The first-order cause for the falling per-capita divorce rate is the falling per-capita marriage rate.
Or the other way around, or a common cause like "people are trending to see less value in being married.". But without knowing the total number of people who were married in the reference years (as opposed to the number of people who got hitched in those years), we can't really calculate the divorces-per-married-couple rate.
And we have no data for internet usage versus divorce rate, which is what makes it so inane to discuss HOW the internet is breaking up couples. It sure would be nice to know we're discussing a real phenomenon before people start spouting shit about how women wearing shorter skirts causes global warming.
My point was that "dogs smell each component separately" appears completely unfounded. Dogs are extraordinarily good at detecting FAINT smells and identifying specific PATTERNS. That doesn't imply that they use a different METHOD of collecting and processing olfactory data.
If they smelled each chemical individually they wouldn't be able to identify people by smell, which they can. Their sense of smell works the same as ours. They just have better resolution and sensitivity.
... given that the function of smell in animals is to allow them to identify specific objects and substances.
That's what the olfactory cortex is for: pattern recognition. It's a lot more useful to identify "smells like a wet dog" than have a report that lists all the chemical components of wetdogness in a list.
It need not be based on racism. Nationalism or religious bigotry is enough to motivate people to try and wipe another people from the face of the Earth. It has happened many times, most frequently between people of similar ancestry.
Possibly because dogs are descended from more than one species or subspecies of wolflike animal. Also because we've been intentionally been breeding freakish dogs for thousands of years whereas freakish people tend not to find mates.
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation.
These variations aren't studied to determine which populations are more distant from apes because we're all equidistant from apes. They're studied to help understand how people have been evolving SINCE the split from apes. The fact that we find them varying among human populations (and present in all human populations) is one of a number of indicators that this mRNA is biologically active in humans. The fact that its origin lies at or near the juncture of human and ape lineages does make it likely that it played a significant role in making humans what they are (i.e. different from apes).
If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
Not according to what I've read. Neanderthal genes have been found in every population except people descended (almost entirely) from sub-Saharan Africans. Maybe if you sampled enough African DNA, you'd find it, but most people there don't have it even now unless they're descended from modern immigrants. Apparently, immigration of exogenous populations into central and southern Africa was uncommon enough that few if any Neanderthal genes made it there. That's not to say there wasn't gene exchange into (central and southern) Africa. There was as we know from historical records and anthropological evidence. Apparently it was very slow until modern times.
That or Neanderthal genes are somehow disadvantageous in the African environment. To find out if that's the case you'd try to study whether other exogenous genes made it into Africa thousands of years ago.
Slashdot Summary:
"An anonymous reader writes 'For the first time, blind people could read street signs with a device that translates letters into Braille and beams the results directly onto a person's eye.'"
Actual Article:
"The technology, used primarily for patients with retinal pigmentosis which causes patients to lose the use of their retina but to still have working neurons, can take up to 10 seconds to convert a single letter and minutes to read a single word, and can only be used with words that are printed in a large font and held up close to a person's face. Street signs, for example, cannot be read."
__
Read on. That part describes an older generation device. With the new device, implanted in just one patient, they demonstrated that the patient COULD read street signs and read much faster than the old device, which had an output that to be read with the fingers.
I was always under the impression that the braille language is meant to be touched, not "read" via sight. Wouldn't it make more sense to just project the letters into the person's retina vs. the dots for Braille?
because the blind people do NOT know what the letter is usually, but they know braille.
don't need to retrain them to use the device, i'm sure one that display letters would be made later.
People with retinitis pigmentosa are formerly sighted. It's not a given that they know braille and almost a given that they can recognized standard letters. Braille was chosen because of the crudity of the device.
What are you rambling about? Nowadays, most background checks are done from an office at the inquiring agency's headquarters. People who would be superb government agents are ruled out because of an arrest record, while complete losers are sometimes welcomed into the agency, because they have a clean record.
Interviews? A long time ago, when I was a young man, yes. Today, not so much.
REALLY? There was a time when the NSA and the CIA didn't care about an arrest record? Who knew? And who are these complete losers who are welcomed into the agency? Got examples? Or are you just making shit up because it's popular on Slashdot to make up random shit to malign the US government in every way possible?
No. It's saying that whatever was done wrong does not threaten national security. Are you even aware of what Stratfor does (a clipping agency that produces an email newsletter) and how small they are?
Oh, so it's the fact they are SMALL that makes it OK to break into their computers and trash their files. Now I see your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Solder the BGA to a breakout board.
Put the breakout board in a socket
Problem solved.
Alternatively, move on to a different processor to be enthusiastic about
... or become enthusiastic about Beagleboard, Arduino, RaspberryPi or a host of others
... or put your favorite CPU on a ComXpress module
If it keeps you from getting the flu but eventually kills off your cells, does that count as 'works for life?'
You have branched out beyond specialists who understand what you do and reached the loserbase.
That's misleading advertising. It makes it sound like if you pay them, they will care.
Marxist redistribution of wealth and the current hatred of the "super rich" seems to be headed that way pretty damn quickly.
Pananoid much?
The first-order cause for the falling per-capita divorce rate is the falling per-capita marriage rate.
Or the other way around, or a common cause like "people are trending to see less value in being married.". But without knowing the total number of people who were married in the reference years (as opposed to the number of people who got hitched in those years), we can't really calculate the divorces-per-married-couple rate.
