I'm an ecologist. 2-4 hours sounds about right. It takes longer if they're using some fancy new statistic, or if it's not really my subfield, or if it's a particularly long and complex paper. Many papers get a 'reject' with much less time.
Now it is possible to change text inside the bounding text box and also use certain styles! For example select a word and press a “Bold” or “Italic” button. You can also change the size, line-height and font! Not just that – meanwhile it is also possible to change the color of certain words and characters.
This feature is absolutely great!
Acquisition of a trait (by whatever means) would never amount to a significant percentage of the gene pool of an organism unless it proffered some usefulness.
Though a popular view, that's not true. Assuming 'trait' means an independent mutation, then that trait can go to fixation in a population by simple chance (the expectation is that this happens to 1/2N mutations). Also, genes that are physically near each other on the genome tend to be passed as a set. Therefore, it is likely that a completely neutral, or even slightly disadvantageous mutation, that happens to be near an advantageous mutation (or a mutation that won the mating lottery and is heading toward fixation) will also be propagated throughout a population. There are other more esoteric reason why this could happen too, but a strictly adaptationist view of evolution was dropped in the 60s.
Evolution does not require selection. Genetic drift, purely stochastic changes in a population due to sampling when mating, is sufficient to cause changes in a population. More specifically, it is expected that 1/2N of the total mutations that arise in a population (where N is pop size) will randomly drift to fixation in a population. This means more mutations drift to fixation in smaller pops. It also means that reproductively isolated pops will drift apart, even if they have exactly equal selection.
Re:Heroin? What Kinda Book Reading Do You Do, JR?
on
Space Vulture
·
· Score: 1
The book reads like the cereal style stories it imitates.
I assumed he was dripping the the heroin on his cereal instead of smoking. Or maybe the book was emulating the exploits of Toucan Sam and his Loops of Froot? I'm baffled.
That's a great idea if you can find an apartment by your job, but that's not possible for the large number of people who live in the cities. Unlike cities, the suburbs have few cheap apartments (certainly not enough to go around), so you're likely to pay more for space you'd rather not have.
And suburbs require cars, whereas cities do not. Even if you're lucky enough to live right beside your work, you still have to buy groceries; chances are that you're not lucky enough to work at the grocery store. Especially not one that's right beside your church, the hardware store, and your friends house. And if you are, then you're probably not in the suburbs, but in a city.
You keep citing bits and pieces of your experiences from the 80's. I was a gay scout in the 90's and had few issues. It's currently 2008. Times are a changin'.
You keep mentioning how scouts will talk about sex and how that will preclude gay scouts from 'belonging'. But this really doesn't make any sense. First, gay scouts are perfectly able to appreciate their friend's (likely fabricated) straight sexual adventures and can regale them with their own (again, likely fabricated).
Second, why should the conversation be limited to only straight sexuality? It seems perfectly reasonable for a young adult or boy leader to mention that some guys like other guys. Remember, when most boys join scouts, they're just hitting puberty, and their sexuality is just beginning to develop. There's a pretty good chance that any given troop has a number of gay scouts who didn't know they were gay when they started. Honest healthy talk about sexuality will go a good way toward these kids growing up to become healthy adults. Protip: Unlike your repressed gay best man, healthy adults are those who don't need to 'confide' their sexuality in anyone.
Finally, the Scouts are full of misfits. Not all, but a good portion are there because they don't belong somewhere else. Even if a gay kid's sexuality made him feel different from the others, that's not such a big deal. They'll have plenty of other shared experiences that will bond them together.
From your other posts, it sounds like your experiences were tarnished by poor leadership that facilitated bullying (of both you and gay kid). That's neither your fault, or the gay kid's, though, that's the Scoutmaster's and the bullies' fault. It should be them disallowed in the organization.
In the off chance that this isn't a joke, you've just shown that you can get 1.353 Watts over four minutes, assuming 100% efficiency. I, for one, don't want to interrupt my book every four minutes to lift weights.
