Look, if you truly believe the literal understanding of Genesis, then you don't think its figurative or symbolic. That's what literal means. It means "not figurative or symbolic".
Yeah, but even "fundamental" Christians don't take all of the bible literary. They simply chose to ignore big paths that are incompatible with modern life. If they didn't they would have to kill their friends if they worshipped false gods (ie, had a different religion), and do all kinds of crazy stuff.
Unfortunately, there is no correpsonding tradition in Islam to ignore big parts of the Koran. That is why we have all these people that think killing a bunch of infidels is the best way to go to heaven.
Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.
I beg to differ. There are many different kinds of intelligence, but, as it turns out, they are rather strongly correlated. People that are good with mental rotation puzzles have on average better results on everything from memorizing numbers to writing persuasive essays. If we accept this extremely well documented phenomenon then it becomes interesting to measure this average cognitive ability, as it will help us predict performance on almost anything that involves thinking. We call such a test an IQ test.
And indeed, IQ tests on army recruits is a good predictor of career success (for any postion), SAT scores (which correlate strongly with IQ) is a good predictor of success for college students of any major, and IQ predicts future salary of MBA students.
Of course, we all know exceptions of smart people who do poorly for some reason or the other, but that does not disprove the general trend, and it certainly does not make IQ tests meaningless.
hence why customers are broadly happy with iTunes - it's FAIR!
I don't think it is that fair, it is incredible that the record companies get as big a share of the cake as they do, now that they are not handling the distribution any more.
With the great savings that come from electronic distribution I was hoping for substantial reductions in price for consumers, increased royalties for the artists, and diminished significance/compensation for the record companies. So far this hasn't happened.
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
I agree completely. It is not the lawmakers' job to figure out how cars should be engineered to reduce emissions. Just tax the fuel and the market will figure out which technologies are most cost-effective.
Unfortunately, this principle is hard to sell to the general public. Rules and regulations mandating certain technologies, particular mixes of produced vehicles (e.g., an automaker has to make at least X percent vehicles that emit less than Y), seem much more appealing than more expensive gas. In reality, of course, just taxing the gas is a *much* more economic way of reaching the same reduciton of emissions, as the lawmakers have no clue what technologies will work well in the future, and the automakers set their engineers to figure out how to wriggle around the laws at the lowest costs instead of how they can reduce emissions at the lowest costs.
And herein lies the biggest problem with Brain's attempt to be a Biblical critic: he's not qualified. Authoring How Stuff Works does not give you the required background to make informed comments on the historical and literary context and interpretation of ancient documents.
The Bible is completely underconstrained. Anybody can (and does) read anything into it.
Brain cites a passages that says: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.". If I read this passage, and I am the first to admit to not having any special qualifications beyond the English language, I certainly would interpret it as Brain does, that he who prays gets what he wants. If I do, you pious people will be quick to come back and say that I mustn't interpret it literary, or that I didn't interpret it literary enough, or in order for me to understand it I must study ancient history or Assyrian linguistics.
Fine. So I am not qualified to read the Bible - what I read doesn't mean what it seems to mean. The great book can never be criticized, because only those who believe understand it. But how about this: how about, you supernaturalists translate your favored holy books into plain, literal English, so that whenever I read a sentence, it means exactly what I think it means. Not interested? Didn't think so. Because then there would be no excuses when I point out the rubbish and the contradictions.
The belief that prayer has beneficial medical effects is a widlely-held hypothesis that can be tested.
The results of such a test could improve treatment and life in general. Therefore, it's a worthwhile pursuit.
That *you* think it's silly doesn't change anything. Much sillier theories have been put to the test -- and gotten unexpected results.
I agree that there is, scientifically, nothing wrong with testing silly hypotheses. And as you say, occasionally, you get unexpected results.
However, we live in a world with very finite resources. I am disappointed that institutions such as Columbia University chooses to put their money on this kind of thing (it was a big study, and probably expensive). Don't they have more relevant research projects to fund? And the fact that the belief is widely held doesn't really change anything in my mind, that argument could be used to start research projects on astrology and TV psychics as well.
