This is entirely true, and has been proved in several studies. Are you suggesting that behaviour is not based to some degree on genetics? Do you know dogs can be bred for aggression fore example?
Race-based intelligence studies?
If you agree that intelligence is based partly on genetics (and you must, or you'd have to accept that a chimp brought up as a human would have similar intelligence levels), and different races are genetically distinct (they are, by definition), then you have to accept at least the possibility that the genes for intelligence correlate with those for race.
This sounds like a classic case of someone who ascribes to genetics what is caused by upbringing and social factors such as education.
Both nature and nurture have an effect.
I thought we were past all this crap, along with Eugenics
What's unscientific about eugenics? We can artificially select and breed animals for traits, so since humans are animals it is likely that we could do the same thing. We (rightly) tend to reject eugenics for social reasons, not because it doesn't work.
He will have to come up with some damn good evidence if he wants to convince me of such ideas.
If you're not going to even read the research, then how is he going to convince you?
A book I think you should read is a pop science book called "Genome" by Matt Ridley. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it's a good read, and he goes into a lot of this stuff.
I was amused by the dichotomy between your decision to have your sig describe gouging someones eyes with a dismembered limb yet censoring the word "bitch" in your post, presumably in case someone was offended. It's a good thing you work in a hospital, not a vet's.
If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it
I will talk about whatever the fuck I feel like. I can't prove that evolution is true either, but the evidence is overwhelming.
but you only see data published to support GW, never does anyone tout results that disprove it since that would cut off thier research funds
You clearly have no idea about how science is funded. Universities are not given grants with instructions for what conclusions to find. It really is pathetic to see critics of global warming merely unjustified ad hominem attacks on the researchers. If you have any evidence at all that this is occuring (I'm not asking for "PROOF"!) then show it or shut up.
Here is a quote from the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama
You can selectively quote research if you like, but the experts in the field have achieved an overwhelming consensus. Anyway, the results must be a figment of your imagination because no one would ever publish research like this or their funding would be cut off!
Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.
You can look at individual areas but globally mean temperatures correlate well with CO2 levels. If we're not causing the warming then how come the previous century has seen the fastest warming in all of recorded history?
I assume you're trolling -- no one could be that ignorant! But, just for fun:
CO is taken out of the air by plants,
Carbon monoxide isn't generally used by plants.
thus the term "greenhouse effect",
No, the greenhouse effect is so-called due to the CO2 in the atmosphere reflecting heat back toward the Earth in a manner analogous to a greenhouse.
The global warming is so much BS
Good to see someone who doesn't even appreciate basic chemistry feels arrogant enough to dismiss the concerns of the thousands of climatologists worldwide who have done the research.
we don't have a long enough historical record to know if the supposed 1 degree Celsius rise this century is man-made of a cycle the planet goes thru
It would seem that economic strength is directly tied ot energy consumption.
Compare the emissions:production ratios of the USA and EU. You will see that your conclusion is wrong because you have based it on one data point.
It's a wonder that people who are held acountable for the US economy don't want anything to do with a treaty that would force a reduction in economic output, isn't it?
Your argument is based on your previous faulty conclusion. I can tell you're not a scientist; such an argument would never survive peer review.
And that's even before you take into account that the treaty doesn't take the growing economies that are the biggest threat to US economic dominance to the same standards.
Of course it does. You make yourself look (more) stupid if you don't even bother to check the basic facts of the situation.
Maybe if the treaty allowed for the reduced energy output from fossil fuels to be replaced with the only known feasable source (nuclear) it would be a good idea, but it doesn't, and it isn't.
What on earth are you talking about? The treaty only specifies that CO2 emissions are to be reduced. There is nothing in the treaty that says countries can't switch to nuclear power. This strategy would be an entirely feasible way to implement it.
Cute that you put "..." in place of "private homes", and cut off the part about encryption removal.
Because I could only be bothered to respond to the part of your post that I felt was the most ridiculous. There is no obligation for me to shred all your points:P
If majority-rules was a fair way to decide everything, we could reduce the entire Constitution and all of the amendments to a single line: "Whatever the people vote for, that's what we do."
