indians to Indochina, Indochinese people to Polynesia, and Polynesians to Australia and New Zealand. Lions and tigers had their last common ancestor at least 2 million years ago. The fossil record of tigers starts on the indochinesian islands (especially Java, with fossils about 1,6 to 1,8 million years old), and only 100,000 to 70,000 years ago the species Panthera tigris seems to have started to spread through the whole of Asia. Given the average live expectation of tigers in the wild of less than 10 years, 2 million years means 200,000 generations - quite a difference compared with 400 generations.
You also ignored my point about ring species.
I had no reason to argue against ring species. So why repeat the argument?
And what about fertile plant hybrids across quite wide species gaps?
And even broader horizontal gene transfer among bacteria?
We can agree that the term "species" is not as sharp defined within Biology as some people would like (mostly people outside Biology who insist on some holy and only meaning of a term without knowing how it's actually used). But that's life -- in the true meaning of the word. There are much more complicated examples than Panthera leo and Panthera tigris. If you can get a good write-up of the reproduction of Taraxacum officinale, you will notice that the common dandelion is everything but common, when it comes to reproduction. One could easily argue that there are thousands of different dandelion species, or just a single one, or that each generation of dandelion would be a separate species.
The term "species" is more of a concept than a strict definition, a concept which is helpful in many cases, but creates but confusion in others. Terms make sense anyway only within a theory, and are never absolute. Species within the theory of evolution is about generating common offspring, and natural selection. In this sense, lions and tigers are not naturally interbreeding, being separated by thousands of miles without any natural occurence of neither lions nor tigers. Thus it makes sense to view them as separate species, because without human interference, they will never mate. As the speciation itself is a gradual process and nothing that happens suddenly from one generation to the next, you will always find border cases which are "nearly still the same species" or "two separate species in most cases with some exceptions proving the rule". But that's ok. Nature is not neatly sorted and categorized, it's just our human understanding that needs those categories and tries to sort everything.
Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding).
By that definition I'd be a different species from Americans and Austrailians among others. It doesn't hold.
Humans are known to travel between continents. Lions and tigers aren't. Thus the argument still stands.
Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile.
Not according to wikipedia.
According to the german Wikipedia, male ligers (you gracefully omitted the "male" while quoting) are infertile. So we have Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Then it's a rent and not a sale, and all the usual renting rules apply (at least in the E.U.), especially "keeping the rented object in usable shape for the time of the contract" as the first obligation of the publisher.
The interesting part (and the one currently being prosecuted) is the fact that the original publisher probably has to allow for the sale or can be forced to effect it. So DMCA be damned, at least in the E.U., it seems likely that the publisher in future has to lift the DRM at least for the time of the sale.
It won't be for long. The E.U. high court's decision to allow the resale of used software (Usedsoft vs. Oracle) stated that giving a permanent license for an one-time payment concludes a sale, and the First Sale doctrine applies. Just because you name your EULA in a fancy manner, it doesn't change that it covers a sale. At least for the E.U., all ebook providers thus have to implement the infrastructure to allow a resale of used ebooks.
Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding). Second, the male Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile. The interbreding doesn't continue into the second generation (you could probably interbred a female liger with both tigers and lions, but ligers are much larger than both tigers and lions, thus no male tiger or lion would ever try to interbred with a liger female).
Are the short-winged swallows unable to mate with other swallow in their parent population?
This normally happens only if the two strains of livings are separated and allowed to develop independently. And even then it doesn't necessarily mean that the now occuring species can't interbred anymore. Polar bear and grizzly are a wellknown example of two species who could interbred, but normally don't do because they live in different environments. In this case, we talk about geographical species.
What we see here, is a so called genetic drift. While still being the same species, the average genotype is moved to shorter wings.
Has anyone, however, observed this selection effect going on for a long enough time for the emergence of new species?
Yes, there was an experiment with strains of E. coli (a type of bacteria), which were fed citric acid additionally to their normal diet. E. coli normally doesn't metabolize citric acid. But after about 12,000 generations, there was a new strain of E. coli which could metabolize citric acid. Bacteria don't interbred at all, they reproduce by cell division. Thus a definition of a species via cross-breeding doesn't make sense. E. coli is differentiated from other similar bacteria strains by not digesting citric acid. Thus, this new strain of citric acid digesting E. coli is a new bacteria species.