What does food cost there now? The lack of facts suggest that your argument is, in fact, baseless. Your offensiveness further suggests a desire to not be questioned, strengthening the assumption that your argument is baseless. Of course, actually backing up your argument and enlightening your audience is a lot more work than name calling.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it?
Not at all. It simply means that the action failed to do what it was meant to do. As any programmer will tell you, not working does not preclude the intention of the designer for it to work.
Your conclusions are incorrect from your assertions. You assert that intelligence is heritable. You also assert that reproduction rates are inversely proportional to intelligence. (I don't care to argue the truth of these).
However, you conclude "a decrease in the overall number of genes conferring intelligence". The correct conclusion is "a decrease in the ratio of genes conferring intelligence to the total number of genes". Which is to say that it is completely possible to end up with more intelligent people further down the line than we have today, while having an even larger number of unintelligent people.
The reproductive trend is irrelevant until we hit a limiting factor (food, space, oxygen, etc). If we hit a limiting factor, your conclusion assumes that both groups will be affected in identical proportions. However, it seems much more reasonable to assume that survivability will be biased toward the intelligent due to their ability to plan and store, to say nothing of them being previously successful and thus controlling resources.
Though wikipedia says it's from John Heywood's (1546) as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?". Of course they later say in the same article that the "original, correct version" is "eat your cake and have it too". It's almost like the article were written by a bunch of different people at different times.
The problem is that "hearty" does not fit well with the K type philosophy of reporduction (reproduce fast and wild, without a minimum expenditure of energy for any individual or offspring - short lives, lots of reproducing - example: a fly is K type, humans are not).
Hearty fits very well with K strategists. I think you mean r-type.
Although there are no longer states that proudly identify as fascist since WWII, the ideals are still alive and well. Original (Italian) Fascism's root is the ideal of Unity. This is achieved by states through nationalism, which easily morphs into authoritarianism. Also incorporated is corporatism where corporations control the government. In fascist Italy, this control was open -- many people now see a veiled control in the US via campaign financing and lobbying. (Wikipedia has more here and better)
My point being that when people talk about "Fascism" today (esp. in labeling the US) they mean exactly what people meant 60 years ago. Only now, some of those same people rely on their audience to (fallaciously) conflate fascism with the Axis powers in order to obliquely call the US Nazis.
To refine the analogy further: there is not simply one person on the tracks, but many, and they are living happily and productively there. People not on the tracks may warn them that the train is coming and that they will die; this is admirable. However, we must consider why the sadistic train conductor does not apply the breaks, why the people warning the track-dwellers are smug when the train comes, and why the warners continue to see the train conductor as as anything other than evil.
The other way elements are produced in stars is the addition of neutrons to already existing atoms, hence increasing their atomic mass and producing a different element.
Do you mean protons, or are you meaning to say isotopes instead of elements?
IIRC, the energy required to do this is high and exists only in stars.
Neutron absorption occurs in fusion reactors (and is the reason that fusion reactors are still radioactive). Proton absoption occurs in fusion reactors too -- H ions are simply protons when they fuse.
Those numbers are how many immigrants are currently here, not how many are entering each year. That number only shrinks if lots of people decide to leave, not simply not enter.
As such, you will find it quite impossible to read by moonlight, as reading requires your cones to distinguish very fine edges and your cones are inactive in nigh-light. (regardless of how bright the moon is.)
I had read this recently and decided to try it during the next full moon. (I live in a rural area with little to no light pollution). As it turns out, my friends and I were able to easily read the nutrition and ingredients info from a soda bottle. My conclusion is that, although it is more difficult, on a clear night, the moon is sufficiently bright to read by.
There is even a theory that some women posses a gene (that can only be carried on a second x chromosome) that produces a fourth type of cone. These cones are tuned to detect light in between the wavelengths of the L and M cones, giving these women the ability to distinguish between colors that a tri-chromatic individual would see as identicle. These women are ingeniously deemed "Tetrochromatic superwomen".