I don't live in a country with a formal constitution, and yet we seem to get along fine. I think you could indeed reduce it to such a line with little recognisable difference.
When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a [...] coffee shop opens up their 802.11g
In that case you're paying for the wifi in increased coffee prices.
Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes
Forced is a bit strong; the residents of the city voted for the mayor.
Now it seems we need three different definitions for "Free": 1. Free as in "speech" 2. Free as in "beer" 3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"
Only if they vote for the candidate. 3. Free as in "voted for it to be free at the point of use, but paying for it in taxes"
That site is completely worthless. For a start, you can't trust a page which has an inaccurate tagline -- 'Watching Those Whom Lenin Called "Useful Fools" (also translated as "Useful Idiots.)' -- Lenin never said this. Then it goes on to selectively quote the higher crime rate of other countries, but when it comes to the relative murder rates, declines to publish the stats.
The departments in question do not care about [...] non-Windows users
Any particular reason? Do they know that all their clients will be using IE? IE usage in the wild is only at about 85% these days and will probably decrease in the future.
"Hello, can I help you gentlemen?" "By my calculations the server should have been right about... here" "What the dickens are you doing in my office?" "Jones, fetch me a sledgehammer" "Right away, professor" "What are you doing.... Noooo!" [crash]
First, the Lib Dems, "Very left-wing in their views"? They may be less right-wing than Labour on several issues but that hardly makes them "very left wing". They're significantly less left-wing than the old Labour party for example.
Also, how do you decide that the BNP are the fourth significant force in British politics? I doubt they're even 10th. Plaid Cymru, SNP, Respect, the various NI parties, and independents all have MPs, and other parties such as the Independence party and Greens all have far more support than the BNP.
"Her Brittanic Majesty's Seceretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
Whee! I asked for a currency converter a few months ago using their suggestions form. Probably didn't make any difference me asking for it, but it's a handy feature.
He didn't much care for lefty peaceniks, it would seem. So using his quotes to bash current U.S. policy is somewhat disingenous
Don't be an idiot. Leftism is not equivalent to pacifism, and one can anyway be against a decision to go to war without being a pacifist. I am not a pacifist and yet opposed the US's invasion of Iraq for example.
but you're going to tell me that the man who wrote Animal Farm was a communist? Get real.
Have you actually read Animal Farm? The revolution in general is written very sympathetically -- it is only when it is hijacked by Napoleon (Stalin) that it turns into a nightmare. It is not communism but totalitarianism Orwell is writing against.
"Every line I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism, and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."
Snowball (Trotsky) is also described sympathetically.
I suggest you read some of Orwell's other writings.
The coffee was served between 180 and 190 degrees, or around 50 degrees higher than coffee is normally served at.
According to Google, that's 87 degrees Celsius. That doesn't seem too hot for coffee to me. To make instant coffee I add boiling water to the coffee, so it's close to 100 C. I don't doubt it would cause some nasty burns if I dumped it over my bollocks but I let it cool first.
McDonalds has had over 700 claims regarding burns from its coffee, some also involving third-degree burns.
So? Repeated claims do not make something true.
She only originally sought $20,000, enough to cover medical bills, but McDonalds denied that. THE JURY awarded her $200,000 in damages + $2.7 million in punitive damages
That doesn't make the amount more reasonable, however it is awarded.
McDonalds admitted that consumers are not aware the coffee is THAT hot McDonalds was VERY MUCH in the wrong for serving their coffee hot enough
Much as I dislike McDonalds I refuse to accept that they are responsible for customers' clumsiness. Neither should they need to warn them that their coffee is hot.
Lameness filter encountered. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
If, on the other hand, you decide to kill it because you want to eat it, you have just valued it as less important than yourself. I was pointing out that once *that* decision has been made you have placed an arbitrary marker on some scale - you have said "given this scenario, I will kill the lamb".
That does not make someone who makes that decision a hypocrite however.
From Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.
Your argument that the decision is arbitrary is also questionable, except in so far that any human decision is arbitrary. To decide to only eat an animal in extremis is perfectly logically consistent, analagous to deciding to only kill a human in self defence.
