If someone uses passive tense, they are hiding the source of the action. They may not realize it, but they're doing it, and they're doing it intentionally even if unknowingly. Here, watch:
"I think your disappointment comes from a confusion between evolution and ambiogenesis."
Passive tense. You're hiding the fact that you just said I've confused evolution and ambiogenesis. Did you see that? It sounds less confrontational when you put it in the passive tense, and that is why you did it. But you didn't really make it any less confrontational; you just made it sound less confrontational. You also turned it into an opinion so that I couldn't argue with it.
Not like it's a big huge deal, but it's not a bad thing to stick back in the corner of your head somewhere and when you notice that you've just used passive tense, ask "why?", and if there's no good reason, don't.
I think you not only misread TFA and TFS but TFT (title) as well. The research is about the evolution of multicellular life from single cellular life, not the evolution of multicellular life from non-life.
Yeah, I misread it, because they wrote it that way on purpose so that people would misread it. It's written in the passive tense. For no good reason.
I'm not going to go on some rant about active vs. passive tense, but I will say this: I'd have been perfectly happy with a headline where "yeast" is an active-tense object that they experimented with, rather than "life" as this passive-tense thing that's coming from left field.
Why the excessive negaivity? They are evolution researchers, not ambiogenesis researchers. And they've produced a piece of interesting and though provoking research.
The point was that these stories periodically break and it's always the same: you just read it a little and you'll find where they admit the sensationalist headline wasn't really true and they ended up with life because they started with life.
If that's interesting and thought-provoking, they need to find a way to present it that isn't "here, we made life! (not really)". I'll be happy to be interested and have my thoughts provoked, but I don't like the unnecessary provocation of that headline.
Also, quite clearly, at one point, otherise dead things must have become not dead otherwise we wouldn't be here to make that observation.
If anyone finds a working Contact form or e-mail address for Matt Blunt, share it. I ended up sending an e-mail to MATTBLUNT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com because it's the only thing that didn't bounce back with "sorry loser, we don't care. p.s. that address we gave you was bogus." I expect to probably get a form letter back sometime today from that one.
I haven't been entirely noticeable. In fact, I've been deliberately unnoticeable.
It's a problem, and it's something I'm working on fixing.
But yes, I have had a few not-unpleasant encounters with you. I might have replied to you anonymously once or twice. You strike me as a very pleasant person.
And what, pray tell, do we disagree on?
Well, to put it mildly, I'm a God-fearing Bible-thumping ID proponent. But other than just about everything, not a lot. And my Bible is made of words, not bricks, so I'll try to keep it in that sense and not the other.
Editing is disallowed. You're censored. However, technical users can find ways around it, and quite easily, to actually get the content that's already out there, much like virtually any other online censorship. Censorship is usually it's a lot of strong words and a half-assed attempt and "there we fixed it...and pray do not make us fix it further".
On the other hand, that's still different than annihilating everybody there.
Is it? I honestly haven't heard many anti-Israel arguments that could make that distinction, or cared to. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, I've heard too many that didn't.
Yours sort of stands out in that sense, that it does. Take it as a compliment.
And also: why no distributed brain nodes? I mean, decentralized processing works for some other species (lobsters) so why not us?
FYI, you have that. It's called reflexes. And you're completely and totally unaware of them, which "Just Works" and also isn't that great of a design for a highly intelligent organism to incorporate too much of, which is why you don't.
Have I ever told you that I probably disagree with you on some very fundamental issues, but I still find you very interesting and engaging? and that I hope you can say the same of me?
Now I have. And you're female, which doesn't hurt.:)
You cherry picked whether to rank Firefox relative to the best or the worst in those datum. Without knowing how many browsers were tested, that data is almost completely useless.
Indeed. In fact, why on earth would you want the emotional baggage of relating to a human with actual feelings and real emotions when simple friction is enough to get you off?
Some of us want a relationship with an actual human with actual feelings, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I will. This will be fun.
If someone uses passive tense, they are hiding the source of the action. They may not realize it, but they're doing it, and they're doing it intentionally even if unknowingly. Here, watch:
"I think your disappointment comes from a confusion between evolution and ambiogenesis."
Passive tense. You're hiding the fact that you just said I've confused evolution and ambiogenesis. Did you see that? It sounds less confrontational when you put it in the passive tense, and that is why you did it. But you didn't really make it any less confrontational; you just made it sound less confrontational. You also turned it into an opinion so that I couldn't argue with it.
Not like it's a big huge deal, but it's not a bad thing to stick back in the corner of your head somewhere and when you notice that you've just used passive tense, ask "why?", and if there's no good reason, don't.
I think you not only misread TFA and TFS but TFT (title) as well. The research is about the evolution of multicellular life from single cellular life, not the evolution of multicellular life from non-life.