As George Lucas climbs into his reproduction ATAT and shouts out the order to charge, "Yousa People Gonna Die! Dangah Ewoks" will be the last words YOU'LL EVER HEAR.
I, for one, welcome our Gungan overlords. I want to remind Them, that as a frequent moderator with excellent Karma, I can influence the Slashdot minions so as to better server Their purposes.
Often people would take the words "not obvious" to mean "hard". But this is a mistake. For example, the term "non-increasing sequence" does not mean a decreasing sequence. It means a non-increasing sequence. Similarly, the term nonobvious simply means something not obvious, and doesn't mean it's necessarily very hard.
I am sure you are right that "not obvious" is what the law means, but I think "hard" is the way it ought to be. In order to get a monopoly on something for 17+ years, it seems to me like your invention should be so clever that probably nobody would have thought about it for 17+ years had you not done it. If several others would have thought about it within a year or two, why should you have the sole right for 17+ years?
Obviously (no pun intended), it is difficult to speculate how long time it would take for the invention to be realized by somebody else, but I still think it would be a useful principle for patent examinors to keep in mind. Clearly many of these ecommerce patents fall far short of this criterion, as is very clear when several people start doing the same thing independently and then comes someone out of nowhere and claims patent rights from two years ago.
So the reason that the Street wants these updates is that it will decrease the volatility; if you don't do this the stock will jump around a lot just after every quarterly report. There is nothing conspiratory about that, it is just a fact of life that if you learn a lot about some asset at one time, then your evaluation of that asset may change a lot at that point.
I don't see a great deal of evil or harm in the reporting itself. The problem (some would say evil) arises if the company becomes very closely managed to the quarterly results. If this happens mid level management starts micromanaging things to make the quarterly reports look better (for example, shifting inventory and sales around to make it look better on the day of reporting). Invariably these actions are shortsighted and in the long run destructive.
If senior management is strong maybe they could start with these reports but make it very clear(in words and actions), that they do not reward, and indeed do not accept, short-sighted behaviors to trim the quarterly report. I think that could be good for the shareholders without violating the "do no evil" ideal. There is nothing evil about simply telling the world how you are doing.
Birthrates are indeed a problem. You need about 2.1 baby per women to sustain the current population. Currently a few countries cant even match 1, and most european countries have an average of around 1.5.
It is not so clear to me why this is a "problem". Would it be so bad if the human population shrunk a bit before finding a long term equilibrium? Of course this would be against the traditional economic model of each generation being a chunk bigger than the last, and supporting it when it got old. It should have been clear to everyone that model would never last.
It would seem that jumping headlong into Nuclear energy will get us into BIG problems with Nuclear waste. Where would we put it? I mean yes we can burry it down a mine shaft and guard it 24/7, but eventually we would need to create more and more spaces to put that shit, and it doesn't NOT go away anytime soon (can anyone say 10,000 years?).
All of what you write is true. But this troubles are insignificant compared to global warming.
The gist of the article points to an industry smugly patting itself on the back (and possibly massaging other body parts) in glee now that they've "solved" the problem with previous e-book introductions and their failings. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), they're wrong.
The industry has a lot to lose on ebooks. Consider the day when most people have ebooks. Suppose you are an author. What do you need the publisher for? Why not sell your stuff thru some independent online distributor who charges pennies on the dollar?
This situtation is similar to the music industry, except worse (for the book publishers). Music artists actually need the producers a little bit in terms of studio time and promotions - for authors there isn't event that.
Can you really think of something if you don't have the words to describe it?
Chimps can solve various problems and puzzles (stack boxes and use a stick to reach the banana), develop and use simple tools; they have some rudimentary sense of numbers, and a simple "theory of mind" (that is, they keep track of what other chimps know or observe). Since they also have no words, it would seem like the answer to your questions is "yes".
