Like dying of malnutrition? I will admit that a lot of the processes that are used in the production of food are less than desirable, and some are definitely harmful, but I have no desire to go back to the "good old days" that some of the people I know want to do. I like not having to keep track of the local famine foods growing in the feilds and woods near my house "just in case." I really like the idea that almost all of my children will live to maturity.
Well, there is some polymer gel in there. You say that as if it is somehow BAD. The jelly looking stuff in the can is a polymer. It's made out of proteins. The proteins are polymers of amino acids. Very similar to carpenters glue and gelatine. Then there's cheese. The ultimate food polymer, if properly produced and packaged. Mmmmm.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, all of the states of the U.S. are commonwealths. They all have a government based on the republic model. Their governments are elected by, and answerable to the people. Only four of the states chose to point this out explicitly in their official state names. If you read the 1971 Virginia constitution they have "state" laws, a "state" corporation commission, and so on. They simply wish to stress to the rest of the world that they are a state whose government is a republic by officially naming their state "The Commonwealth of Virginia".
And why shouldn't a parent, I believe I saw the FATHER carrying the little girl and broken stroller, take their child to a public venue for a sale? It's not like it was advertised as "Come on down and battle for a 'puter!!! Grab your knives and nightsticks and leave the kids at home! First come, first beaten!!!" It was supposed to simply be the local citizenry purchasing used computers from the local government.
That's because they are citizens of their state. they ar also citizens of their country, county, and city. For the GP here is a definition of citizen.
citizen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-zn) n. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there. A civilian. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: "We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community" (Franklin D. Roosevelt).
But go look at the movies from the 30's, 40's, and 50's. A few big ones a vear, and then lots of them put out on modest budgets to make modest profits. Pretty much the definition of your "watchable" movies. Why is it a crime these days to make a movie for say $35m, have a gross income of $60m, and a net loss of $5m on the books through the wonders of accounting, and move on to the next picture?
Marketing books are written from a psychologists "point of view" because marketing is basically the psychology of getting someone to buy something.
By the way, how does true happiness come from controlling your wants? There is a LOT of things I want, but don't have. I'm pretty content. I've heard others say happiness is wanting what you have, but there are a lot of things I have that I don't want. Still, I'm not unhappy.
I was unavailable until today, so the reply is quite late.
I have no problem with standardization. I just wish as a society we would either use words as they have been historically, or standardize on one tensing method and use it. Either people "pleaded" for their life, or we "runed" to the store, or they pled and ran. Either way I don't care, I just wish we could settle on one.
One article on CNN a few years ago featured a family trapped in a flash flood. The mother "pleaded" with them to save her baby as they "clinged" to the roof of the car. Some passerby "flinged" a rope to them but was not successful. I was in total awe of the sheer lack of the concept that not every verb and participle is made past tense by adding "ed" to the end.
Well, where the hell's the bar then? Every VFW and Elks I've been in have a bar. It's almost always populated by curmudgeonly old farts, I think that's a legal requirement.
It depends on where you live. Some places the power company owns the poles. In other places the telephone companies own them. Then there are the distribution companies. They just own the poles and right-of-ways and don't make either electricity or dial tone. Regardless of who owns them they are almost always part of a regulated utility monopoly, and therefore come under the controls of the PUC in your state, and they don't want the poles to become overloaded. Either technically or visually. There are regulations on how many cables can be on the poles or burried in the right-of-way. There are regulations on how close they can be. So, when it's all said and done, most places it is almost impossible to get cable for new technologies run, so forget competing technologies. Why in the world do you think municipal wireless initiatives are getting so much push? No cost for wiring IS a factor, but a lot of places they simply CAN'T run the wire.
Latin for does not follow. I have known the definition for years, no need to look it up. To me it is like saying "a meteor didn't hit me today, I must be imortal." Saying that the universal crap shoot didn't come up snake eyes for him before he bred means that it was selected for does not follow. I am truly trying to get my mind around some of the things I've read in the thread.
Every definition of selection I have ever seen, even ones concerning only biology, usually refer to it having to do with favoring one or several traits over others to give an advantage over other organisms to reproduce. This I have no problem with. Just because the process is weighted and constrained doesn't mean it isn't random from the matematical view that the outcome is nondeterministic when the inputs are known. If we ever discover a "less likely to be struck by lightning" gene or an "I can survive meteor strikes" gene I will hop on the natural selection is not random bandwagon.