Red and green detection genes are on the X chromosome, and a number of alleles exist (few for Blue). People with red/green color-blindness most often are missing one of the genes completely, though possibly have two copies of the same gene (therefore red/green color-blind people may see red and green as 'red' or 'green', depending). Some people, though, have two distinct genes that detect 'red' at an abnormally high wavelength and 'green' at an abnormally low wavelength. If they are a woman, then their other X probably has normal genes, and they end up being able to tell you that those two yellows simply don't match. Guys who have it probably don't know they're not normal red/green color-blind.
By limiting the number of pages of a book I can view, Google is providing me information under fair use (their assertion). Distributing the entire book (which they do not do), would be illegal. The groups bringing the suit, though, are saying that several highly relevent pages from the book is too much for it to be fair use.
While reading your comment, I was wondering if you were French, and then read that you were. I am not surprised that you have met people in the US who want to talk to you about Christ.
I grew up in a conservative Christian church and remember hearing missionaries who had just returned from Europe. The missionaries were talking to a child audience (of which I was a part) and were emphasizing how sad it was that the French people didn't know Jesus. This was probably 15 years ago, but the view that all Europeans are atheists and therefore need to be saved is still pervasive. For a number of reasons (mostly because of your strong separation between religion and politics) this goes double for the French, and so it the likelihood of someone trying to 'save' you increases exponentially.
I just wanted to let you know that it's not so much that they're crazy, but believe they are trying to help you, albeit in a misled and somewhat offensive way.
Oftentimes (about half), when the ACLU takes a case, the plaintiff agrees to no damages and have only legal fees awarded. To the best of my knowledge (and I have worked with the WVCLU for several years), they always ask for legal fees, which are almost always awarded before damages. Since this is damages, the ACLU will likely not take a cut, but will have also collected legal fees beyond the $117k. However, I do not trust the article to have accurately reflected the differences and to not have simply lumped both sums together.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an ecologist. 2-4 hours sounds about right. It takes longer if they're using some fancy new statistic, or if it's not really my subfield, or if it's a particularly long and complex paper. Many papers get a 'reject' with much less time.
Yes, people enter guilty pleas all the time.
Bold, italic, and colors!? Is this a joke?
Acquisition of a trait (by whatever means) would never amount to a significant percentage of the gene pool of an organism unless it proffered some usefulness.
Though a popular view, that's not true. Assuming 'trait' means an independent mutation, then that trait can go to fixation in a population by simple chance (the expectation is that this happens to 1/2N mutations). Also, genes that are physically near each other on the genome tend to be passed as a set. Therefore, it is likely that a completely neutral, or even slightly disadvantageous mutation, that happens to be near an advantageous mutation (or a mutation that won the mating lottery and is heading toward fixation) will also be propagated throughout a population. There are other more esoteric reason why this could happen too, but a strictly adaptationist view of evolution was dropped in the 60s.
Evolution does not require selection. Genetic drift, purely stochastic changes in a population due to sampling when mating, is sufficient to cause changes in a population. More specifically, it is expected that 1/2N of the total mutations that arise in a population (where N is pop size) will randomly drift to fixation in a population. This means more mutations drift to fixation in smaller pops. It also means that reproductively isolated pops will drift apart, even if they have exactly equal selection.
The book reads like the cereal style stories it imitates.
I assumed he was dripping the the heroin on his cereal instead of smoking. Or maybe the book was emulating the exploits of Toucan Sam and his Loops of Froot? I'm baffled.
but i just think there's a time and place for things like that
When is that time and place? In a special free speech zone?