...more than anything like Merril Lynch is trying to get people to dump Sony stock so they can buy it up, then make a killing if the PS3 matches their REAL expectations. Or maybe I have my tinfoil hat wrapped a little tightly?
If you really believed this you would have put your money where your mouth is and bought Sony stock; not put a post on Slashdot.
Non-newtonian only means that a liquid can change volume under pressure to some extent. That is all. Common examples of non-newtonian liquids are blood and paint.
This material has a very unusual hardening property. Possibly it is a non-newtonian liquid, but if it is, then that is not what is remarkable about it.
The little ones go online for some good, innocent shooting, maiming and killing each and they encounter... foul language. Surely this will be the end of Western civilization.
Exactly. We believe that tiny changes occur every once in a while, and that those changes could influence the survivability of an animal and increase the likeliness that the trait would survive in its offspring, and that over a couple million years, that would happen many, many, many, many, many, many times, we just don't believe any of those changes could possibly produce sexual incompatibility. That would be crazy.
In this particular case, among toads at the vanguard, clearly it is beneficial to be long legged. Long legs are selected for. Possibly (this is speculation to illustrate a concept), for the toads at the rear (where there are many toads and fierce competition for food) it will be more valuable to, say, have better food economy, and thus smaller legs and body.
If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that only the fastest vanguard toads and the most food-efficent rear toads have plenty of offspring, it would then very much be in the long-legged toads' interest to reproduce with long-legs and for the short-legs to reproduce with short legs, so as to spawn successful specialists and not a mediocre hybrids.
Is it so crazy to think that such discrimination can evolve? Does a gene for "mate with toad with long legs" really need to be much more complex than a gene "make longer legs"? It could be some other mechanism than sexual preference also; it can be any other sort of behavioral or mating difference that predisposes the toads to mate with their own kind.
Actual incompatibility in terms of *inability* to spawn fertile offspring may not come until much later. At the point when different subpopulations don't typically mate anyway it doesn't really matter much from an evolutionary perspective if they are physically capable or not (note for example horses and donkeys, which do get offspring, once in a great while even fertile offspring). The actual inability can come after a long time, when the (already) reproductively isolated populations have accumulated a lot of different mutations.
Of course this was just a simplified story, but there is empirical evidence as well. In last week's issue of Nature (or was it Science?), they identified two fish species in the same isolated lake, mapped their DNA, and traced them to a single ancestor ten thousand years ago or so.
Wouldn't those in the vanguard have longer legs because those with longer legs put them in the vanguard?
Yes, this brings up a good point. THere are basically two underlying, not necessarily exlusive evolutionary explanations:
1. The first toads had some variation in leg length. Now only the ones with long legs are found at the vanguard.
2.Some time since they were introduced, mutation(s) have occured given longer legs. These traits have then been strongly selected for.
Clearly 1. is part of the explanation, that is self-evident. The question is then if new mutations have been involved as well. I just read the Nature paper, and it does present some evidence that 2. is at least partially at work. In particular, the "toad front" has accelerated a lot; in the 50s and 60s it moved at some 10km's per year, now it moves at 50km per year. If 1. Also, when they looked at some old specimens in vats they had much shorter legs than the modern toads near the front.
Bad people do bad things. It doesn't matter if they're Muslim, American or Buddist.
When was the last time you saw a Buddist riot/killing spree/suicide bombers/ holy war? It is not like they never had an opportunity, remember when the Taleban destroyed those ancient holy statues?
Of course there are some bad apples anywhere, but sorry for being so extremely policitally incorrect, but some religions are simply much more conducive to violence than others.
I wonder what's going on here? It sounds too much like the "spontaneous demonstrations" that have been happening the last several days. Someone is playing a calculated game here, and it's not only unclear what they're up and who's the prime mover; it's not clear which "side" is stirring the pot
This is most apparent in the case of the destroyed Scandinavian embassies in Syria. Syria is a police state - the authorities just don't allow embassies to burn unless they want them to. The French embassy wasn't attacked - clearly too powerful and important country to piss off.
