Actually, to be fair, most hypotheses aren't even exactly "wild" guesses; they are, in fact, educated guesses. A wild guess is often an excellent way to piss away grant money, so most researchers go with something that seems much safer; take a series of small steps rather than great leaps, in other words.
Let me preface this by saying that I am a scientist, a Bacteriologist for New York State to be precise.
(residents of New York State, you are paying me right now to post on Slashdot; thanks)
I went to a Catholic grammar school from 3rd to 8th grade (I'm 23 now, so you can get a reference as to roughly when I went to school), and I remember being SPECIFICALLY taught in my Religion classes, by nuns no less, that there is NO conflict between scientific evolution and the creation story, so long as you believe the soul was created by God. Since the soul cannot be touched by science one way or another (cannot prove or disprove), that's absolutely fine. There shouldn't be any conflict whatsoever; Genesis is a version of how everything got here, and evolution tells you how what is here changes. No problems, at least in theory; it seems that fundies just keep trying to drag up the old debates.
I'm curious as to what you mean by a "huge lack of evidence" as to global warming; there's no denying that, in fact, the globe is warming up. Glaciers are receding; that in and of itself is an indication of rising temperatures.
The real debate is the CAUSE of said warming; in short, we really can't be sure. It could be all man-made, it could be entirely a natural cycle, it could be some combination of those two things, or it could be fnord.
I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot. Natural or man-made, if things continue to get warmer, we're going to have to figure something out, or else risk losing our civilization as we know it.
That quote is right on. I work in a BSL 2 lab (fooborne pathogens, like Salmonella, Listeria, E.coliO157:H7, and so forth) for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and I can certainly say that our "security" is laughable at best. We have a security guard posted at the front door to the lab from 9 AM to about 4 PM. Most people arrive at or before 8 AM.
And a quick story about other outstanding security...adjacent to the building where I work is an office of the Department of Homeland Security. About 3 months ago, myself and one of my coworkers, who is about 25 (I'll be 23 in a few days), decided to go up and poke around. We're young lab workers, so we were just in street clothes; in particular, I was wearing a Slayer T-shirt and jean shorts (my professional-looking lab attire). Neither of us had our badges out, and we poked around Homeland Security for a solid 15 mintues. Nobody stopped us, asked to see ID, nor even asked if we worked there.
Yeah, most labs could probably stand to beef up their security.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we incapable of monitoring ozone levels before industrialization? We've only been able to observe this ozone hole in recent history, so there's no real way to know whether or not it existed 200 years ago. So, really, how can we say the ozone is restored to pre-industrial status if we don't know what that status is? How do we even know that we CAN repair the ozone hole? If it's a natural phenomenon, we're basically boned.
If you think science fiction is just about writing cool stories that work within the confines of what we know right now, you're missing the point of the genre.
Sci-fi is largely about letting loose the imaginative side of science and letting it run rampant for a while; many stories start off with a underlying "what if" question and then build a reality around that. Many also include a cautionary message (like Frankenstein, the novel that really got science fiction going) that serves to give science a reality check.
Science has always been an ever-changing thing, and focusing on "hard" science fiction is doing a disservice to that creative drive that has propelled science to heights never before imagined by humans.
Yes, but if that were applied to every science paper ever released, a great deal of progress would have never occured. When you're in a discovery-oriented field, a lot of things are going to sound like bullshit but will be totally legitimate.
Evolution is by and large still misunderstood by the majority of people that do not have formal scientific education. It is in fact a failure of pre-college education to present it properly, and the ever-present misunderstandings that further confuse people.
I'm always curious to see what most people think evolution actually is. I see it confused with abiogenesis (life from non-life) very often, and I suspect that has a lot to do with why it is misunderstood.
Also, please note that the word "theory" is often used rather incorrectly and out-of-context; a scientific theory has quite a lot of evidence and logic behind it, but hasn't been tested as thoroughly as it could. Most people seem to use "theory" when they should be using "hypothesis."
I think, and mind you that I haven't been academically involved in science for almost a year now (just got back into the field recently), that the actual evolution of DNA is still the subject of much debate, so it's unclear as to just how it came about in the first place. I would imagine that's why it's not included in the "Top 10 Inventions" list.
It's also possible that people think DNA was just always around and so isn't exactly an invention, which is untrue as far as science knows, or at least that I recall. Someone correct me if I'm off the mark.
I thought the same thing when I saw this title. As far as I know, and I'm a biologist by training, we are very much still IN the era of genomics. In fact, it would be rather big news if we ever LEFT said era.
