I agree- some people can work 80 hours a week. And some people can run multiple miles at under 4 minutes per mile. Most people get sick and die. And a lot of people just collapse and are unable to continue working.
By the way, even if that were true, why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week? Why shouldn't it be their own choice to determine whether they work 40h or 80h/week?
I made the same mistake years ago and was corrected (tho I was saying life expectency was 45).
No, what I said was true: we evolved for a life expectancy of 35 years, which is vastly different from the life expectancy of 78 years that we have now. I said nothing about the causes or details of the survivorship curves (however your new beliefs aren't correct either: current survivorship curves aren't just the old ones without child mortality; they are different in many ways).
I'm saying that arguments of the form "humans are not meant to..." don't work: we exist under vastly different conditions today than what we evolved for. Arguing against 80h work weeks that way is as silly as the Catholic church arguing against homosexuality by saying that "humans are not meant to...". Both the left and the right should cut out this stupidity.
Most hunter gatherers "worked" about 4 hours a day and socialized the rest of the time. They mostly slept from dusk until dawn.
That's one theory, but there's little supporting evidence and it is biologically implausible.
Working 60 hours or more is strongly associated with higher risk of death from heart attacks and heart disease, higher blood pressure,
Yeah, you have like a 30% higher chance of having high blood pressure, possibly increasing your risk of disease moderately when you're past reproductive age. That's meaningless from an evolutionary point of view. And we don't even know what is cause and effect there.
If we allow or demand that the IRS investigate the entities we don't like, that means they have the power to investigate whoever they want, depending on the political winds.
Demanding that the IRS follow its existing rules as long as those rules exist isn't the same as endorsing those rules. Conservatives want the IRS to have less power overall and to collect less money.
The trouble is in Congress for their lack of oversight and forethought.
The trouble is that people like you don't understand that we will never get a smarter or better Congress. The only two choices are to have a selfish, badly run Congress with little power to screw things up, or to have a selfish, badly run Congress that's out of control and keeps passing one bad rule after another.
I find it fascinating how many people think that this is inappropriate and not feasible, while at the same time supporting gun control and the war on drugs.
Second guessing such people with little more than "I don't get it" is an error you should be expected to be called out on, unless you want to allege that they're all in league or conspiring to defraud us or something.
Oh, that stupid "conspiracy" canard. There's a third possibility: doctors and contractors are just acting independently in their own interest. Most of them harm and overcharge you while firmly believing that they are helping you.
We shouldn't make the naivite of people like you the basis of law, not in health care and not in climate change.
Conservatives also are prone to making quotes and statistics up, rather than dealing in facts. And to think hyperbole is an actual argument.
Whether conservatives deal with more with facts isn't the point here. The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
The core of conservative and libertarian political positions (you know, Heritage Foundation, Koch brothers, etc., all the people Democrats love to hate) is that if you give people economic and individual liberties, things will work out fine by themselves.
There are several pathogens that infect both plants and animals, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aspergillus. In addition, bacterial diseases often involve virulence factors carried by plasmids. Ancient bacteria can easily acquire such plasmids, resulting in a novel pathogen that is hard to recognize by modern immune systems, yet carries modern virulence factors. Now, why do you think again that ancient bacteria cannot result in novel diseases?
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
and it is the motivation for science education, but we do receive these fact on qualified authority, they are not for argument or debate by casual observers
Casual observers can rationally say "I don't understand your theory, I don't trust you, and therefore I'm not going to act on your recommendations", and that's what most people are saying about climate change.
(I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your drivel and false accusations.)
Obviously, the only kind of pathogen that would be relevant in this discussion would be bacteria. There is no basis for your belief that pathogenic bacteria "can't jump between kingdoms". In different word, your claim is bogus.
Wow, this is really fascinating. You guys are truly experts of liberty and peaceful co-existence! Why can't the US with its piddly 200+ years of democracy learn from the glorious history of Hungary and the enlightened and democratic attitudes of its citizens!
97% almost exactly the portion of biologists who believe in evolution according to one survey [metafilter.com].
I "believe in" evolution because I looked at the theory, analyzed the math, looked at the experimental evidence, and found it to be working.
I also looked at climate science in the same way and found it to be an utter mess.
yet anthropogenic global warming remains "controversial."
The idea that humans have contributed somewhat to a raise in global average temperatures isn't all that controversial. I think the scientific work and data supporting it is of poor quality, but it is plausible and I have no problem with the conclusion.
What is controversial is the inferences, conclusions, and proposed actions people derive from it, starting with the notion that AGW is a bad thing.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are not naive here. The whole point of this article is to tell people that the experts are not debating and are in fact in a consensus on this issue
On what issue? That global average temperatures have been going up, to some (perhaps modest) degree due to human activity? Sure. But that agreement doesn't translate into anything meaningful conclusion.
Trouble is that AGW activists falsely portray this minor point of agreement as if there was widespread agreement on their predictions, scenarios, or proposed actions.
Yes, a lot of climatologists agree that there is a modest increase in global temperatures.
That in no way qualifies them to make statements or predictions about economics, agriculture, land use, or politics, and they certainly have no right to dictate to the rest of us how we make tradeoffs between current and future consumption.
NOBODY is saying this is going to wipe us out. Really.
Hansen is one of the most prominent AGW activists, former NASA employee, atmospheric scientist, and a guy testifying on these issues to Congress. He said:
and diseases can only attack things they co-evolve with
There are other reasons why these reservoirs are unlikely to contain pathogens, but your reasons are wrong. One of the most frequent ways in which new diseases appear is when they jump to a species that has no defenses against them. That's because our immune system isn't all powerful, it only really protects us against variants of pathogens we actually encounter in nature.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, even if that were true, why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week? Why shouldn't it be their own choice to determine whether they work 40h or 80h/week?