Disclaimer: I am a practising omnivore, looking up kebab recipes for my barbecue tomorrow:)
of course the students pay more - you're comparing multiple people to a single person. you can only watch TV once at a time.
The price is the same though if the person with the mansion has a spouse, seventeen children, all four grandparents and six friends living with them. It's based on household rather than individuals (and "household" is individual rooms if the inhabitants have separate contracts).
So in my scenario, the mansion with 29 people pays £126.50, and the house of 4 students (or 4 people on income support) on separate contracts pays £506.
And of course if you're over 75 you get a free license even if you have an income of £100 million. It's ludicrous.
in related news, did you know that all the poor taxi drivers pay more in driving licence fees than all the billionaires with their luxury cars? outrage!
Now you're talking bollocks. The driving license fee is a one-off, so hardly comparable. A better comparison would be car tax.
Best? It's horrendous. A multi-billionaire with a telly in each room of his 90-room mansion pays less than a student household where individuals are on separate tenancy agreements. Not only that, but a fair proportion of the cash collected goes back into bureacracy and enforcing the system.
I'd much prefer to see the cash come out of the general taxation system. Much fairer, and more efficient, and it would mean fewer court cases too. And less paperwork all round.
On the subject of fiction, it reminded me of an Arthur C. Clarke short story called "Into the Comet". A spacecraft's dodgy computer gets replaced by a beowulf cluster of people with abacuses.
Slashdot Mirror
criminal traits genetically inherited
This is entirely true, and has been proved in several studies. Are you suggesting that behaviour is not based to some degree on genetics? Do you know dogs can be bred for aggression fore example?
Race-based intelligence studies?
If you agree that intelligence is based partly on genetics (and you must, or you'd have to accept that a chimp brought up as a human would have similar intelligence levels), and different races are genetically distinct (they are, by definition), then you have to accept at least the possibility that the genes for intelligence correlate with those for race.
This sounds like a classic case of someone who ascribes to genetics what is caused by upbringing and social factors such as education.
Both nature and nurture have an effect.
I thought we were past all this crap, along with Eugenics
What's unscientific about eugenics? We can artificially select and breed animals for traits, so since humans are animals it is likely that we could do the same thing. We (rightly) tend to reject eugenics for social reasons, not because it doesn't work.
He will have to come up with some damn good evidence if he wants to convince me of such ideas.
If you're not going to even read the research, then how is he going to convince you?
A book I think you should read is a pop science book called "Genome" by Matt Ridley. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it's a good read, and he goes into a lot of this stuff.
I was amused by the dichotomy between your decision to have your sig describe gouging someones eyes with a dismembered limb yet censoring the word "bitch" in your post, presumably in case someone was offended. It's a good thing you work in a hospital, not a vet's.
£3.50 in Aberystwyth, with about £2 for a pint.
Return key not working either?
If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it
I will talk about whatever the fuck I feel like. I can't prove that evolution is true either, but the evidence is overwhelming.
but you only see data published to support GW, never does anyone tout results that disprove it since that would cut off thier research funds
You clearly have no idea about how science is funded. Universities are not given grants with instructions for what conclusions to find. It really is pathetic to see critics of global warming merely unjustified ad hominem attacks on the researchers. If you have any evidence at all that this is occuring (I'm not asking for "PROOF"!) then show it or shut up.
Here is a quote from the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama
You can selectively quote research if you like, but the experts in the field have achieved an overwhelming consensus. Anyway, the results must be a figment of your imagination because no one would ever publish research like this or their funding would be cut off!
Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.
You can look at individual areas but globally mean temperatures correlate well with CO2 levels. If we're not causing the warming then how come the previous century has seen the fastest warming in all of recorded history?
I assume you're trolling -- no one could be that ignorant! But, just for fun:
CO is taken out of the air by plants,
Carbon monoxide isn't generally used by plants.
thus the term "greenhouse effect",
No, the greenhouse effect is so-called due to the CO2 in the atmosphere reflecting heat back toward the Earth in a manner analogous to a greenhouse.
