And the human body has evolved according due to advancing civilization in society. So his point was: it is because of evolution that we no longer have the ability to 'eat rotting carcasses off the jungle floor'.
Evolution takes place when one set of genes leads to a vulnerability that results in death before reproduction, preventing the spread of the genes in question, while other, evolutionarily preferable genes, continue to spread.
The human body is thus really not evolving in this period in history, because virtually all genes are being passed on. The fraction of our population that dies before reproduction is unusually small right now.
So if his point was what you claim, he's even wronger. We don't eat rotting carcasses because we don't have to. We'd actually be much more able to do so if we did so on a regular basis, it's mostly a matter of stomach ecosystem.
How would doing that weed out food allergies?
If more children died from their food allergies, they wouldn't pass those genes along (and evidence does suggest that food allergies are tied to a genetic vulnerability, though environmental factors do play a role in amplifying the problem).
I mean who can take these folks seriously? Oil production will never peak, because oil is an infinite resource. When you want more, you pump more out of the ground. How hard is this to understand?
Well, I was working in the US context, where the lawsuit against Spamhaus was based.
And in the US, you'll need to choose your words carefully... stating that someone was 'drunk' for example would be risky, whereas stating that they had a blood alcohol level of 0.30 would be pretty safe (assuming you have some evidence of the blood alcohol level).
Words like drunk carry heavy connotations. Stick to denotations and you'll be fine, at least in the US.
Cough syrup is for children with smaller throats who have difficulty swallowing pills, and may also be helpful for those with a cough also tied to swelling in the throat who again would have difficulty swallowing a pill. Adults without throat swelling are supposed to take the pills, as your post suggests.
and if you mean it hasn't equipped us to deal with these artificial ingredients, then you really mean
"evolution has not YET equipped man to deal with..."
Yes... and are you sure you want to risk being one of the evolved against, or would you prefer to stick with the food we know works? Because I think that's what the OP wanted.
And you don't think we've evolved in the last few thousand years since we stopped eating rotted carcass from the jungle floor?
Not likely. The death rate before reproduction dropped precipitously during the last few thousand years. Right now we can't even weed out severe food allergies by packing peanut butter sandwiches for our preschoolers to share with the weak.
What blows me away is the 3 funny moderations. Not only did no one mark this insightful or interesting, but 3 people agreed it was funny, which it wasn't intended to be. The UN has a very anti-israel bent.
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So just be very careful to make sure that you've got ironclad documentation on your side as you build your list.
If not for the facts of the story, one could argue that Spamhaus might have chosen to demonstrate that as a step up from ignoring US state courts, you can ignore US Federal courts. If they had planned it all along, it would actually make sense as a strategy.
You definitely shouldn't expect buildings to stand the first time they're built. There's not more than a handful of buildings that have stood even a thousand years so far. Whereas a lot of Microsoft software has executed literally trillions of software instructions without error.
No, I've made thousands from shareware. It's not easy to make a living with it right now, at least not if you want to live in the US. But in my model, it would surely get easier.
It's not a necessary evil. It's just an evil. Let the information be free, but pay for information you find valuable.
No one will be able to make their fortune with proprietary information, but on the other hand everyone will be so enriched that we'll all be sufficiently better off to make paying out for valuable info much more likely. Then people can make a sane living off of producing good information.
It's like writing shareware. If you work at it, and ask for a small, reasonable donation, you can make decent money off of it.
I do. Except for the clothes, which are still awful quality. But for food, walmart has the highest quality produce and the largest selection of packaged goods of any store within 20 miles, and it's the closest non-gas-station food source to where I live. They have all the drugs I need, and take my insurance, so the cost is the same as anywhere else. Their lawn chairs (and such) are the highest quality I can buy within around 50 miles, excepting the high-end places I can't afford where they would cost more than ten times as much.
I also grab my lunch at the Quizno's inside sometimes (Quiznos instead of McDonalds in our WalMart). It's the closest sub shop to where I work.
But if you can't write even a basic structured essay in a reasonable amount of time, how can you possibly be expected to assemble a 30 page research paper that even begins to effectively convey your findings? This test should not be hard for anyone who expects to be able to complete a thesis or dissertation.
And my discussion was specific to the GRE, which is a test specific to graduate school, far from the 'real world'. In graduate school, you need to be able to write. You're going to do research, and write papers about it. Graduate school also involves a lot of test taking in most disciplines, so test taking ability is a necessary component of measuring your ability to succeed in graduate school (which is all the GRE is attempting to measure).