That's a great idea if you can find an apartment by your job, but that's not possible for the large number of people who live in the cities. Unlike cities, the suburbs have few cheap apartments (certainly not enough to go around), so you're likely to pay more for space you'd rather not have. And suburbs require cars, whereas cities do not. Even if you're lucky enough to live right beside your work, you still have to buy groceries; chances are that you're not lucky enough to work at the grocery store. Especially not one that's right beside your church, the hardware store, and your friends house. And if you are, then you're probably not in the suburbs, but in a city.
You keep citing bits and pieces of your experiences from the 80's. I was a gay scout in the 90's and had few issues. It's currently 2008. Times are a changin'.
You keep mentioning how scouts will talk about sex and how that will preclude gay scouts from 'belonging'. But this really doesn't make any sense. First, gay scouts are perfectly able to appreciate their friend's (likely fabricated) straight sexual adventures and can regale them with their own (again, likely fabricated).
Second, why should the conversation be limited to only straight sexuality? It seems perfectly reasonable for a young adult or boy leader to mention that some guys like other guys. Remember, when most boys join scouts, they're just hitting puberty, and their sexuality is just beginning to develop. There's a pretty good chance that any given troop has a number of gay scouts who didn't know they were gay when they started. Honest healthy talk about sexuality will go a good way toward these kids growing up to become healthy adults. Protip: Unlike your repressed gay best man, healthy adults are those who don't need to 'confide' their sexuality in anyone.
Finally, the Scouts are full of misfits. Not all, but a good portion are there because they don't belong somewhere else. Even if a gay kid's sexuality made him feel different from the others, that's not such a big deal. They'll have plenty of other shared experiences that will bond them together.
From your other posts, it sounds like your experiences were tarnished by poor leadership that facilitated bullying (of both you and gay kid). That's neither your fault, or the gay kid's, though, that's the Scoutmaster's and the bullies' fault. It should be them disallowed in the organization.
In the off chance that this isn't a joke, you've just shown that you can get 1.353 Watts over four minutes, assuming 100% efficiency. I, for one, don't want to interrupt my book every four minutes to lift weights.
What does food cost there now? The lack of facts suggest that your argument is, in fact, baseless. Your offensiveness further suggests a desire to not be questioned, strengthening the assumption that your argument is baseless. Of course, actually backing up your argument and enlightening your audience is a lot more work than name calling.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it?
Not at all. It simply means that the action failed to do what it was meant to do. As any programmer will tell you, not working does not preclude the intention of the designer for it to work.
Your conclusions are incorrect from your assertions. You assert that intelligence is heritable. You also assert that reproduction rates are inversely proportional to intelligence. (I don't care to argue the truth of these).
However, you conclude "a decrease in the overall number of genes conferring intelligence". The correct conclusion is "a decrease in the ratio of genes conferring intelligence to the total number of genes". Which is to say that it is completely possible to end up with more intelligent people further down the line than we have today, while having an even larger number of unintelligent people.
The reproductive trend is irrelevant until we hit a limiting factor (food, space, oxygen, etc). If we hit a limiting factor, your conclusion assumes that both groups will be affected in identical proportions. However, it seems much more reasonable to assume that survivability will be biased toward the intelligent due to their ability to plan and store, to say nothing of them being previously successful and thus controlling resources.
Though wikipedia says it's from John Heywood's (1546) as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?". Of course they later say in the same article that the "original, correct version" is "eat your cake and have it too". It's almost like the article were written by a bunch of different people at different times.
Hearty fits very well with K strategists. I think you mean r-type.
Although there are no longer states that proudly identify as fascist since WWII, the ideals are still alive and well. Original (Italian) Fascism's root is the ideal of Unity. This is achieved by states through nationalism, which easily morphs into authoritarianism. Also incorporated is corporatism where corporations control the government. In fascist Italy, this control was open -- many people now see a veiled control in the US via campaign financing and lobbying. (Wikipedia has more here and better)
My point being that when people talk about "Fascism" today (esp. in labeling the US) they mean exactly what people meant 60 years ago. Only now, some of those same people rely on their audience to (fallaciously) conflate fascism with the Axis powers in order to obliquely call the US Nazis.