The global warming is so much BS
Good to see someone who doesn't even appreciate basic chemistry feels arrogant enough to dismiss the concerns of the thousands of climatologists worldwide who have done the research.
we don't have a long enough historical record to know if the supposed 1 degree Celsius rise this century is man-made of a cycle the planet goes thru
How many thousands of years do you want?
It would seem that economic strength is directly tied ot energy consumption.
Compare the emissions:production ratios of the USA and EU. You will see that your conclusion is wrong because you have based it on one data point.
It's a wonder that people who are held acountable for the US economy don't want anything to do with a treaty that would force a reduction in economic output, isn't it?
Your argument is based on your previous faulty conclusion. I can tell you're not a scientist; such an argument would never survive peer review.
And that's even before you take into account that the treaty doesn't take the growing economies that are the biggest threat to US economic dominance to the same standards.
Of course it does. You make yourself look (more) stupid if you don't even bother to check the basic facts of the situation.
Maybe if the treaty allowed for the reduced energy output from fossil fuels to be replaced with the only known feasable source (nuclear) it would be a good idea, but it doesn't, and it isn't.
What on earth are you talking about? The treaty only specifies that CO2 emissions are to be reduced. There is nothing in the treaty that says countries can't switch to nuclear power. This strategy would be an entirely feasible way to implement it.
Cute that you put "..." in place of "private homes", and cut off the part about encryption removal.
:P
Because I could only be bothered to respond to the part of your post that I felt was the most ridiculous. There is no obligation for me to shred all your points
If majority-rules was a fair way to decide everything, we could reduce the entire Constitution and all of the amendments to a single line: "Whatever the people vote for, that's what we do."
I don't live in a country with a formal constitution, and yet we seem to get along fine. I think you could indeed reduce it to such a line with little recognisable difference.
When I saw the headline about the "Free WiFi trend", I foolishly assumed they were talking about actual free WiFi, like when a [...] coffee shop opens up their 802.11g
In that case you're paying for the wifi in increased coffee prices.
Sadly, they are talking about pre-billed, manditory WiFi, in which residents of a city are forced by the state to fund a WiFi connection with their taxes
Forced is a bit strong; the residents of the city voted for the mayor.
Now it seems we need three different definitions for "Free":
1. Free as in "speech"
2. Free as in "beer"
3. Free as in "pay for it or go to jail"
Only if they vote for the candidate.
3. Free as in "voted for it to be free at the point of use, but paying for it in taxes"
According to Wikipedia, there's a bit more to the poem than that. No, I hadn't heard of the rest either.
That site is completely worthless. For a start, you can't trust a page which has an inaccurate tagline -- 'Watching Those Whom Lenin Called "Useful Fools" (also translated as "Useful Idiots.)' -- Lenin never said this. Then it goes on to selectively quote the higher crime rate of other countries, but when it comes to the relative murder rates, declines to publish the stats.
The departments in question do not care about [...] non-Windows users
Any particular reason? Do they know that all their clients will be using IE? IE usage in the wild is only at about 85% these days and will probably decrease in the future.
Sounds a bit implausible to me.
On a hunch, they rip open the wall
"Hello, can I help you gentlemen?"
"By my calculations the server should have been right about... here"
"What the dickens are you doing in my office?"
"Jones, fetch me a sledgehammer"
"Right away, professor"
"What are you doing.... Noooo!" [crash]
I have a 24" HP 2335 widescreen that claims 12ms. My screen is a gem - it's an underrated screen for the price (You can get them new for $800)
Where from??
Where do I begin??
First, the Lib Dems, "Very left-wing in their views"? They may be less right-wing than Labour on several issues but that hardly makes them "very left wing". They're significantly less left-wing than the old Labour party for example.
Also, how do you decide that the BNP are the fourth significant force in British politics? I doubt they're even 10th. Plaid Cymru, SNP, Respect, the various NI parties, and independents all have MPs, and other parties such as the Independence party and Greens all have far more support than the BNP.
But it still says that -
"Her Brittanic Majesty's Seceretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
- did it used to say something different?
Whee! I asked for a currency converter a few months ago using their suggestions form. Probably didn't make any difference me asking for it, but it's a handy feature.
Marxism & Socialism are philosophies that state that the rights of the individual are subordinate to the needs of the society.
