If only! Again, there is a small but important difference between imagining a size and imagining measuring a size. Size is a property, and measuring is an action. If there were no difference between properties and actions, everyone would be immortal, because instead of your heart beating it would have "beating" as a property, which it couldn't lose because "stop beating" would also be a property, and properties cannot causally interact with other properties.
That's sequentially imagining one subway car 40,000 times, but that's not what I wrote. It's the comparative size that's at stake. Imagining the size of a grapefruit is not the same thing as imagining a grapefruit.
Your use of the word "selection" should have given it away: that's not evolution, that's natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution, but they are not identical, just as you are not identical to your liver, even though your liver is a part of you.
As far as I can determine "being slightly less in equilibrium" does not contain any semantic content. You're either in equilibrium, or you're not in equilibrium. The variation among individual creatures is what allows selection (driven by the environment) to establish an equilibrium, by lowering the chances of reproductive success of creatures that fit less well.
Whales shape their environment, just as their environment has shaped them. That's how evolution works. Evolution is nothing but the establishment of equilibria between niches and the creatures occupying those niches. When either the niche or the creature (or the number of creatures) changes, of course the other will follow suit.
The new information in this article is that scientists have discovered a way in which whales influence their environment. Engineering has nothing to do with it.
Oh those poor media outlet editors, panicking about missing the next big story. Surely their fragile egos should not be sacrificed to such banalities as truth and common sense?
Instead, we should allow them to play games of telephone with facts, because that way no one's feelings (advertising revenue) get hurt.
I think you mean to say his quotes read like something from the onion. That is, his quotes are like something from the onion. In other words, his quotes are similar to what you would find on the onion. The onion. Onion.
"If you are exposing people to something that causes changes in psychological status, that's experimentation,"
No it isn't, otherwise the above sentence would be experimentation, as it changed my psychological state from calm to annoyed. Is it too much to ask that supposed experts use their own jargon correctly?
For space to be able to travel there needs to be some frame of reference against which it can be judged to have travelled. As the frame of reference for travel is space itself, if space could travel we wouldn't be able to tell.
I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm clarifying that the title is incoherent. If time could move, growing older would make no sense; you would age because time would move past you, rather than you move through time. And because everyone has a different age, it would mean that time moves differently past everyone. Everyone (and every thing) would have their own personal time bubble, rather than time being just a dimension of a shared world.
Events unfold in time, but time itself doesn't move. Substitute space for time to make the absurdity clearer: "Is space moving forwards or backwards?" Space isn't moving, we move through space.
HR discriminates based on gender or race rather than ability. The composition of its workforce tells us nothing about this, as correlation does not equal causation.... which is not nearly click-baitey enough, so we get tripe like this "article".
I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands there are dating sites that cater specifically to the "highly educated", i.e. people with university degrees. I understand the idea behind them: you're more likely to have something in common with someone who's roughly in the same ball park as you when it comes to intelligence. This is simply that idea taken one step further. It takes a special kind of person to join mensa (but intellectually and character-wise), and so people that do are likely to have more in common with each other than with people who don't.
Slashdot Mirror
If only! Again, there is a small but important difference between imagining a size and imagining measuring a size. Size is a property, and measuring is an action. If there were no difference between properties and actions, everyone would be immortal, because instead of your heart beating it would have "beating" as a property, which it couldn't lose because "stop beating" would also be a property, and properties cannot causally interact with other properties.
That's sequentially imagining one subway car 40,000 times, but that's not what I wrote. It's the comparative size that's at stake. Imagining the size of a grapefruit is not the same thing as imagining a grapefruit.
so way is it used as an analogy? It doesn't clear anything up, so it violates the "omit needless words" maxim.
Your use of the word "selection" should have given it away: that's not evolution, that's natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution, but they are not identical, just as you are not identical to your liver, even though your liver is a part of you.
As far as I can determine "being slightly less in equilibrium" does not contain any semantic content. You're either in equilibrium, or you're not in equilibrium. The variation among individual creatures is what allows selection (driven by the environment) to establish an equilibrium, by lowering the chances of reproductive success of creatures that fit less well.
Whales shape their environment, just as their environment has shaped them. That's how evolution works. Evolution is nothing but the establishment of equilibria between niches and the creatures occupying those niches. When either the niche or the creature (or the number of creatures) changes, of course the other will follow suit.
The new information in this article is that scientists have discovered a way in which whales influence their environment. Engineering has nothing to do with it.
What's worse is your wilful misconstrual of an important privacy rights issue either out of malice or ignorance.
When you hold money above all else, this is what results.
On a less depressing note, I heard about this cool game involving glass beads being developed somewhere in Germany.
and I like my thoughts. I just feel that I should point that out, to stop the tide of generalization.
Torah joke.
Oh those poor media outlet editors, panicking about missing the next big story. Surely their fragile egos should not be sacrificed to such banalities as truth and common sense?
Instead, we should allow them to play games of telephone with facts, because that way no one's feelings (advertising revenue) get hurt.
...read the headline, not the summary?
Or perhaps you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the word "concrete".
Exactly. The numbers in the summary are irrelevant with regards to the impact of the lifting of the ban.
I think you mean to say his quotes read like something from the onion. That is, his quotes are like something from the onion. In other words, his quotes are similar to what you would find on the onion. The onion. Onion.
I think this is how you spot people who don't read.
"If you are exposing people to something that causes changes in psychological status, that's experimentation,"
No it isn't, otherwise the above sentence would be experimentation, as it changed my psychological state from calm to annoyed. Is it too much to ask that supposed experts use their own jargon correctly?
I do not eat with scalpel and fork.
For space to be able to travel there needs to be some frame of reference against which it can be judged to have travelled. As the frame of reference for travel is space itself, if space could travel we wouldn't be able to tell.
You're simply wrong. You have no idea what I know.
I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm clarifying that the title is incoherent. If time could move, growing older would make no sense; you would age because time would move past you, rather than you move through time. And because everyone has a different age, it would mean that time moves differently past everyone. Everyone (and every thing) would have their own personal time bubble, rather than time being just a dimension of a shared world.
Events unfold in time, but time itself doesn't move. Substitute space for time to make the absurdity clearer: "Is space moving forwards or backwards?" Space isn't moving, we move through space.
When it comes to innuendo I make it a point to never post without slipping one in.
Overuse of negative language is positively correlated with lack of reproductive success. No one sleeps with sad-sacks.
HR discriminates based on gender or race rather than ability. The composition of its workforce tells us nothing about this, as correlation does not equal causation. ... which is not nearly click-baitey enough, so we get tripe like this "article".
Omnivores eating things that are edible? I thought extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.
I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands there are dating sites that cater specifically to the "highly educated", i.e. people with university degrees. I understand the idea behind them: you're more likely to have something in common with someone who's roughly in the same ball park as you when it comes to intelligence. This is simply that idea taken one step further. It takes a special kind of person to join mensa (but intellectually and character-wise), and so people that do are likely to have more in common with each other than with people who don't.