On the other hand, it is difficult to play a calculated game without suitable Chess pieces.
This could be a win-win situation. NASA has an opening for a job to be filled by a Republican crony. Michael Brown is unemployed. Looks like a natural fit! Give that man a call!
No, Mr Brown started working as a consultant in catastrophy management. But hey, here is a thought, maybe Mr Deutsch could get a job as astrophysicist or science communicator.
The best pilot in the world still blacks out at about 9G.
But modern air combat isn't about who can pull the most G's, it is about who has the longest range missiles.
So while I disagree with your argument I agree with your conclusion - that drones could do well against humans. You can put long range sensors and missiles on a drone, and it will do almost as well as a human. Also the drones are less expensive so you can afford several of them for the price for one F22. Not to mention no political crisis if the pilot gets shot down and captured.
For the record, not all religious people ignore empirical evidence. The Bush administration is NOT the thinking Christian's wet dream
No, they don't. I think the most useful classification of religious folks came from Dawkins, who characterized thus:
The know-alls, who ignore empirical evidence, and see scripture as the only valid source of information.
The know-nothings, who accept empirical evidence, but maintain that when evidence is lacking, any belief is equally valid. This group is in constant retreat, as science disproves traditional religious beliefs one after another. They are also challenged to motivate why they hold strong beliefs in certain fantastical propositions (i.e., those made by their own religion), but not in others (i.e., those made by other religions), with similar levels evidence (i.e. ancient eyewitness accounts).
And finally, the no-contests, who have accepted that religion is baloney, but feel that it would be too socially disruptive to make this claim in public. Dan Brown's protagonist would probably fall into this bucket.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, if you truly believe the literal understanding of Genesis, then you don't think its figurative or symbolic. That's what literal means. It means "not figurative or symbolic".
Yeah, but even "fundamental" Christians don't take all of the bible literary. They simply chose to ignore big paths that are incompatible with modern life. If they didn't they would have to kill their friends if they worshipped false gods (ie, had a different religion), and do all kinds of crazy stuff.
Unfortunately, there is no correpsonding tradition in Islam to ignore big parts of the Koran. That is why we have all these people that think killing a bunch of infidels is the best way to go to heaven.
Tor
Also, there are so many different kinds of intelligence that an IQ test is pretty much meaningless.
I beg to differ. There are many different kinds of intelligence, but, as it turns out, they are rather strongly correlated. People that are good with mental rotation puzzles have on average better results on everything from memorizing numbers to writing persuasive essays. If we accept this extremely well documented phenomenon then it becomes interesting to measure this average cognitive ability, as it will help us predict performance on almost anything that involves thinking. We call such a test an IQ test.
And indeed, IQ tests on army recruits is a good predictor of career success (for any postion), SAT scores (which correlate strongly with IQ) is a good predictor of success for college students of any major, and IQ predicts future salary of MBA students.
Of course, we all know exceptions of smart people who do poorly for some reason or the other, but that does not disprove the general trend, and it certainly does not make IQ tests meaningless.
Tor
hence why customers are broadly happy with iTunes - it's FAIR!
I don't think it is that fair, it is incredible that the record companies get as big a share of the cake as they do, now that they are not handling the distribution any more.
With the great savings that come from electronic distribution I was hoping for substantial reductions in price for consumers, increased royalties for the artists, and diminished significance/compensation for the record companies. So far this hasn't happened.
Tor
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
I agree completely. It is not the lawmakers' job to figure out how cars should be engineered to reduce emissions. Just tax the fuel and the market will figure out which technologies are most cost-effective.
Unfortunately, this principle is hard to sell to the general public. Rules and regulations mandating certain technologies, particular mixes of produced vehicles (e.g., an automaker has to make at least X percent vehicles that emit less than Y), seem much more appealing than more expensive gas. In reality, of course, just taxing the gas is a *much* more economic way of reaching the same reduciton of emissions, as the lawmakers have no clue what technologies will work well in the future, and the automakers set their engineers to figure out how to wriggle around the laws at the lowest costs instead of how they can reduce emissions at the lowest costs.