The information on the X chromosome consists mostly of "housekeeping" genes; the only one I remember offhand is an enzyme used in the Kreb's cycle.
The Y chromosome is almost entirely useless; the only gene found on the Y chromosome is TDF, Testes Determining Factor. As you know, female is the default sex in mammals; TDF activates partway through fetal development and tells the embryo to develop testes instead of ovaries.
I'm not sure about the Y chromosome being a mutant form of the X; AFAIK, the two are radically different and contain very little similar genetic information.
I go to college in Rochester (yay RIT), and I can verify that sentiment. Kodak recently had a huge bout of layoffs, and has been showing signs of trouble for quite some time now.
One of the unfortunate side effects has been in RIT's budget; since Kodak is one of our biggest contributors, their financial trouble has begun to impact us.
It is unfortunate, especially because the demise of Kodak will really deal a heavy blow to the already shitty Rochester economy.
So you prefer the endless crack-monkeyness of death match over a team-based gametype that requires some degree of coordination and teamwork? I also fail to see how a game is decided in 30 - 40 seconds; I've fought many a back-and-forth match of Onslaught.
By the way, the rocket launcher has been changed since UT2k3. The old rocket launcher (5 or 6 rockets, IIRC) was just pure crack and somewhat excessive. The Enforcer in UT was about as useful as the assault rifle in 2k3 and 2k4 is now.
Granted, you're entitled to your opinion, but as one UT fan to another, I'm having a hard time following your logic.
I play Warhammer (god help me), so I always use eBay to help me find cheap minis. One of my favorite tactics is to look for misspellings, as the people who misspell the various names often don't know exactly what they're selling.
It's interesting to see how many ways people can screw up Slaanesh and Tzeentch.
Slashdot Mirror
You know you're screwed when the first action the wizard takes is asking the rest of you how many HP you've got left.
For reference, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis. Evolution very specifically deals with changes in existing populations of organisms.
Actually, to be fair, most hypotheses aren't even exactly "wild" guesses; they are, in fact, educated guesses. A wild guess is often an excellent way to piss away grant money, so most researchers go with something that seems much safer; take a series of small steps rather than great leaps, in other words.
Let me preface this by saying that I am a scientist, a Bacteriologist for New York State to be precise.
(residents of New York State, you are paying me right now to post on Slashdot; thanks)
I went to a Catholic grammar school from 3rd to 8th grade (I'm 23 now, so you can get a reference as to roughly when I went to school), and I remember being SPECIFICALLY taught in my Religion classes, by nuns no less, that there is NO conflict between scientific evolution and the creation story, so long as you believe the soul was created by God. Since the soul cannot be touched by science one way or another (cannot prove or disprove), that's absolutely fine. There shouldn't be any conflict whatsoever; Genesis is a version of how everything got here, and evolution tells you how what is here changes. No problems, at least in theory; it seems that fundies just keep trying to drag up the old debates.
That's true. I'd be really pissed too if someone took my shoes.
I think he's new; probably hasn't read the handbook yet.
I'm curious as to what you mean by a "huge lack of evidence" as to global warming; there's no denying that, in fact, the globe is warming up. Glaciers are receding; that in and of itself is an indication of rising temperatures.
The real debate is the CAUSE of said warming; in short, we really can't be sure. It could be all man-made, it could be entirely a natural cycle, it could be some combination of those two things, or it could be fnord.
I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot. Natural or man-made, if things continue to get warmer, we're going to have to figure something out, or else risk losing our civilization as we know it.
That quote is right on. I work in a BSL 2 lab (fooborne pathogens, like Salmonella, Listeria, E.coliO157:H7, and so forth) for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and I can certainly say that our "security" is laughable at best. We have a security guard posted at the front door to the lab from 9 AM to about 4 PM. Most people arrive at or before 8 AM.
And a quick story about other outstanding security...adjacent to the building where I work is an office of the Department of Homeland Security. About 3 months ago, myself and one of my coworkers, who is about 25 (I'll be 23 in a few days), decided to go up and poke around. We're young lab workers, so we were just in street clothes; in particular, I was wearing a Slayer T-shirt and jean shorts (my professional-looking lab attire). Neither of us had our badges out, and we poked around Homeland Security for a solid 15 mintues. Nobody stopped us, asked to see ID, nor even asked if we worked there.
Yeah, most labs could probably stand to beef up their security.
While this is an obvious troll, I've heard this argument many a time.