No, what I said was true: we evolved for a life expectancy of 35 years, which is vastly different from the life expectancy of 78 years that we have now. I said nothing about the causes or details of the survivorship curves (however your new beliefs aren't correct either: current survivorship curves aren't just the old ones without child mortality; they are different in many ways).
I'm saying that arguments of the form "humans are not meant to..." don't work: we exist under vastly different conditions today than what we evolved for. Arguing against 80h work weeks that way is as silly as the Catholic church arguing against homosexuality by saying that "humans are not meant to...". Both the left and the right should cut out this stupidity.
That's one theory, but there's little supporting evidence and it is biologically implausible.
Yeah, you have like a 30% higher chance of having high blood pressure, possibly increasing your risk of disease moderately when you're past reproductive age. That's meaningless from an evolutionary point of view. And we don't even know what is cause and effect there.
Fascism isn't the only form of totalitarianism; monarchies, military dictatorships, theocracies, socialism, and communism are also totalitarian.
Demanding that the IRS follow its existing rules as long as those rules exist isn't the same as endorsing those rules. Conservatives want the IRS to have less power overall and to collect less money.
The trouble is that people like you don't understand that we will never get a smarter or better Congress. The only two choices are to have a selfish, badly run Congress with little power to screw things up, or to have a selfish, badly run Congress that's out of control and keeps passing one bad rule after another.
Median US prosperity is at or near the top regardless of which metric you look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
You also apparently like to listen to anti-American propaganda.
I find it fascinating how many people think that this is inappropriate and not feasible, while at the same time supporting gun control and the war on drugs.
Then you're a fool, because these people will often harm you or rob you blind, out of ignorance, greed, or both:
https://www.google.com/#q=contractor+scams
http://www.euractiv.com/health/unnecessary-surgery-weighs-eu-he-news-507491
Oh, that stupid "conspiracy" canard. There's a third possibility: doctors and contractors are just acting independently in their own interest. Most of them harm and overcharge you while firmly believing that they are helping you.
We shouldn't make the naivite of people like you the basis of law, not in health care and not in climate change.
Whether conservatives deal with more with facts isn't the point here. The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
The core of conservative and libertarian political positions (you know, Heritage Foundation, Koch brothers, etc., all the people Democrats love to hate) is that if you give people economic and individual liberties, things will work out fine by themselves.
Are you reading impaired?
I don't "reject AGW", I reject the actions people want to take to combat it.
I think we have established that it is possible for ancient bacteria to give rise to new diseases. You're now waving your hands about the details.
There are several pathogens that infect both plants and animals, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aspergillus. In addition, bacterial diseases often involve virulence factors carried by plasmids. Ancient bacteria can easily acquire such plasmids, resulting in a novel pathogen that is hard to recognize by modern immune systems, yet carries modern virulence factors. Now, why do you think again that ancient bacteria cannot result in novel diseases?
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
Yup, the politics of fear is our problem.
Casual observers can rationally say "I don't understand your theory, I don't trust you, and therefore I'm not going to act on your recommendations", and that's what most people are saying about climate change.
(I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your drivel and false accusations.)
Obviously, the only kind of pathogen that would be relevant in this discussion would be bacteria. There is no basis for your belief that pathogenic bacteria "can't jump between kingdoms". In different word, your claim is bogus.
In different words, I'm right. Thanks for confirming it.
Wow, this is really fascinating. You guys are truly experts of liberty and peaceful co-existence! Why can't the US with its piddly 200+ years of democracy learn from the glorious history of Hungary and the enlightened and democratic attitudes of its citizens!
I "believe in" evolution because I looked at the theory, analyzed the math, looked at the experimental evidence, and found it to be working.
I also looked at climate science in the same way and found it to be an utter mess.
The idea that humans have contributed somewhat to a raise in global average temperatures isn't all that controversial. I think the scientific work and data supporting it is of poor quality, but it is plausible and I have no problem with the conclusion.
What is controversial is the inferences, conclusions, and proposed actions people derive from it, starting with the notion that AGW is a bad thing.
On what issue? That global average temperatures have been going up, to some (perhaps modest) degree due to human activity? Sure. But that agreement doesn't translate into anything meaningful conclusion.
Trouble is that AGW activists falsely portray this minor point of agreement as if there was widespread agreement on their predictions, scenarios, or proposed actions.
Yes, a lot of climatologists agree that there is a modest increase in global temperatures.
That in no way qualifies them to make statements or predictions about economics, agriculture, land use, or politics, and they certainly have no right to dictate to the rest of us how we make tradeoffs between current and future consumption.
Hansen is one of the most prominent AGW activists, former NASA employee, atmospheric scientist, and a guy testifying on these issues to Congress. He said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2311699/Could-Earth-barren-Venus-Climate-change-scientist-warns-planet-ice-free-human-free.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
In different words: you're a liar.
You're from where again? Hungary?
We have our problems, but perhaps you still have bigger problems to worry about in your own country?
Spoken like a true Luddite.
Yes, you used it first, and I repeated it quite consciously; I thought it was quite unprofessional for someone who claims to be a biologist.
And the biochemical basis of those limits is... oh, you don't know, because there aren't any.
There are other reasons why these reservoirs are unlikely to contain pathogens, but your reasons are wrong. One of the most frequent ways in which new diseases appear is when they jump to a species that has no defenses against them. That's because our immune system isn't all powerful, it only really protects us against variants of pathogens we actually encounter in nature.