Tor
And herein lies the biggest problem with Brain's attempt to be a Biblical critic: he's not qualified. Authoring How Stuff Works does not give you the required background to make informed comments on the historical and literary context and interpretation of ancient documents.
The Bible is completely underconstrained. Anybody can (and does) read anything into it.
Brain cites a passages that says: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.". If I read this passage, and I am the first to admit to not having any special qualifications beyond the English language, I certainly would interpret it as Brain does, that he who prays gets what he wants. If I do, you pious people will be quick to come back and say that I mustn't interpret it literary, or that I didn't interpret it literary enough, or in order for me to understand it I must study ancient history or Assyrian linguistics.
Fine. So I am not qualified to read the Bible - what I read doesn't mean what it seems to mean. The great book can never be criticized, because only those who believe understand it. But how about this: how about, you supernaturalists translate your favored holy books into plain, literal English, so that whenever I read a sentence, it means exactly what I think it means. Not interested? Didn't think so. Because then there would be no excuses when I point out the rubbish and the contradictions.
Tor
Science's task is to test hypotheses.
The belief that prayer has beneficial medical effects is a widlely-held hypothesis that can be tested.
The results of such a test could improve treatment and life in general. Therefore, it's a worthwhile pursuit.
That *you* think it's silly doesn't change anything. Much sillier theories have been put to the test -- and gotten unexpected results.
I agree that there is, scientifically, nothing wrong with testing silly hypotheses. And as you say, occasionally, you get unexpected results.
However, we live in a world with very finite resources. I am disappointed that institutions such as Columbia University chooses to put their money on this kind of thing (it was a big study, and probably expensive). Don't they have more relevant research projects to fund? And the fact that the belief is widely held doesn't really change anything in my mind, that argument could be used to start research projects on astrology and TV psychics as well.
Tor
As George Lucas climbs into his reproduction ATAT and shouts out the order to charge, "Yousa People Gonna Die! Dangah Ewoks" will be the last words YOU'LL EVER HEAR.
I, for one, welcome our Gungan overlords. I want to remind Them, that as a frequent moderator with excellent Karma, I can influence the Slashdot minions so as to better server Their purposes.
Tor
Often people would take the words "not obvious" to mean "hard". But this is a mistake. For example, the term "non-increasing sequence" does not mean a decreasing sequence. It means a non-increasing sequence. Similarly, the term nonobvious simply means something not obvious, and doesn't mean it's necessarily very hard.
I am sure you are right that "not obvious" is what the law means, but I think "hard" is the way it ought to be. In order to get a monopoly on something for 17+ years, it seems to me like your invention should be so clever that probably nobody would have thought about it for 17+ years had you not done it. If several others would have thought about it within a year or two, why should you have the sole right for 17+ years?
Obviously (no pun intended), it is difficult to speculate how long time it would take for the invention to be realized by somebody else, but I still think it would be a useful principle for patent examinors to keep in mind. Clearly many of these ecommerce patents fall far short of this criterion, as is very clear when several people start doing the same thing independently and then comes someone out of nowhere and claims patent rights from two years ago.
Tor
So the reason that the Street wants these updates is that it will decrease the volatility; if you don't do this the stock will jump around a lot just after every quarterly report. There is nothing conspiratory about that, it is just a fact of life that if you learn a lot about some asset at one time, then your evaluation of that asset may change a lot at that point.
I don't see a great deal of evil or harm in the reporting itself. The problem (some would say evil) arises if the company becomes very closely managed to the quarterly results. If this happens mid level management starts micromanaging things to make the quarterly reports look better (for example, shifting inventory and sales around to make it look better on the day of reporting). Invariably these actions are shortsighted and in the long run destructive.
If senior management is strong maybe they could start with these reports but make it very clear(in words and actions), that they do not reward, and indeed do not accept, short-sighted behaviors to trim the quarterly report. I think that could be good for the shareholders without violating the "do no evil" ideal. There is nothing evil about simply telling the world how you are doing.