This is the statement that is wrong. HTH!
He didn't much care for lefty peaceniks, it would seem. So using his quotes to bash current U.S. policy is somewhat disingenous
Don't be an idiot. Leftism is not equivalent to pacifism, and one can anyway be against a decision to go to war without being a pacifist. I am not a pacifist and yet opposed the US's invasion of Iraq for example.
but you're going to tell me that the man who wrote Animal Farm was a communist? Get real.
Have you actually read Animal Farm? The revolution in general is written very sympathetically -- it is only when it is hijacked by Napoleon (Stalin) that it turns into a nightmare. It is not communism but totalitarianism Orwell is writing against.
"Every line I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism, and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."
Snowball (Trotsky) is also described sympathetically.
I suggest you read some of Orwell's other writings.
The coffee was served between 180 and 190 degrees, or around 50 degrees higher than coffee is normally served at.
According to Google, that's 87 degrees Celsius. That doesn't seem too hot for coffee to me. To make instant coffee I add boiling water to the coffee, so it's close to 100 C. I don't doubt it would cause some nasty burns if I dumped it over my bollocks but I let it cool first.
McDonalds has had over 700 claims regarding burns from its coffee, some also involving third-degree burns.
So? Repeated claims do not make something true.
She only originally sought $20,000, enough to cover medical bills, but McDonalds denied that. THE JURY awarded her $200,000 in damages + $2.7 million in punitive damages
That doesn't make the amount more reasonable, however it is awarded.
McDonalds admitted that consumers are not aware the coffee is THAT hot
McDonalds was VERY MUCH in the wrong for serving their coffee hot enough
Much as I dislike McDonalds I refuse to accept that they are responsible for customers' clumsiness. Neither should they need to warn them that their coffee is hot.
BAAAAAAAA - *splat* ...
BAAAAAAAA - *splat*
BAAAAAAAA - *splat*
BAAAAAAAA - *splat*
BAAAAAAAA - *splat*
BAAAAAAAA - *boing* - BAAAAAAAA
BAAAAAAAA - *boing* - BAAAAAAAA
BAAAAAAAA - *boing* - BAAAAAAAA
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
If, on the other hand, you decide to kill it because you want to eat it, you have just valued it as less important than yourself. I was pointing out that once *that* decision has been made you have placed an arbitrary marker on some scale - you have said "given this scenario, I will kill the lamb".
:)
That does not make someone who makes that decision a hypocrite however.
From Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.
Your argument that the decision is arbitrary is also questionable, except in so far that any human decision is arbitrary. To decide to only eat an animal in extremis is perfectly logically consistent, analagous to deciding to only kill a human in self defence.
Disclaimer: I am a practising omnivore, looking up kebab recipes for my barbecue tomorrow
of course the students pay more - you're comparing multiple people to a single person. you can only watch TV once at a time.
The price is the same though if the person with the mansion has a spouse, seventeen children, all four grandparents and six friends living with them. It's based on household rather than individuals (and "household" is individual rooms if the inhabitants have separate contracts).
So in my scenario, the mansion with 29 people pays £126.50, and the house of 4 students (or 4 people on income support) on separate contracts pays £506.
And of course if you're over 75 you get a free license even if you have an income of £100 million. It's ludicrous.
in related news, did you know that all the poor taxi drivers pay more in driving licence fees than all the billionaires with their luxury cars? outrage!
Now you're talking bollocks. The driving license fee is a one-off, so hardly comparable. A better comparison would be car tax.
Best? It's horrendous. A multi-billionaire with a telly in each room of his 90-room mansion pays less than a student household where individuals are on separate tenancy agreements. Not only that, but a fair proportion of the cash collected goes back into bureacracy and enforcing the system.
I'd much prefer to see the cash come out of the general taxation system. Much fairer, and more efficient, and it would mean fewer court cases too. And less paperwork all round.
On the subject of fiction, it reminded me of an Arthur C. Clarke short story called "Into the Comet". A spacecraft's dodgy computer gets replaced by a beowulf cluster of people with abacuses.
How else do you suggest emission quotas be assigned?