Yes, most of the multi-way equalizers were of the "this amp goes to 11!" variety anyway. They were there to look impressive and professional, without actually helping to improve the audio experience.
The equalizer is a prime example of what I am talking about. You know, why it is called equalizer? Because with analog equipment, each frequency is slightly differently handled, some frequencies are higher amplified than others, and some are more muffled than others. With the equalizer, one can make it equal, amplifiy or muffle the different parts of the audio band to have the differences ironed out. For some general degradation of the overall signal quality, you bought a quite uniform handling of the frequencies.
All the different audio types had different head curves. A turntable was different than an ultra-short wave radio, different than a ferro-magnetic tape or a chrome based magnetic tape. To connect them together, you needed an equalizer to adapt the different head curves to better fit together.
With digital equipment, the need is gone. The signal gets digitalized once at the source, and then it is handled digitally until the final amplifier, where a DSP creates a new analog signal from the digital version. Each bit is threated the same, so no need to equalize it somewhere in the signal path. Differently than in analog times, where we had a signal-noise-ratio of about 60 dB (or less, depending on the equipment), now the signal has 96 dB. There is only one part we have to slightly equalize, that are the actual loudspeakers. For that, a 5-way-equalizer looks quite approbriate. Everything else is overkill.
In the TFA, he speculates that these multipurpose devices are now "good enough" to suit most needs, and I think that is true, But it is true that the quality of our audio and video experience seems to have gotten worse of the last couple of years.
Hm. This is the oldest complaint about home entertainment devices ever. If it was true, we would have the worst audio and video experience today since the advent of the videobox (Dickson 1891) and the phonograph (Edison 1877). But actually, the experience became better, we are just so used to the quirks and specialities of the devices of our childhood, that we miss them in more modern equipment.
I actually have thrown out the TV. It's just a large, clunky object in the room. I never owned an MP3 player though, so nothing to throw out there. I put the navigation device to rest and am using my mobile with a navigation app. My children still have their diverse gaming consoles. So I am now down two gadgets. It might increase again, because I am currently pondering buying a 3D printer.
In certain ways, yes. Chimps are known to torture other chimps, and ape packs are known to go after other packs of the same species and try to kill them all off.
You get out of government what you expect out of government, The average U.S. american does not believe the government to do even basic tasks well, and thus there is no reaction at the voting booth on serious failings of the government. There are people elected to Washington who clearly say that you shouldn't expect anything from Washington. There are elected people who proudly claim to have shutdown the goverment, and they are reelected for shutting down the government.
There is a generally dysfunctional relation between the electorate and the government it chooses. And if there is no government to effectively rule, other, unelected people will fill in the void. There is only one way out of it: Stop the delight in seeing the government fail. Hold everyone elected responsible for everything that happens in the government and also for everything that doesn't happen. He was elected to do a job, and deliberately failing at it should never be a recommendation for another term. Never cheer for people running on a platform of governmental failings. They are hired by the electorate to do their task in government, and not for putting blame on someone else.
This is exactly what the grand parent is talking about: Threatening or actually exercising violence to get the opponent adhere to your wishes.
At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.
The claim is somewhat outlandish. It might be proof that life can form again and again in non-living environments, but that's the only thing one can conclude right now. If we notice building blocks of life everywhere in the universe, and if we can recreate them under sterile conditions on earth, it just means that building blocks of life are very common in the universe which increases the probability of spontaneous life-forming.
It does not mean by any length that life was forming only once, and every other life is the offspring of the first one. Au contraire.
If the right people have access to guns, and the wrong ones don't, an aboundance of guns can be very stabilizing to a dictatorship. You just have to guarantee that your people always get more guns and ammunition than the rebels.
Look at how much grant money is given out these days to GW research. There's the reason why. As always, follow the money and it will usually lead you to the answer.