Tor
Birthrates are indeed a problem. You need about 2.1 baby per women to sustain the current population. Currently a few countries cant even match 1, and most european countries have an average of around 1.5.
It is not so clear to me why this is a "problem". Would it be so bad if the human population shrunk a bit before finding a long term equilibrium? Of course this would be against the traditional economic model of each generation being a chunk bigger than the last, and supporting it when it got old. It should have been clear to everyone that model would never last.
Tor
Or glow-in-the-dark people?
We prefer to be called opaqueness-challenged you insensitive clod.
Tor
It would seem that jumping headlong into Nuclear energy will get us into BIG problems with Nuclear waste. Where would we put it? I mean yes we can burry it down a mine shaft and guard it 24/7, but eventually we would need to create more and more spaces to put that shit, and it doesn't NOT go away anytime soon (can anyone say 10,000 years?).
All of what you write is true. But this troubles are insignificant compared to global warming.
Tor
The gist of the article points to an industry smugly patting itself on the back (and possibly massaging other body parts) in glee now that they've "solved" the problem with previous e-book introductions and their failings. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), they're wrong.
The industry has a lot to lose on ebooks. Consider the day when most people have ebooks. Suppose you are an author. What do you need the publisher for? Why not sell your stuff thru some independent online distributor who charges pennies on the dollar?
This situtation is similar to the music industry, except worse (for the book publishers). Music artists actually need the producers a little bit in terms of studio time and promotions - for authors there isn't event that.
Tor
Can you really think of something if you don't have the words to describe it?
Chimps can solve various problems and puzzles (stack boxes and use a stick to reach the banana), develop and use simple tools; they have some rudimentary sense of numbers, and a simple "theory of mind" (that is, they keep track of what other chimps know or observe). Since they also have no words, it would seem like the answer to your questions is "yes".
Tor
...more than anything like Merril Lynch is trying to get people to dump Sony stock so they can buy it up, then make a killing if the PS3 matches their REAL expectations. Or maybe I have my tinfoil hat wrapped a little tightly?
If you really believed this you would have put your money where your mouth is and bought Sony stock; not put a post on Slashdot.
Tor
Non-newtonian only means that a liquid can change volume under pressure to some extent. That is all. Common examples of non-newtonian liquids are blood and paint.
This material has a very unusual hardening property. Possibly it is a non-newtonian liquid, but if it is, then that is not what is remarkable about it.
Tor
The little ones go online for some good, innocent shooting, maiming and killing each and they encounter... foul language. Surely this will be the end of Western civilization.
Tor
Exactly. We believe that tiny changes occur every once in a while, and that those changes could influence the survivability of an animal and increase the likeliness that the trait would survive in its offspring, and that over a couple million years, that would happen many, many, many, many, many, many times, we just don't believe any of those changes could possibly produce sexual incompatibility. That would be crazy.
In this particular case, among toads at the vanguard, clearly it is beneficial to be long legged. Long legs are selected for. Possibly (this is speculation to illustrate a concept), for the toads at the rear (where there are many toads and fierce competition for food) it will be more valuable to, say, have better food economy, and thus smaller legs and body.
If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that only the fastest vanguard toads and the most food-efficent rear toads have plenty of offspring, it would then very much be in the long-legged toads' interest to reproduce with long-legs and for the short-legs to reproduce with short legs, so as to spawn successful specialists and not a mediocre hybrids.
Is it so crazy to think that such discrimination can evolve? Does a gene for "mate with toad with long legs" really need to be much more complex than a gene "make longer legs"? It could be some other mechanism than sexual preference also; it can be any other sort of behavioral or mating difference that predisposes the toads to mate with their own kind.