Yeah, I misread it, because they wrote it that way on purpose so that people would misread it. It's written in the passive tense. For no good reason.
I'm not going to go on some rant about active vs. passive tense, but I will say this: I'd have been perfectly happy with a headline where "yeast" is an active-tense object that they experimented with, rather than "life" as this passive-tense thing that's coming from left field.
P.S. Yes, very dire. I plan on getting around to dying of it someday, if nothing else kills me first.
And if a censor could kindly find a way to get that unnecessary "it's" out of my previous comment, I'd be obliged.
Why the excessive negaivity? They are evolution researchers, not ambiogenesis researchers. And they've produced a piece of interesting and though provoking research.
The point was that these stories periodically break and it's always the same: you just read it a little and you'll find where they admit the sensationalist headline wasn't really true and they ended up with life because they started with life.
If that's interesting and thought-provoking, they need to find a way to present it that isn't "here, we made life! (not really)". I'll be happy to be interested and have my thoughts provoked, but I don't like the unnecessary provocation of that headline.
Also, quite clearly, at one point, otherise dead things must have become not dead otherwise we wouldn't be here to make that observation.
Don't get me started on origins.
A rare instance that doesn't fit into your box doesn't always mean you should burn the box.
Thanks. Feel free to check my stream of thoughts, occasionally. But don't stalk me or anything. That'd be creepy. ;)
Oh, and [admin|webmaster|abuse]@mattblunt.com were all tried. They bounce.
If anyone finds a working Contact form or e-mail address for Matt Blunt, share it. I ended up sending an e-mail to MATTBLUNT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com because it's the only thing that didn't bounce back with "sorry loser, we don't care. p.s. that address we gave you was bogus." I expect to probably get a form letter back sometime today from that one.
Please, no. If we do that, they'll be forced to find a way to.
Let's just continue to pretend it doesn't exist so that their half-assed censorship attempts can also pretend it doesn't exist.
Do you want us to "protest", or do you want us to actually find something to do that might be useful and noticed by those with power to change things?
If it's the latter, I suggest you go here... wait, you did. That's enough.
I'm afraid I don't recall talking to you much!
I haven't been entirely noticeable. In fact, I've been deliberately unnoticeable.
It's a problem, and it's something I'm working on fixing.
But yes, I have had a few not-unpleasant encounters with you. I might have replied to you anonymously once or twice. You strike me as a very pleasant person.
And what, pray tell, do we disagree on?
Well, to put it mildly, I'm a God-fearing Bible-thumping ID proponent. But other than just about everything, not a lot. And my Bible is made of words, not bricks, so I'll try to keep it in that sense and not the other.
They did that on purpose.
Editing is disallowed. You're censored. However, technical users can find ways around it, and quite easily, to actually get the content that's already out there, much like virtually any other online censorship. Censorship is usually it's a lot of strong words and a half-assed attempt and "there we fixed it...and pray do not make us fix it further".
You're done.
On the other hand, that's still different than annihilating everybody there.
Is it? I honestly haven't heard many anti-Israel arguments that could make that distinction, or cared to. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, I've heard too many that didn't.
Yours sort of stands out in that sense, that it does. Take it as a compliment.
One other surprising source of a slow browser: Huffington Post. Their pages have a Twitter feed display
You use AdBlock+ for that.
I won't argue with that. Cheers.
And also: why no distributed brain nodes? I mean, decentralized processing works for some other species (lobsters) so why not us?
FYI, you have that. It's called reflexes. And you're completely and totally unaware of them, which "Just Works" and also isn't that great of a design for a highly intelligent organism to incorporate too much of, which is why you don't.
Let it load till you see the text, then Esc Esc Esc. The black won't appear.
There's probably something you could adblock away, but for 24 hours it's not worth the effort.
Have I ever told you that I probably disagree with you on some very fundamental issues, but I still find you very interesting and engaging? and that I hope you can say the same of me?
Now I have. And you're female, which doesn't hurt. :)
It might be snowing piss off, but the neighborhood's dogs will piss on soon enough. Go outside. And don't eat the yellow snow.
ales are top fermenting beers, lagers are bottom fermenting
Sometimes I get the impression that was an afterthought created for no other reason than to find a difference between the two of them.
I suppose there is some relation to aerobic and anaerobic fermentation there.
Books could and probably have been written on the subject. I might be interested in reading the Cliff Notes version of one or two of them.
From life. I'm not surprised.
Life evolves. Dead things don't. And dead things don't evolve into life.
Wake me up if that changes.
You cherry picked whether to rank Firefox relative to the best or the worst in those datum. Without knowing how many browsers were tested, that data is almost completely useless.
Indeed. In fact, why on earth would you want the emotional baggage of relating to a human with actual feelings and real emotions when simple friction is enough to get you off?
Some of us want a relationship with an actual human with actual feelings, though.