You're missing the point. Evolution has no solution.
Evolution doesn't work towards an end result. That's part of what makes it so difficult to understand. Since there's no stable environment, there's no ultimate solution.
First: I hate to be the one to point this out, but astronomical or not, there are thousands and thousands of these bacteria in every cup of water, and the pond is a lot bigger than that.
And so is the ocean.
And they've had literally millions of years to stumble upon it.
I'm not sure what your definition of Astronomical is, but maybe you don't see what I see.
Second: The mutations didn't all need to happen at the same time. As long as the original mutations didn't give the organism some disadvantage, there's no reason why it couldn't have spawned thousands and thousands of other organisms with the same oddity, and one of those could subsequently have evolved into the bacteria we see today. Remember, selection pressure works in both directions: unless something is being selected against, it isn't selected out of the gene pool.
"Come on Come on Come on Now Touch me Babe" might be the excuse for a masturbation addiction?
Hacking And Overclocking - What?
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This has to be the most ridiculous comparison for a diet I've ever heard. Instead of overclocking - pushing the body to do more (maybe working out?) - the Atkins diet makes the body digest itself because of carbohydrate depravation.
Want to know what the Atkins diet is like, in Nerd terms? It's like discarding all but 2 megs of ram and cannibalising your disk as virtual memory / swap space. "Hey, I'll save money by not buying a gym membership by just starving my body!"
Re:What about the dangers?
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.
Can you explain how exactly those original Predators hunted in the Jungle? I mean, everything *else* in the Jungle gives off heat, why was it just the humans who showed up?
Maybe you're wrong, and they had human detectors that couldn't see through mud.
I know you're a vision scientist, so I'd chime in with both an "I agree" and a "Have you read the relevant case study in 'Anthropologist on Mars' by Oliver Sacks?"
If not, it's a very interesting look at the restoration of sight.
They can do with the cash as they please, they can give it away, burn it, wipe their ass with it, buy drugs with it, buy whores with it, buy atomic bombs with it, whatever they want to do with it, it's theirs and I have no say so in what they do with the cash.
Ass! That's not true! They can't buy things which have been regulated by our government and it's people, just the same way that you can't do things with your property that the majority of representatives in our democracy don't want you to do!
Um, so sorry, but no one is going to tell me what I can or can not do with property that I posess. It's mine, I paid for it, I traded CASH for property. I buy property, I don't license it. Licenses are invalid and un-enforceable anyway, just ask SCO. I'll take any and everything apart I own and study it and tell people about it as I see fit.
Just what, exactly, gives you the right to do anything you want with no regard for anyone else? Just because you bought a physical object doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it, from a moral or legal point of view.
Stop having such an egocentric view of the world. Make it a point to look at every other person you pass tomorrow and realize that they've got the same rights you do, and therefore, you've all got limited rights for the good of all.
When Noah floated around in his Ark, the Dinosaurs had to go somewhere, so obviously they had to float. I mean, it just wouldn't do to have huge carnivores on the boat with Noah, would it? Clearly, a floating dinosaur is rendered harmless (very small rocks are harmless, and they float too!), and therefore, everything works scientifically according to God's design. Unfortunately, when the waters began to recede, the Dinosaurs floated all over the place, and most of them died from lack of proper places to pray, thus creating the fossils as we know them.
I may win, but ad-hominem still isn't a word! Since it's simply a Latin phrase (like the oft abbreviated "id est"), it doesn't need any special puncuation at all.
"Flash Subliminal Programming", as you call it, isn't a completely failed research area - assuming you're talking about subliminal priming. Priming is the term used to refer to an experience or procedure that brings a particular concept to mind (see Kunda, 1999, Social Cognition).
There have been many studies which demonstrate the effects of subliminal priming - in a particularly nice one, subjects were shown either 0, 20, or 80% "hostile" prime words - each for 50 ms - followed by a line of Xs to mask the prime. A control group identified less than 1% of the words. Yet, when asked to rate the behavior of a character in a story, people who saw more Hostile Primes rated the actions as more hostile or aggressive (Bargh and Pietromonaco, 1982).
Mere Exposure experiments have been done (Bornstein and D'Agostino) with durations as little as 5 ms. Mere exposure is another interesting phenom - that familiarity breeds liking (see Bornstein 1989 or Zajonc 1968 for reviews).
If you look at the code, it looks like they left out a quotation mark. They do have an input box, but it's not displayed because of obvious fuck-up-ed-ness.
This is one of the most disturbing posts I've ever seen on slashdot.
We live in a representative democracy,in which citizens agree which rights to give to the inhabitants by chosing elected officials to decide on those rights.
Free speech is a right that people have chosen to give to other people. In this case, people have chosen to take away the right to drive around a car that pollutes the air. I'm not saying it's a morally just or enforcable move, I'm just saying this is what the people have chosen to do.
Cars pollute the air. This is completely irrefutable. They work by combustion, and combustion has side-products, and these side-products are released into our air.
