How many pigs and cows do you think there would be if we didn't raise them?
What makes you think - as, admittedly, I am quite broadly inferring from the tone of your post - that the answer would be "none"?
I don't think we've managed to breed the urge to reproduce out of our cattle yet. They'd get by - perhaps not in as great numbers, but sheer numbers are not necessarily an indicator of future evolutionary fitness.
I've seen the former Soviet Union evolve into an amazingly diverse culture that is well represented on the Internet. This culture has grown alongside our own and runs the gamut of characters: tirelessly brilliant open source software developers, lots of regular folk
In this case the woman's defect would almost certainly be canceled out by the man's sperm since even though she is a carrier, it is incredibly unlikely that he is also, and even if so it's a 50/50 proposition
The first hint came in June, after the company missed the quarterly projections.
In an article about two companies possibly merging (and the possible ramifications of said merger for a third company), "the company" ends up being just a bit ambiguous.
Isn't it usually the case, when some kid is touted as having done something amazing at a science fair, that it turns out to a) already be standard procedure in the field in question or b) is actually woefully impractical on anything but science fair scale?
I mean, we could probably (okay, probably not, just an example) make crops grow twice as fast by bathing them in artifical sunlight 24/7, but that's probably not very practical.
the girls found their test crops germinated in half the time and had a drymass yield up to 74 percent greater than usual.
There's a theory that, in Doyle's Sherlock universe, it was also Holmes who pulled the trigger. Watson was being discreet about it when he wrote it up. I forget the details, but I think there wasn't a very good reason for the shooter to have been present at that time.
I'm not sure conspiracy theorists ever got that far in their reasoning. It's always seemed to be enough for them that Aldrin is lit at all, because as we all know, light doesn't reflect in a vacuum. Or it only reflects once. Or something.
Slashdot Mirror
How many pigs and cows do you think there would be if we didn't raise them?
What makes you think - as, admittedly, I am quite broadly inferring from the tone of your post - that the answer would be "none"?
I don't think we've managed to breed the urge to reproduce out of our cattle yet. They'd get by - perhaps not in as great numbers, but sheer numbers are not necessarily an indicator of future evolutionary fitness.
I've seen the former Soviet Union evolve into an amazingly diverse culture that is well represented on the Internet. This culture has grown alongside our own and runs the gamut of characters: tirelessly brilliant open source software developers, lots of regular folk
But no pooftahs.
In this case the woman's defect would almost certainly be canceled out by the man's sperm since even though she is a carrier, it is incredibly unlikely that he is also, and even if so it's a 50/50 proposition
Genes do not always work that way! Goodnight!
there's still a bit of energy at the higher frequencies that help speech clarity and understanding.
Fo you fay, but why fhould I believe you?
The first hint came in June, after the company missed the quarterly projections.
In an article about two companies possibly merging (and the possible ramifications of said merger for a third company), "the company" ends up being just a bit ambiguous.
Urthecast
Is that actually based on some real language, or is just another deliberate sickly misspelling?
I couldn't help being reminded of the word "urethra" when I saw it...
whose name means death
That would sound a lot less sinister if you'd put quotes around the word "death."
control-A to guzzle a healing potion or shift-S to draw a sword, for example — and he could dance between them without taking his eyes off the screen.
He can hit Ctrl-A and Shift-S without looking? The man's a wizard!
Mostly dead.
And so on.
like something out of Waterworld
I actually thought that movie was okay, but even I know it's not much good as a pop-culture reference.
Oh yeah? We'll soon see about -
Hmm. Maybe one of these is broken. I'm getting more springs.
I think it's safe to assume that it was "in the wild" approximately 30 seconds after the news came out (if not before).
Why take a step backwards
If that happens, just put the batteries in the other way round.
but it can't be proven one way or another
Well, maybe not right now, but -
They don't exist.
Oh. That was fast.
Isn't it usually the case, when some kid is touted as having done something amazing at a science fair, that it turns out to a) already be standard procedure in the field in question or b) is actually woefully impractical on anything but science fair scale?
I mean, we could probably (okay, probably not, just an example) make crops grow twice as fast by bathing them in artifical sunlight 24/7, but that's probably not very practical.
the girls found their test crops germinated in half the time and had a drymass yield up to 74 percent greater than usual.
What's meant by "greater than usual" here?
Your Majesty? Putin's not a King. He's not the ruler of a kingdom. Nor is he a Prince, not being the ruler of a principality.
He's just in charge of a country.
Wouldn't need it. A sonic screwdriver and a Christmas Mobile Disco and he'd be all set.
So... it's safe when you think it's safe, and when you think it's safe, it's not safe? So when it's safe, it's not safe?
You wouldn't need tera-watts if you just fired particles straight at the mic, if you'd still call that "sound."
Otherwise I think you'd have to expect to be limited to incredibly low frequencies.
There's a theory that, in Doyle's Sherlock universe, it was also Holmes who pulled the trigger. Watson was being discreet about it when he wrote it up. I forget the details, but I think there wasn't a very good reason for the shooter to have been present at that time.
This could be the best internet... in the world.
Also, ah-so karate chop.
I'm not sure conspiracy theorists ever got that far in their reasoning. It's always seemed to be enough for them that Aldrin is lit at all, because as we all know, light doesn't reflect in a vacuum. Or it only reflects once. Or something.
Almost. He discovers the shadow which is in the recording, then has the computer extrapolate the shape of the object that cast the shadow.
It's why you can't see stars in the daylight here on Earth.
Is it? I thought it was because the daylight completely drowns out the miniscule amount of light from the stars, not that the exposure is way off.
You could have opened the shutter or extended the exposure on the Moon and seen some stars, but you couldn't do that during daytime on Earth.
While yes, there is a gravity field nearby
There's a gravity field everywhere.
Try, otherwise it's not much of a contribution to discussion.
Why is it any more absurd than passing around pieces of mashed up tree peppered with black gunk?