And finally, the gre allots 30 min for the easy writing section, and 45 minutes for the hard. That's a lot more cushion time for slower writers than some of the other tests being discussed.
That said, as an Engineering major, I got a perfect score on the writing exam, and thought it was trivially easy, and I have a learning disability that made time the most difficult factor. Anyone in the softer sciences with more emphasis on writing (journalism, english, psychology, etc) darn well ought to be able to outperform me on that test. And anyone in a harder science probably only needs 2/3rds of that score to get into graduate school.
So bottom line... the GRE writing exam measures what it intends to pretty well.
(pick a side, state argument or two, note opposing side, note argument in favour of that side, counter the argument, wrap everything up nicely)
This measures the ability to express a basic structural argument. If you can't do this you don't belong in graduate school, whether you can make deep insights into a particular subject or not. If you can't communicate your findings, you're missing one of the fundamental necessities of scientific advancement.
The GRE writing test measures what it needs to very well. I think the only serious criticism that could be levelled at it is that the time allotted is very unrepresentative of the typical time available for writing to graduate students. Time pressured writing is uncommon in most graduate level programs. Still, I would expect that the correspondence between success on the test and success in graduate school will be higher than for the analytic test it replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
And the human body has evolved according due to advancing civilization in society. So his point was: it is because of evolution that we no longer have the ability to 'eat rotting carcasses off the jungle floor'.
Evolution takes place when one set of genes leads to a vulnerability that results in death before reproduction, preventing the spread of the genes in question, while other, evolutionarily preferable genes, continue to spread.
The human body is thus really not evolving in this period in history, because virtually all genes are being passed on. The fraction of our population that dies before reproduction is unusually small right now.
So if his point was what you claim, he's even wronger. We don't eat rotting carcasses because we don't have to. We'd actually be much more able to do so if we did so on a regular basis, it's mostly a matter of stomach ecosystem.
How would doing that weed out food allergies?
If more children died from their food allergies, they wouldn't pass those genes along (and evidence does suggest that food allergies are tied to a genetic vulnerability, though environmental factors do play a role in amplifying the problem).
I mean who can take these folks seriously? Oil production will never peak, because oil is an infinite resource. When you want more, you pump more out of the ground. How hard is this to understand?
Where exactly did you think the oil to make your pizza and cheetos came from? ;-)
Well, I was working in the US context, where the lawsuit against Spamhaus was based.
... stating that someone was 'drunk' for example would be risky, whereas stating that they had a blood alcohol level of 0.30 would be pretty safe (assuming you have some evidence of the blood alcohol level).
And in the US, you'll need to choose your words carefully
Words like drunk carry heavy connotations. Stick to denotations and you'll be fine, at least in the US.
Fried orange peels actually sounds like it could be good ... next time I have an orange I think I'll try it.
Cough syrup is for children with smaller throats who have difficulty swallowing pills, and may also be helpful for those with a cough also tied to swelling in the throat who again would have difficulty swallowing a pill.
Adults without throat swelling are supposed to take the pills, as your post suggests.
I heard that the red and brown color uses glue made from ponies, which would explain the extra strength.
OMG, Ponies??!!!!
I'll never eat an M&M again.
I think by industrial he means 'chemically modified in a factory before distribution'. Which has only occurred for the last ~500 years.
and if you mean it hasn't equipped us to deal with these artificial ingredients, then you really mean
"evolution has not YET equipped man to deal with..."
Yes
Because I think that's what the OP wanted.
And you don't think we've evolved in the last few thousand years since we stopped eating rotted carcass from the jungle floor?
Not likely. The death rate before reproduction dropped precipitously during the last few thousand years.
Right now we can't even weed out severe food allergies by packing peanut butter sandwiches for our preschoolers to share with the weak.
What blows me away is the 3 funny moderations. Not only did no one mark this insightful or interesting, but 3 people agreed it was funny, which it wasn't intended to be.
The UN has a very anti-israel bent.
Actually, you're not guilty of libel in the situation you describe.
e l
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lib
Libel requires that the statement be untrue:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So just be very careful to make sure that you've got ironclad documentation on your side as you build your list.