A game doesn't need blood to be good, and Nintendo has only proven that notion time and time again with their excellent games.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we incapable of monitoring ozone levels before industrialization? We've only been able to observe this ozone hole in recent history, so there's no real way to know whether or not it existed 200 years ago. So, really, how can we say the ozone is restored to pre-industrial status if we don't know what that status is? How do we even know that we CAN repair the ozone hole? If it's a natural phenomenon, we're basically boned.
If you think science fiction is just about writing cool stories that work within the confines of what we know right now, you're missing the point of the genre.
Sci-fi is largely about letting loose the imaginative side of science and letting it run rampant for a while; many stories start off with a underlying "what if" question and then build a reality around that. Many also include a cautionary message (like Frankenstein, the novel that really got science fiction going) that serves to give science a reality check.
Science has always been an ever-changing thing, and focusing on "hard" science fiction is doing a disservice to that creative drive that has propelled science to heights never before imagined by humans.
Besides, giant robots are cool.
Bacteria: It's the only culture we've got left.
Yes, but if that were applied to every science paper ever released, a great deal of progress would have never occured. When you're in a discovery-oriented field, a lot of things are going to sound like bullshit but will be totally legitimate.
Evolution is by and large still misunderstood by the majority of people that do not have formal scientific education. It is in fact a failure of pre-college education to present it properly, and the ever-present misunderstandings that further confuse people.
I'm always curious to see what most people think evolution actually is. I see it confused with abiogenesis (life from non-life) very often, and I suspect that has a lot to do with why it is misunderstood.
Also, please note that the word "theory" is often used rather incorrectly and out-of-context; a scientific theory has quite a lot of evidence and logic behind it, but hasn't been tested as thoroughly as it could. Most people seem to use "theory" when they should be using "hypothesis."
Insightful.
:p
A breast comment was modded insightful.
I love this place.
I think, and mind you that I haven't been academically involved in science for almost a year now (just got back into the field recently), that the actual evolution of DNA is still the subject of much debate, so it's unclear as to just how it came about in the first place. I would imagine that's why it's not included in the "Top 10 Inventions" list.
It's also possible that people think DNA was just always around and so isn't exactly an invention, which is untrue as far as science knows, or at least that I recall. Someone correct me if I'm off the mark.
I thought the same thing when I saw this title. As far as I know, and I'm a biologist by training, we are very much still IN the era of genomics. In fact, it would be rather big news if we ever LEFT said era.
Yup, still got my genes.
"Oh god, it's everywhere. It's in my T-Rex wounds."
Pfft. All we need to do is a find a girl that knows how to use Unix.
Shit.
The information on the X chromosome consists mostly of "housekeeping" genes; the only one I remember offhand is an enzyme used in the Kreb's cycle.
The Y chromosome is almost entirely useless; the only gene found on the Y chromosome is TDF, Testes Determining Factor. As you know, female is the default sex in mammals; TDF activates partway through fetal development and tells the embryo to develop testes instead of ovaries.
I'm not sure about the Y chromosome being a mutant form of the X; AFAIK, the two are radically different and contain very little similar genetic information.
I go to college in Rochester (yay RIT), and I can verify that sentiment. Kodak recently had a huge bout of layoffs, and has been showing signs of trouble for quite some time now.
One of the unfortunate side effects has been in RIT's budget; since Kodak is one of our biggest contributors, their financial trouble has begun to impact us.
It is unfortunate, especially because the demise of Kodak will really deal a heavy blow to the already shitty Rochester economy.
So you prefer the endless crack-monkeyness of death match over a team-based gametype that requires some degree of coordination and teamwork? I also fail to see how a game is decided in 30 - 40 seconds; I've fought many a back-and-forth match of Onslaught.
By the way, the rocket launcher has been changed since UT2k3. The old rocket launcher (5 or 6 rockets, IIRC) was just pure crack and somewhat excessive. The Enforcer in UT was about as useful as the assault rifle in 2k3 and 2k4 is now.
Granted, you're entitled to your opinion, but as one UT fan to another, I'm having a hard time following your logic.
I play Warhammer (god help me), so I always use eBay to help me find cheap minis. One of my favorite tactics is to look for misspellings, as the people who misspell the various names often don't know exactly what they're selling.
It's interesting to see how many ways people can screw up Slaanesh and Tzeentch.
NyQuil and DayQuil? What do you call that, VoidQuill? Maybe ZenQuill?
So...*I* can't copy MY media that *I* legally purchased, but I CAN copy YOUR media that *I* did NOT legally purchase?
My head hurts just thinking about that.