For the record, the laws of this country prohibit the publication of material that the people deem unpublishable. For instance, certain government documents are classified - therefore, they may not be published. Certain treasonous material is illegal. Certain plans or plots or instructions are illegal to publish. You may not agree with this on a fundamental level, but these are the laws of this society.
Grow up. Travel by car is a priviledge just as much as any legal right is a priviledge - only unlegislated freedoms are truly freedoms.
No no. You'd sue the city for building a toll that collected money from the thief who stole your car, claiming that in doing so, it was providing road maintenence to him.
Frivolous Lawsuit Number 58909081792873987123 has just been recorded...
Causation isn't determinable because there are many possible relationships which could explain the result. The reason "Correlation != Causation" is because the scientists can't determine the direction of the relationship, not because they can't determine that a relationship exists.
If the two numbers are correlated strictly on a "numerical coincidence", they wouldn't use the word correlated. Most published works move beyond this.
Geographical Location is a great example of what I was saying - that an outside factor may contribute to a person's height and wage.
Please re-read my post, thinking from a "hey, this guy might have something to contribue" perspective instead of a "hey, someone else to shoot down with my knowledge of basic level statistics". Correlation, by definition, implies a fundamental level of causality (and therefore, a relationship), but does not attempt to locate that causality. It's a bit like an ANOVA, further tests are needed to find the nature of the relationship.
Because height is a variable that can't concievably be manipulated by wage, we can assume that any correlation between the two works in one of the following ways:
Greater Height Causes Greater Wage Factor X Causes Greater Height and Greater Wage Factor X Causes Greater Height, Factor Y Causes Greater Wage, Factor X and Factor Y are correlated
Since height seems to be a trait heavily dependant on both sex and background, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some Factor X involved (or many of them).
That being said, I think the original post's misconception is that because Wage increases can never cause Height increases (except under ridiculous conditions), the "easy" answer is that it must work the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this an issue? You write english at a human-readable level without knowing a thing about it's evolution, assuming you're the regular Joe.
Why should you have to graduate from the "I know where this came from" class to move on to the "I know how to use this" class?
You're missing the point. Evolution has no solution.
Evolution doesn't work towards an end result. That's part of what makes it so difficult to understand. Since there's no stable environment, there's no ultimate solution.
Hmph. Thousands and Millions are both clearly terms that could mean "any number larger than one or more thousands or millions". (grin)
First:
I hate to be the one to point this out, but astronomical or not, there are thousands and thousands of these bacteria in every cup of water, and the pond is a lot bigger than that.
And so is the ocean.
And they've had literally millions of years to stumble upon it.
I'm not sure what your definition of Astronomical is, but maybe you don't see what I see.
Second:
The mutations didn't all need to happen at the same time. As long as the original mutations didn't give the organism some disadvantage, there's no reason why it couldn't have spawned thousands and thousands of other organisms with the same oddity, and one of those could subsequently have evolved into the bacteria we see today. Remember, selection pressure works in both directions: unless something is being selected against, it isn't selected out of the gene pool.
Well, the original poster said:
"They can repair the damage to my kidneys -- they can't repair the damage to my soul."
And then I replied with:
"If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception."
I'm not sure why you think that's a troll, but perhaps you could explain how you failed to miss the point?
Perhaps it's because no one's bothered to install a Movie Theatre in the middle of nowhere?
"Come on Come on Come on Now Touch me Babe" might be the excuse for a masturbation addiction?
This has to be the most ridiculous comparison for a diet I've ever heard. Instead of overclocking - pushing the body to do more (maybe working out?) - the Atkins diet makes the body digest itself because of carbohydrate depravation.
Want to know what the Atkins diet is like, in Nerd terms? It's like discarding all but 2 megs of ram and cannibalising your disk as virtual memory / swap space. "Hey, I'll save money by not buying a gym membership by just starving my body!"
That's the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.
Can you explain how exactly those original Predators hunted in the Jungle? I mean, everything *else* in the Jungle gives off heat, why was it just the humans who showed up?
Maybe you're wrong, and they had human detectors that couldn't see through mud.
Michael Jackson has released a new hit single that denounces this upstart of a project as anything but his lover.
I know you're a vision scientist, so I'd chime in with both an "I agree" and a "Have you read the relevant case study in 'Anthropologist on Mars' by Oliver Sacks?"
If not, it's a very interesting look at the restoration of sight.
They can do with the cash as they please, they can give it away, burn it, wipe their ass with it, buy drugs with it, buy whores with it, buy atomic bombs with it, whatever they want to do with it, it's theirs and I have no say so in what they do with the cash.
Ass! That's not true! They can't buy things which have been regulated by our government and it's people, just the same way that you can't do things with your property that the majority of representatives in our democracy don't want you to do!
Um, so sorry, but no one is going to tell me what I can or can not do with property that I posess. It's mine, I paid for it, I traded CASH for property. I buy property, I don't license it. Licenses are invalid and un-enforceable anyway, just ask SCO. I'll take any and everything apart I own and study it and tell people about it as I see fit.