Not much at all, compared to the money that is given out for instance for oil exploration and new extraction technologies. So follow the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do: humans move them. 10,000 years ago, humans did not travel from where I am (UK) to Austrailia. We're still the sams species.
10.000 years are just 400 generations, not enough for speciation. And humans travelled during the whole history. Not necessarily a single person from the British Islands directly to Australia, but Britons to continental Europe, continental Europeans to the Persian Mountains, Persians to India, Indians to Indochina, Indochinese people to Polynesia, and Polynesians to Australia and New Zealand. Lions and tigers had their last common ancestor at least 2 million years ago. The fossil record of tigers starts on the indochinesian islands (especially Java, with fossils about 1,6 to 1,8 million years old), and only 100,000 to 70,000 years ago the species Panthera tigris seems to have started to spread through the whole of Asia. Given the average live expectation of tigers in the wild of less than 10 years, 2 million years means 200,000 generations - quite a difference compared with 400 generations.
You also ignored my point about ring species.
I had no reason to argue against ring species. So why repeat the argument?
And what about fertile plant hybrids across quite wide species gaps?
And even broader horizontal gene transfer among bacteria?
We can agree that the term "species" is not as sharp defined within Biology as some people would like (mostly people outside Biology who insist on some holy and only meaning of a term without knowing how it's actually used). But that's life -- in the true meaning of the word. There are much more complicated examples than Panthera leo and Panthera tigris. If you can get a good write-up of the reproduction of Taraxacum officinale, you will notice that the common dandelion is everything but common, when it comes to reproduction. One could easily argue that there are thousands of different dandelion species, or just a single one, or that each generation of dandelion would be a separate species.
The term "species" is more of a concept than a strict definition, a concept which is helpful in many cases, but creates but confusion in others. Terms make sense anyway only within a theory, and are never absolute. Species within the theory of evolution is about generating common offspring, and natural selection. In this sense, lions and tigers are not naturally interbreeding, being separated by thousands of miles without any natural occurence of neither lions nor tigers. Thus it makes sense to view them as separate species, because without human interference, they will never mate. As the speciation itself is a gradual process and nothing that happens suddenly from one generation to the next, you will always find border cases which are "nearly still the same species" or "two separate species in most cases with some exceptions proving the rule". But that's ok. Nature is not neatly sorted and categorized, it's just our human understanding that needs those categories and tries to sort everything.
Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding).
By that definition I'd be a different species from Americans and Austrailians among others. It doesn't hold.
Humans are known to travel between continents. Lions and tigers aren't. Thus the argument still stands.
Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile.
Not according to wikipedia.
According to the german Wikipedia, male ligers (you gracefully omitted the "male" while quoting) are infertile. So we have Wikipedia against Wikipedia.
Then it's a rent and not a sale, and all the usual renting rules apply (at least in the E.U.), especially "keeping the rented object in usable shape for the time of the contract" as the first obligation of the publisher.
The interesting part (and the one currently being prosecuted) is the fact that the original publisher probably has to allow for the sale or can be forced to effect it. So DMCA be damned, at least in the E.U., it seems likely that the publisher in future has to lift the DRM at least for the time of the sale.
It won't be for long. The E.U. high court's decision to allow the resale of used software (Usedsoft vs. Oracle) stated that giving a permanent license for an one-time payment concludes a sale, and the First Sale doctrine applies. Just because you name your EULA in a fancy manner, it doesn't change that it covers a sale. At least for the E.U., all ebook providers thus have to implement the infrastructure to allow a resale of used ebooks.
Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding). Second, the male Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile. The interbreding doesn't continue into the second generation (you could probably interbred a female liger with both tigers and lions, but ligers are much larger than both tigers and lions, thus no male tiger or lion would ever try to interbred with a liger female).
Are the short-winged swallows unable to mate with other swallow in their parent population?
This normally happens only if the two strains of livings are separated and allowed to develop independently. And even then it doesn't necessarily mean that the now occuring species can't interbred anymore. Polar bear and grizzly are a wellknown example of two species who could interbred, but normally don't do because they live in different environments. In this case, we talk about geographical species.
