While that is true, the amount that is released by this hotspot is still small on a global scale, about 0.6 million tons per year on a total of about 600 million tons of methane, so this investigation is mostly a matter of scientific curiosity.
I once asked a prof how I was supposed to know which integration formula/identify I was supposed to be using. He basically said "after a while you just know which ones". Because, apparently, there are no teachable rules for this, just hand waving guidelines which are supposed to make sense at some point.
Just enter the equation in Mathematica, or similar.
What I do know, is that evolution is not playing a significant role in this regard as the time horizon is much to small, particularly in modern times with current human lifespans in the last 150 years.
Lifespan isn't as important as the time between two generations. For 150 years, we're talking 6-8 generations. Not enough for random mutations to form, but enough to start combining existing genes in new ways.
What has changed is the fitness function. Some time ago, resistance to diseases would have been a very good trait. Now, we can treat most diseases with antibiotics, so it's not longer a big deal to have natural resistance. On the other hand, qualities like "forgetting to take the pill and get pregnant", or "I don't give a fuck what my parents think, I want his babies" are more successful now. A lot of people only look at the old fitness, and ignore the new one.
1. Not a lot of issues with food shortages in the Holland for the last 105 years or so except for those two big wars.
One big war, since the Dutch managed to stay out of the first one. But according to this article that period coincides with increasing body length, so that supports the idea that food is a limiting factor.
2. Taller is often also physically stronger which means you tend to have more access to food.
You need to grow it first, and being tall doesn't help with that.
Probably, yes. Existing genes for tall bodies got expressed due to better quality food. And because people like to date someone who doesn't differ much in length, the tall men dated tall women, and different tall-body genes got combined in their children, making them even taller.
The advantages of being tall are true, but so are the disadvantages. Being tall requires more food, for instance, so there's a natural limit on optimal body length.
But suppose I watch the ads, do I then have an obligation to change my buying patterns, or is it okay to freeload on the creative effort it took to make the ad, and the bandwidth required to serve it ?
Depends on what a nominal amount is. I've heard $10/month. If that value is per user, I would pay $40/month for a family of 4, which would double my internet bill, just to watch a single website. That's not going to happen.
How many of these same people have paid a couple of grand for a flat screen TV that broadcasts unavoidable ads for 1/4 of the time it's on?
I got a free TV from a friend who just bought a bigger one. And I watch TV through a DVR that has a pause and skip button, so I don't see any ads.
So you don't recognize YouTube brings any value to you? Shouldn't they be able to decide how to monetize it? After all, it's their website.
Of course. If they want to reduce the value that YouTube brings, they can do that. I've seen mention of a fee of about $10/month. That would bring the net value for YouTube below zero, so I would probably stop watching it. I mostly watch it for entertainment anyway, and there's plenty of other entertainment available for free.
And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.
It's technically possible to block ads, it's legal, and I don't like to watch ads. That's all I need to worry about. I have no control over everybody else. But in case everybody else does the same, then either the service will stop, or will implement technical/legal measures to force people to pay or watch ads. When that happens, I'll decide what I do.
There's an adblock plus proxy server app that works for wifi connections. I've never looked for a 4G solution. My data plan is only 1GB/month, and youtube eats that too quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
But milling weapons is ok?
No, but there are not enough home milled weapons around to pay attention to the issue.
Because methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.
While that is true, the amount that is released by this hotspot is still small on a global scale, about 0.6 million tons per year on a total of about 600 million tons of methane, so this investigation is mostly a matter of scientific curiosity.
Their philosophy is logical and should work in theory
Only if your theory is incomplete.
Regulation is needed to enforce a level playing field. Without regulation, you get a winner-takes-all effect.
I once asked a prof how I was supposed to know which integration formula/identify I was supposed to be using. He basically said "after a while you just know which ones". Because, apparently, there are no teachable rules for this, just hand waving guidelines which are supposed to make sense at some point.
Just enter the equation in Mathematica, or similar.
What I do know, is that evolution is not playing a significant role in this regard as the time horizon is much to small, particularly in modern times with current human lifespans in the last 150 years.
Lifespan isn't as important as the time between two generations. For 150 years, we're talking 6-8 generations. Not enough for random mutations to form, but enough to start combining existing genes in new ways.
What has changed is the fitness function. Some time ago, resistance to diseases would have been a very good trait. Now, we can treat most diseases with antibiotics, so it's not longer a big deal to have natural resistance. On the other hand, qualities like "forgetting to take the pill and get pregnant", or "I don't give a fuck what my parents think, I want his babies" are more successful now. A lot of people only look at the old fitness, and ignore the new one.
However.. if a higher percentage of tall men's children survive.. What's killing the short ones?
Tall men get better jobs, and have more money to take care of themselves.
Human science will quickly eclipse any and all forms of random evolution.
Not until we are dictating exactly how many children you get, or manipulate their DNA. Otherwise, we just follow where the fitness function takes us.
1. Not a lot of issues with food shortages in the Holland for the last 105 years or so except for those two big wars.
One big war, since the Dutch managed to stay out of the first one. But according to this article that period coincides with increasing body length, so that supports the idea that food is a limiting factor.
2. Taller is often also physically stronger which means you tend to have more access to food.
You need to grow it first, and being tall doesn't help with that.
Probably, yes. Existing genes for tall bodies got expressed due to better quality food. And because people like to date someone who doesn't differ much in length, the tall men dated tall women, and different tall-body genes got combined in their children, making them even taller.
that's just not true.
The advantages of being tall are true, but so are the disadvantages. Being tall requires more food, for instance, so there's a natural limit on optimal body length.
As long as not everybody has the exact same amount of children that make it into adulthood, there's evolutionary pressure.
Getting that cat video to you isn't free, why do you expect that you get to take and give nothing?
I don't expect anything, but as long as it works, I'll take it.
This study drives home the message that the human population is still subject to natural selection
Obviously. It's surprising that some people think otherwise.
No legal obligation.
No other obligation either.
But suppose I watch the ads, do I then have an obligation to change my buying patterns, or is it okay to freeload on the creative effort it took to make the ad, and the bandwidth required to serve it ?
The difference is that I signed a contract with my employer.
We are not interested in your freeloading.
Then stop offering the material on a public server.
Depends on what a nominal amount is. I've heard $10/month. If that value is per user, I would pay $40/month for a family of 4, which would double my internet bill, just to watch a single website. That's not going to happen.
How many of these same people have paid a couple of grand for a flat screen TV that broadcasts unavoidable ads for 1/4 of the time it's on?
I got a free TV from a friend who just bought a bigger one. And I watch TV through a DVR that has a pause and skip button, so I don't see any ads.
Rewind if you waited too long and the real video already started playing.
So you don't recognize YouTube brings any value to you? Shouldn't they be able to decide how to monetize it? After all, it's their website.
Of course. If they want to reduce the value that YouTube brings, they can do that. I've seen mention of a fee of about $10/month. That would bring the net value for YouTube below zero, so I would probably stop watching it. I mostly watch it for entertainment anyway, and there's plenty of other entertainment available for free.
And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.
It's technically possible to block ads, it's legal, and I don't like to watch ads. That's all I need to worry about. I have no control over everybody else. But in case everybody else does the same, then either the service will stop, or will implement technical/legal measures to force people to pay or watch ads. When that happens, I'll decide what I do.
Aren't you worried about the ethical choices you are making there?
Not at all. Why should I worry ?
Then rewind back to the start of the video.
There's an adblock plus proxy server app that works for wifi connections. I've never looked for a 4G solution. My data plan is only 1GB/month, and youtube eats that too quickly.