Actual incompatibility in terms of *inability* to spawn fertile offspring may not come until much later. At the point when different subpopulations don't typically mate anyway it doesn't really matter much from an evolutionary perspective if they are physically capable or not (note for example horses and donkeys, which do get offspring, once in a great while even fertile offspring). The actual inability can come after a long time, when the (already) reproductively isolated populations have accumulated a lot of different mutations.
Of course this was just a simplified story, but there is empirical evidence as well. In last week's issue of Nature (or was it Science?), they identified two fish species in the same isolated lake, mapped their DNA, and traced them to a single ancestor ten thousand years ago or so.
Tor
Wouldn't those in the vanguard have longer legs because those with longer legs put them in the vanguard?
Yes, this brings up a good point. THere are basically two underlying, not necessarily exlusive evolutionary explanations:
1. The first toads had some variation in leg length. Now only the ones with long legs are found at the vanguard.
2.Some time since they were introduced, mutation(s) have occured given longer legs. These traits have then been strongly selected for.
Clearly 1. is part of the explanation, that is self-evident. The question is then if new mutations have been involved as well. I just read the Nature paper, and it does present some evidence that 2. is at least partially at work. In particular, the "toad front" has accelerated a lot; in the 50s and 60s it moved at some 10km's per year, now it moves at 50km per year. If 1. Also, when they looked at some old specimens in vats they had much shorter legs than the modern toads near the front.
Tor
Bad people do bad things. It doesn't matter if they're Muslim, American or Buddist.
When was the last time you saw a Buddist riot/killing spree/suicide bombers/ holy war? It is not like they never had an opportunity, remember when the Taleban destroyed those ancient holy statues?
Of course there are some bad apples anywhere, but sorry for being so extremely policitally incorrect, but some religions are simply much more conducive to violence than others.
Tor
I wonder what's going on here? It sounds too much like the "spontaneous demonstrations" that have been happening the last several days. Someone is playing a calculated game here, and it's not only unclear what they're up and who's the prime mover; it's not clear which "side" is stirring the pot
This is most apparent in the case of the destroyed Scandinavian embassies in Syria. Syria is a police state - the authorities just don't allow embassies to burn unless they want them to. The French embassy wasn't attacked - clearly too powerful and important country to piss off.
On the other hand, it is difficult to play a calculated game without suitable Chess pieces.
Tor
This could be a win-win situation. NASA has an opening for a job to be filled by a Republican crony. Michael Brown is unemployed. Looks like a natural fit! Give that man a call!
No, Mr Brown started working as a consultant in catastrophy management. But hey, here is a thought, maybe Mr Deutsch could get a job as astrophysicist or science communicator.
Tor
The best pilot in the world still blacks out at about 9G.
But modern air combat isn't about who can pull the most G's, it is about who has the longest range missiles.
So while I disagree with your argument I agree with your conclusion - that drones could do well against humans. You can put long range sensors and missiles on a drone, and it will do almost as well as a human. Also the drones are less expensive so you can afford several of them for the price for one F22. Not to mention no political crisis if the pilot gets shot down and captured.
Tor
For the record, not all religious people ignore empirical evidence. The Bush administration is NOT the thinking Christian's wet dream
No, they don't. I think the most useful classification of religious folks came from Dawkins, who characterized thus:
The know-alls, who ignore empirical evidence, and see scripture as the only valid source of information.
The know-nothings, who accept empirical evidence, but maintain that when evidence is lacking, any belief is equally valid. This group is in constant retreat, as science disproves traditional religious beliefs one after another. They are also challenged to motivate why they hold strong beliefs in certain fantastical propositions (i.e., those made by their own religion), but not in others (i.e., those made by other religions), with similar levels evidence (i.e. ancient eyewitness accounts).
And finally, the no-contests, who have accepted that religion is baloney, but feel that it would be too socially disruptive to make this claim in public. Dan Brown's protagonist would probably fall into this bucket.
Tor
Reading his paper/presentation it seems like he is throwing out the theory of relativity, and most of modern astrophysics.
I am a bit skeptical towards those who make revolutionary claims like this and publish it to the general public instead of in scientific journals.
Tor