What we see here, is a so called genetic drift. While still being the same species, the average genotype is moved to shorter wings.
Has anyone, however, observed this selection effect going on for a long enough time for the emergence of new species?
Yes, there was an experiment with strains of E. coli (a type of bacteria), which were fed citric acid additionally to their normal diet. E. coli normally doesn't metabolize citric acid. But after about 12,000 generations, there was a new strain of E. coli which could metabolize citric acid. Bacteria don't interbred at all, they reproduce by cell division. Thus a definition of a species via cross-breeding doesn't make sense. E. coli is differentiated from other similar bacteria strains by not digesting citric acid. Thus, this new strain of citric acid digesting E. coli is a new bacteria species.
The 3DS comes with its own screen, and the Wii, they play on my computer monitor (with a SCART-to-VGA converter).
Yes, most of the multi-way equalizers were of the "this amp goes to 11!" variety anyway. They were there to look impressive and professional, without actually helping to improve the audio experience.
All the different audio types had different head curves. A turntable was different than an ultra-short wave radio, different than a ferro-magnetic tape or a chrome based magnetic tape. To connect them together, you needed an equalizer to adapt the different head curves to better fit together.
With digital equipment, the need is gone. The signal gets digitalized once at the source, and then it is handled digitally until the final amplifier, where a DSP creates a new analog signal from the digital version. Each bit is threated the same, so no need to equalize it somewhere in the signal path. Differently than in analog times, where we had a signal-noise-ratio of about 60 dB (or less, depending on the equipment), now the signal has 96 dB. There is only one part we have to slightly equalize, that are the actual loudspeakers. For that, a 5-way-equalizer looks quite approbriate. Everything else is overkill.
In the TFA, he speculates that these multipurpose devices are now "good enough" to suit most needs, and I think that is true, But it is true that the quality of our audio and video experience seems to have gotten worse of the last couple of years.
Hm. This is the oldest complaint about home entertainment devices ever. If it was true, we would have the worst audio and video experience today since the advent of the videobox (Dickson 1891) and the phonograph (Edison 1877). But actually, the experience became better, we are just so used to the quirks and specialities of the devices of our childhood, that we miss them in more modern equipment.
I actually have thrown out the TV. It's just a large, clunky object in the room. I never owned an MP3 player though, so nothing to throw out there. I put the navigation device to rest and am using my mobile with a navigation app. My children still have their diverse gaming consoles. So I am now down two gadgets. It might increase again, because I am currently pondering buying a 3D printer.
I always have a point and shot camera with me, and it takes much better pictures than my phone. And interestingly, the camera is the smaller device.
It is. And I never had English in highschool. So what?
In certain ways, yes. Chimps are known to torture other chimps, and ape packs are known to go after other packs of the same species and try to kill them all off.
There is a generally dysfunctional relation between the electorate and the government it chooses. And if there is no government to effectively rule, other, unelected people will fill in the void. There is only one way out of it: Stop the delight in seeing the government fail. Hold everyone elected responsible for everything that happens in the government and also for everything that doesn't happen. He was elected to do a job, and deliberately failing at it should never be a recommendation for another term. Never cheer for people running on a platform of governmental failings. They are hired by the electorate to do their task in government, and not for putting blame on someone else.
Truth serum has basicly the same ability to uncover evidence than torture: none. It will do nothing more than reinforce the prejudices of the applier.
At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.
This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.
It does not mean by any length that life was forming only once, and every other life is the offspring of the first one. Au contraire.
In this case, it would be probably a design patent they could be infringing on, or a trade dress they violate.
If the right people have access to guns, and the wrong ones don't, an aboundance of guns can be very stabilizing to a dictatorship. You just have to guarantee that your people always get more guns and ammunition than the rebels.
Not really, because then you would have 100% false negatives for homosexuals.
Stereotypes, after all, are just statistical observations.
No. Sometimes, they are statistical observation. Sometimes they are just confirmation bias.
Look at how much grant money is given out these days to GW research. There's the reason why. As always, follow the money and it will usually lead you to the answer.
Not much at all, compared to the money that is given out for instance for oil exploration and new extraction technologies. So follow the money.