I'd love to read the "pig-chimp hybrid" paper you're referring to. When Darwin's evolution was out, there had been for a while arguments that humans actually came from pigs. So I almost don't believe this wasn't an april fool's joke.
Burrrrr, wrong. The perception and interpretation of historical events affects events in the present. From the near history of yesterday to the far history of hundred if not thousands of years. You don't think the reinterpreting of history by the Nazis affected how the Germans acted? Or how the interpretation of Jews about Israel affects how they treat the issue today?
It's so nice that you can call people drunk and stupid when you're hiding behind your AC.
Depends on your definition of technology. Human ancestors had tool usage up to 3.3 million years ago. The lower Paleolithic age ended about the time that our modern equivalents showed up. The upper Paleolithic was about 50-10k years ago and towards the end of that we saw agriculture start to rise.
The predecessor to Homo Sapiens evolved about 400-250 thousand years ago. Some of our close, breeding able brothers and sisters were older yes, but homo sapiens were thought to have evolved around 200 thousand years ago.
That's a bad example. Globalization was occurring. China had figured out gunpowder hundreds of years before Europe. And when Europe came to the Americas, the natives had no clue about such technology.
People seem to forget that Marbury v. Madison is what established Judicial Review. Not the Constitution explicitly. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of Judicial Review myself. But I do sometimes disagree with how it's been implemented as time goes on.
It's sort of like asserting that there is a true, objective "history," as if "history" can somehow be separated out from "human interpretation of history."
That is wrong for different reasons. History is affected by the perceptions and interpretations of humans about said history.
They further looked at testosterone levels in the kids and followed them through early childhood. The children, girls included, who higher levels of testosterone were slower learning communication skills and had more interest in mechanical things.
Oxygen alone does not make an insect (let alone anything) bigger. That dragonfly got that big probably because there were no natural predators for it. There's a cricket in the mountains of South America that can get pretty big for those exact reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that priests defined what modern science is I'd say you're incredibly wrong.
Also, that certain scientist was persecuted by his academic peers who helped push for the Church to punish him.
No worries, I think the debate got supplanted with one about climate change.
I think it's starting to be proven that an axiom like that about Unix systems is not entirely accurate.
I'd love to read the "pig-chimp hybrid" paper you're referring to. When Darwin's evolution was out, there had been for a while arguments that humans actually came from pigs. So I almost don't believe this wasn't an april fool's joke.
And do we remember the hello kitty bubble gun incident with the 5 year old girl?
Splatoon. That's about it.
Your house does come crashing down because of it though.
Burrrrr, wrong. The perception and interpretation of historical events affects events in the present. From the near history of yesterday to the far history of hundred if not thousands of years. You don't think the reinterpreting of history by the Nazis affected how the Germans acted? Or how the interpretation of Jews about Israel affects how they treat the issue today?
It's so nice that you can call people drunk and stupid when you're hiding behind your AC.
Depends on your definition of technology. Human ancestors had tool usage up to 3.3 million years ago. The lower Paleolithic age ended about the time that our modern equivalents showed up. The upper Paleolithic was about 50-10k years ago and towards the end of that we saw agriculture start to rise.
The predecessor to Homo Sapiens evolved about 400-250 thousand years ago. Some of our close, breeding able brothers and sisters were older yes, but homo sapiens were thought to have evolved around 200 thousand years ago.
That's a bad example. Globalization was occurring. China had figured out gunpowder hundreds of years before Europe. And when Europe came to the Americas, the natives had no clue about such technology.
People seem to forget that Marbury v. Madison is what established Judicial Review. Not the Constitution explicitly. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of Judicial Review myself. But I do sometimes disagree with how it's been implemented as time goes on.
I'm not gonna click that last link, I'm just gonna assume NSFW.
It's sort of like asserting that there is a true, objective "history," as if "history" can somehow be separated out from "human interpretation of history."
That is wrong for different reasons. History is affected by the perceptions and interpretations of humans about said history.
They further looked at testosterone levels in the kids and followed them through early childhood. The children, girls included, who higher levels of testosterone were slower learning communication skills and had more interest in mechanical things.
*points* haha, you don't understand sarcasm in non-oral and non-facial forms of communications!
I hope you feel better now! :P
3 month, 6 month retention policies for enterprise email servers is pretty routine.
Part of the stress seems to be the long hours too; and it sounds like the cause is too much demand, not enough supply (of pilots).
The one on my parents' garage is going on 20 years now. Don't know the brand off the top of my head sorry.
We won't wreck the earth because of CO2. There used to be a lot more of it in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Oxygen alone does not make an insect (let alone anything) bigger. That dragonfly got that big probably because there were no natural predators for it. There's a cricket in the mountains of South America that can get pretty big for those exact reasons.
Not the point, it's a much more relevant reference point.
Fahrenheit is a reproducible scale as well. Your point there is irrelevant. Your bottom line is nothing.
You don't call the Kelvin a Kelvicelsius there's no power by 10 conversion going on here. It's not "metric."