If not for the facts of the story, one could argue that Spamhaus might have chosen to demonstrate that as a step up from ignoring US state courts, you can ignore US Federal courts. If they had planned it all along, it would actually make sense as a strategy.
You could hardly do any better, and by golly, it's free.
Free in the it cost $1.65 billion sense?
I mean ... seriously ... they didn't think they could wipe YouTube off the map for less than 1.6B?
Think of the advertising, software, and video servers they could have bought with that money.
If I were a google stockholder I'd be a) furious and b) selling. This really makes google look like they're losing their way.
BTW just so you know, Israel has *200* UN resolutions against them.
Indeed, the UN is extremely antisemitic.
You definitely shouldn't expect buildings to stand the first time they're built. There's not more than a handful of buildings that have stood even a thousand years so far. Whereas a lot of Microsoft software has executed literally trillions of software instructions without error.
Here you go:
. jstor.org/sici%3Fsici%3D0066-4162(1986)17%253C111% 253ATSOPG%253E2.0.CO%253B2-K4 6/annurev.es.05.110174.001545?cookieSet=1&journalC ode=ecolsys7 %3C111%3ATSOPG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K) 2%3A81%3A4%3C818%3ATEOABA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
http://worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/oclc/13498408
http://worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/oclc/15696265
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://links
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.11
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0066-4162(1986)1
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294(197912
Seriously, anyone who has done even a minimum of reading in primate social behavior will very quickly line up behind my comment.
Actually, you should do some more reading about primate social organization, your statement just isn't factual.
No, I've made thousands from shareware. It's not easy to make a living with it right now, at least not if you want to live in the US. But in my model, it would surely get easier.
It's not a necessary evil. It's just an evil. Let the information be free, but pay for information you find valuable.
No one will be able to make their fortune with proprietary information, but on the other hand everyone will be so enriched that we'll all be sufficiently better off to make paying out for valuable info much more likely. Then people can make a sane living off of producing good information.
It's like writing shareware. If you work at it, and ask for a small, reasonable donation, you can make decent money off of it.
I do. Except for the clothes, which are still awful quality. But for food, walmart has the highest quality produce and the largest selection of packaged goods of any store within 20 miles, and it's the closest non-gas-station food source to where I live. They have all the drugs I need, and take my insurance, so the cost is the same as anywhere else. Their lawn chairs (and such) are the highest quality I can buy within around 50 miles, excepting the high-end places I can't afford where they would cost more than ten times as much.
I also grab my lunch at the Quizno's inside sometimes (Quiznos instead of McDonalds in our WalMart). It's the closest sub shop to where I work.
But if you can't write even a basic structured essay in a reasonable amount of time, how can you possibly be expected to assemble a 30 page research paper that even begins to effectively convey your findings? This test should not be hard for anyone who expects to be able to complete a thesis or dissertation.
Did you miss the part about time allotted?
... the GRE writing exam measures what it intends to pretty well.
And my discussion was specific to the GRE, which is a test specific to graduate school, far from the 'real world'. In graduate school, you need to be able to write. You're going to do research, and write papers about it. Graduate school also involves a lot of test taking in most disciplines, so test taking ability is a necessary component of measuring your ability to succeed in graduate school (which is all the GRE is attempting to measure).
And finally, the gre allots 30 min for the easy writing section, and 45 minutes for the hard. That's a lot more cushion time for slower writers than some of the other tests being discussed.
That said, as an Engineering major, I got a perfect score on the writing exam, and thought it was trivially easy, and I have a learning disability that made time the most difficult factor. Anyone in the softer sciences with more emphasis on writing (journalism, english, psychology, etc) darn well ought to be able to outperform me on that test. And anyone in a harder science probably only needs 2/3rds of that score to get into graduate school.
So bottom line
(pick a side, state argument or two, note opposing side, note argument in favour of that side, counter the argument, wrap everything up nicely)
This measures the ability to express a basic structural argument. If you can't do this you don't belong in graduate school, whether you can make deep insights into a particular subject or not. If you can't communicate your findings, you're missing one of the fundamental necessities of scientific advancement.
The GRE writing test measures what it needs to very well. I think the only serious criticism that could be levelled at it is that the time allotted is very unrepresentative of the typical time available for writing to graduate students. Time pressured writing is uncommon in most graduate level programs. Still, I would expect that the correspondence between success on the test and success in graduate school will be higher than for the analytic test it replaced.