With the help of lots of cocaine?
To refine the analogy further: there is not simply one person on the tracks, but many, and they are living happily and productively there. People not on the tracks may warn them that the train is coming and that they will die; this is admirable. However, we must consider why the sadistic train conductor does not apply the breaks, why the people warning the track-dwellers are smug when the train comes, and why the warners continue to see the train conductor as as anything other than evil.
The other way elements are produced in stars is the addition of neutrons to already existing atoms, hence increasing their atomic mass and producing a different element.
Do you mean protons, or are you meaning to say isotopes instead of elements?
IIRC, the energy required to do this is high and exists only in stars.
Neutron absorption occurs in fusion reactors (and is the reason that fusion reactors are still radioactive). Proton absoption occurs in fusion reactors too -- H ions are simply protons when they fuse.
Those numbers are how many immigrants are currently here, not how many are entering each year. That number only shrinks if lots of people decide to leave, not simply not enter.
i on_US_2006.pdf
A report from Homeland Security shows a different story:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS13_immigrat
If something seems fishy I will cite a earlier version of the same article.
Thus easily allowing you to choose which 'facts' you want to include.
As such, you will find it quite impossible to read by moonlight, as reading requires your cones to distinguish very fine edges and your cones are inactive in nigh-light. (regardless of how bright the moon is.)
I had read this recently and decided to try it during the next full moon. (I live in a rural area with little to no light pollution). As it turns out, my friends and I were able to easily read the nutrition and ingredients info from a soda bottle. My conclusion is that, although it is more difficult, on a clear night, the moon is sufficiently bright to read by.
There is even a theory that some women posses a gene (that can only be carried on a second x chromosome) that produces a fourth type of cone. These cones are tuned to detect light in between the wavelengths of the L and M cones, giving these women the ability to distinguish between colors that a tri-chromatic individual would see as identicle. These women are ingeniously deemed "Tetrochromatic superwomen".
Red and green detection genes are on the X chromosome, and a number of alleles exist (few for Blue). People with red/green color-blindness most often are missing one of the genes completely, though possibly have two copies of the same gene (therefore red/green color-blind people may see red and green as 'red' or 'green', depending). Some people, though, have two distinct genes that detect 'red' at an abnormally high wavelength and 'green' at an abnormally low wavelength. If they are a woman, then their other X probably has normal genes, and they end up being able to tell you that those two yellows simply don't match. Guys who have it probably don't know they're not normal red/green color-blind.
By limiting the number of pages of a book I can view, Google is providing me information under fair use (their assertion). Distributing the entire book (which they do not do), would be illegal. The groups bringing the suit, though, are saying that several highly relevent pages from the book is too much for it to be fair use.
While reading your comment, I was wondering if you were French, and then read that you were. I am not surprised that you have met people in the US who want to talk to you about Christ.
I grew up in a conservative Christian church and remember hearing missionaries who had just returned from Europe. The missionaries were talking to a child audience (of which I was a part) and were emphasizing how sad it was that the French people didn't know Jesus. This was probably 15 years ago, but the view that all Europeans are atheists and therefore need to be saved is still pervasive. For a number of reasons (mostly because of your strong separation between religion and politics) this goes double for the French, and so it the likelihood of someone trying to 'save' you increases exponentially.
I just wanted to let you know that it's not so much that they're crazy, but believe they are trying to help you, albeit in a misled and somewhat offensive way.
Oftentimes (about half), when the ACLU takes a case, the plaintiff agrees to no damages and have only legal fees awarded. To the best of my knowledge (and I have worked with the WVCLU for several years), they always ask for legal fees, which are almost always awarded before damages. Since this is damages, the ACLU will likely not take a cut, but will have also collected legal fees beyond the $117k. However, I do not trust the article to have accurately reflected the differences and to not have simply lumped both sums together.