And we have no data for internet usage versus divorce rate, which is what makes it so inane to discuss HOW the internet is breaking up couples. It sure would be nice to know we're discussing a real phenomenon before people start spouting shit about how women wearing shorter skirts causes global warming.
My point was that "dogs smell each component separately" appears completely unfounded. Dogs are extraordinarily good at detecting FAINT smells and identifying specific PATTERNS. That doesn't imply that they use a different METHOD of collecting and processing olfactory data.
"According to an article on the New Zealand Herald, Kim Dotcom says..." Uh huh.
1990....2000....2005....2006....2007....2008....2009 (-- Year
4.7......4.1.......3.6......3.7.......3.6......3.5.......3.4 (-- divorce rate per 1000 in the USA
source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/marriages_and_divorces.html
How can you be looking for a common social cause for something that's not happening?
GOD I hate "common wisdom."
If they smelled each chemical individually they wouldn't be able to identify people by smell, which they can. Their sense of smell works the same as ours. They just have better resolution and sensitivity.
Unlikely. I find I can't smell in a vacuum.
... given that the function of smell in animals is to allow them to identify specific objects and substances.
That's what the olfactory cortex is for: pattern recognition. It's a lot more useful to identify "smells like a wet dog" than have a report that lists all the chemical components of wetdogness in a list.
It need not be based on racism. Nationalism or religious bigotry is enough to motivate people to try and wipe another people from the face of the Earth. It has happened many times, most frequently between people of similar ancestry.
Last I checked, fuckton wasn't a metric unit. Must be Imperial.
Possibly because dogs are descended from more than one species or subspecies of wolflike animal. Also because we've been intentionally been breeding freakish dogs for thousands of years whereas freakish people tend not to find mates.
yeah, blacks
No. Racists
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation.
These variations aren't studied to determine which populations are more distant from apes because we're all equidistant from apes. They're studied to help understand how people have been evolving SINCE the split from apes. The fact that we find them varying among human populations (and present in all human populations) is one of a number of indicators that this mRNA is biologically active in humans. The fact that its origin lies at or near the juncture of human and ape lineages does make it likely that it played a significant role in making humans what they are (i.e. different from apes).
If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
Not according to what I've read. Neanderthal genes have been found in every population except people descended (almost entirely) from sub-Saharan Africans. Maybe if you sampled enough African DNA, you'd find it, but most people there don't have it even now unless they're descended from modern immigrants. Apparently, immigration of exogenous populations into central and southern Africa was uncommon enough that few if any Neanderthal genes made it there. That's not to say there wasn't gene exchange into (central and southern) Africa. There was as we know from historical records and anthropological evidence. Apparently it was very slow until modern times.
That or Neanderthal genes are somehow disadvantageous in the African environment. To find out if that's the case you'd try to study whether other exogenous genes made it into Africa thousands of years ago.
Slashdot Summary: "An anonymous reader writes 'For the first time, blind people could read street signs with a device that translates letters into Braille and beams the results directly onto a person's eye.'" Actual Article: "The technology, used primarily for patients with retinal pigmentosis which causes patients to lose the use of their retina but to still have working neurons, can take up to 10 seconds to convert a single letter and minutes to read a single word, and can only be used with words that are printed in a large font and held up close to a person's face. Street signs, for example, cannot be read. " __
Read on. That part describes an older generation device. With the new device, implanted in just one patient, they demonstrated that the patient COULD read street signs and read much faster than the old device, which had an output that to be read with the fingers.
You CAN assume that when the patient is blind because of retinitis pigmentosa, as the article states.
I was always under the impression that the braille language is meant to be touched, not "read" via sight. Wouldn't it make more sense to just project the letters into the person's retina vs. the dots for Braille?
because the blind people do NOT know what the letter is usually, but they know braille.
don't need to retrain them to use the device, i'm sure one that display letters would be made later.
People with retinitis pigmentosa are formerly sighted. It's not a given that they know braille and almost a given that they can recognized standard letters. Braille was chosen because of the crudity of the device.
Anybody could, but in consoles, lock-in is a goal. They don't make money on the consoles. They make money on games and subscriptions.
What are you rambling about? Nowadays, most background checks are done from an office at the inquiring agency's headquarters. People who would be superb government agents are ruled out because of an arrest record, while complete losers are sometimes welcomed into the agency, because they have a clean record.
Interviews? A long time ago, when I was a young man, yes. Today, not so much.
REALLY? There was a time when the NSA and the CIA didn't care about an arrest record? Who knew? And who are these complete losers who are welcomed into the agency? Got examples? Or are you just making shit up because it's popular on Slashdot to make up random shit to malign the US government in every way possible?
I have one name to mention to anyone who believes background checks are meaningful.
Bradley Manning.
If (s)he can get a security clearance, the system is undoubtedly broken.
Really? What was the evidence that he posed a security risk before he joined the Army?
Congress, the law, the judge, other peoples' property. You name it. The guy is an asshat. If you feel sympathy with him well...
You can do the math.
No. It's saying that whatever was done wrong does not threaten national security. Are you even aware of what Stratfor does (a clipping agency that produces an email newsletter) and how small they are?
Oh, so it's the fact they are SMALL that makes it OK to break into their computers and trash their files. Now I see your point.
Because what he did, although obviously illegal and a bad thing, should never grant him a life sentence in any remotely sane law system.
And he probably won't get life. If he is convicted and he doesn't think his sentence is fair, he can appeal.