Just what, exactly, gives you the right to do anything you want with no regard for anyone else? Just because you bought a physical object doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it, from a moral or legal point of view.
Stop having such an egocentric view of the world. Make it a point to look at every other person you pass tomorrow and realize that they've got the same rights you do, and therefore, you've all got limited rights for the good of all.
You've got it all backwards.
When Noah floated around in his Ark, the Dinosaurs had to go somewhere, so obviously they had to float. I mean, it just wouldn't do to have huge carnivores on the boat with Noah, would it? Clearly, a floating dinosaur is rendered harmless (very small rocks are harmless, and they float too!), and therefore, everything works scientifically according to God's design. Unfortunately, when the waters began to recede, the Dinosaurs floated all over the place, and most of them died from lack of proper places to pray, thus creating the fossils as we know them.
Sheesh. You evolution people make me sick.
Laugh. It's a joke.
Hi! I presented research and referenced a textbook. Did you read the articles and my post before you blindly responded? :)
I may win, but ad-hominem still isn't a word! Since it's simply a Latin phrase (like the oft abbreviated "id est"), it doesn't need any special puncuation at all.
Er, well, no.
:)
"Flash Subliminal Programming", as you call it, isn't a completely failed research area - assuming you're talking about subliminal priming. Priming is the term used to refer to an experience or procedure that brings a particular concept to mind (see Kunda, 1999, Social Cognition).
There have been many studies which demonstrate the effects of subliminal priming - in a particularly nice one, subjects were shown either 0, 20, or 80% "hostile" prime words - each for 50 ms - followed by a line of Xs to mask the prime. A control group identified less than 1% of the words. Yet, when asked to rate the behavior of a character in a story, people who saw more Hostile Primes rated the actions as more hostile or aggressive (Bargh and Pietromonaco, 1982).
Mere Exposure experiments have been done (Bornstein and D'Agostino) with durations as little as 5 ms. Mere exposure is another interesting phenom - that familiarity breeds liking (see Bornstein 1989 or Zajonc 1968 for reviews).
I just thought I'd babble for a few.
If you can't capitalize the first words of your sentences, what makes you think other people want to read your grammar corrections?
:)
Zing!
If you look at the code, it looks like they left out a quotation mark. They do have an input box, but it's not displayed because of obvious fuck-up-ed-ness.
The constitution was voted on, and can be changed. I missed something that you learned last week in Government 101, perhaps?
This is one of the most disturbing posts I've ever seen on slashdot.
We live in a representative democracy,in which citizens agree which rights to give to the inhabitants by chosing elected officials to decide on those rights.
Free speech is a right that people have chosen to give to other people. In this case, people have chosen to take away the right to drive around a car that pollutes the air. I'm not saying it's a morally just or enforcable move, I'm just saying this is what the people have chosen to do.
Cars pollute the air. This is completely irrefutable. They work by combustion, and combustion has side-products, and these side-products are released into our air.
For the record, the laws of this country prohibit the publication of material that the people deem unpublishable. For instance, certain government documents are classified - therefore, they may not be published. Certain treasonous material is illegal. Certain plans or plots or instructions are illegal to publish. You may not agree with this on a fundamental level, but these are the laws of this society.
Grow up. Travel by car is a priviledge just as much as any legal right is a priviledge - only unlegislated freedoms are truly freedoms.
No no. You'd sue the city for building a toll that collected money from the thief who stole your car, claiming that in doing so, it was providing road maintenence to him.
Frivolous Lawsuit Number 58909081792873987123 has just been recorded...
Like I said.
Causation isn't determinable because there are many possible relationships which could explain the result. The reason "Correlation != Causation" is because the scientists can't determine the direction of the relationship, not because they can't determine that a relationship exists.
If the two numbers are correlated strictly on a "numerical coincidence", they wouldn't use the word correlated. Most published works move beyond this.
Geographical Location is a great example of what I was saying - that an outside factor may contribute to a person's height and wage.
Please re-read my post, thinking from a "hey, this guy might have something to contribue" perspective instead of a "hey, someone else to shoot down with my knowledge of basic level statistics". Correlation, by definition, implies a fundamental level of causality (and therefore, a relationship), but does not attempt to locate that causality. It's a bit like an ANOVA, further tests are needed to find the nature of the relationship.
Because height is a variable that can't concievably be manipulated by wage, we can assume that any correlation between the two works in one of the following ways:
Greater Height Causes Greater Wage
Factor X Causes Greater Height and Greater Wage
Factor X Causes Greater Height, Factor Y Causes Greater Wage, Factor X and Factor Y are correlated
Since height seems to be a trait heavily dependant on both sex and background, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some Factor X involved (or many of them).
That being said, I think the original post's misconception is that because Wage increases can never cause Height increases (except under ridiculous conditions), the "easy" answer is that it must work the other way around.