Once again. Random does not mean boundless. Let us all repeat that.
But according to so many people NS is not random. If it is deterministic you should be able to tell which genes will be passed on. Which mutations will be selected for and so on.
Surviving to pass on genes implies no "best" to me it simply implies that it survived. The genes were not selected. They simply were available when the opertunity to pass them on occured. You can call that selection if you wish. Simply not being where the hungry lions were doesn't seem much of a "selection" to me. To me, "If it survived long enough to reproduce than those genes were selected", seems to be a non sequitur.
ok. Tour de France references now. Cool. Ok. Now some time in the future a group of terrorists decide that these racers are an affront to whatever it is that they believe in. They set up a roadside bomb that kills the breakaway riders, but the pelleton survives. The faster riders no longer have an advantage. They have been selected out of the race. How many times over the years has the number one seeded rider won the Tour? Less times than they have lost. The selection pressures are not constant. They change, and they change in a random way. You can't tell me what genes will be passed on to future generations of any species. You use NS to simply mean "if it survived it is the best suited to it's enviroment, therefore those genes are being selected for"?
Just a few points. Number 2 specifically states steer, which implies intent. Number 3 is vague enough that I won't argue it.
That said, I still don't see anything guiding it. Even using the third definition you gave. Something may be excellently suited to it's enviroment, and then bam, extinct. I'm not even talking about meteors and other cataclysms.
p.s I thought that was the management at ALL networks.
I believe you may have missed my point. The poster above me mentioned that something guided the selection process. I was looking for clarification on his point. As far as I can tell natural selection is a crap shoot since what defines "best suited to it's enviroment" is defined AFTER the fact, as you mention.
"If you argue that it's not random it just indicates you have a crappy understanding of what random means." Oooh. That will show me.
No, it is random. That is like saying pick a number between one and ten. You've constrained the output. That doesn't mean it isn't random within the contraints. The input is random. The output is a preassure wave. It has a an average frequency that we interperet as the "pure tone" you mention. If you measure every crest, they all vary from each other slightly. This variation is random. It will be within the constraints that you have set by the barrel length, diameter, and material that the flute is constructed from, but it will not be an absolutely perfect frequency. Now, the trombone player accidentily hit's your flute with his slide and dents you flute. Is the tone pure anymore? If not, you get kicked out of the band. I have never said that there were not constraints on the system, but within the constraints it is random.
Ok, once again, I think we are using slightly different definitions, or are applying the same definition in slightly different ways. Please inform me how it is not a random process? Just because some outcome is more likely than another doesn't mean the process is not random. Whether you or any organism survives to pass on it's genes is a total crap shoot. If someone slips on the steps, falls down, and dies, it does not mean that that person was less genetically atuned to it's enviroment, it meant that it sucked to be him. He is no longer a member of the gene lottory. He genes were selected out. Randomly. Now there are genes for traits that can make it less likely to slip on the steps, and they will have a greater chance to be passed on, but it is far from a certainty. If enough humans tripped and died, something else would take over our niche in the enviroment, or maybe several somethings would occupy different parts. Natural selection is a random process. If it wasn't it would be deterministic, and it just plain isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Like dying of malnutrition? I will admit that a lot of the processes that are used in the production of food are less than desirable, and some are definitely harmful, but I have no desire to go back to the "good old days" that some of the people I know want to do. I like not having to keep track of the local famine foods growing in the feilds and woods near my house "just in case." I really like the idea that almost all of my children will live to maturity.
Well, there is some polymer gel in there. You say that as if it is somehow BAD. The jelly looking stuff in the can is a polymer. It's made out of proteins. The proteins are polymers of amino acids. Very similar to carpenters glue and gelatine. Then there's cheese. The ultimate food polymer, if properly produced and packaged. Mmmmm.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, all of the states of the U.S. are commonwealths. They all have a government based on the republic model. Their governments are elected by, and answerable to the people. Only four of the states chose to point this out explicitly in their official state names. If you read the 1971 Virginia constitution they have "state" laws, a "state" corporation commission, and so on. They simply wish to stress to the rest of the world that they are a state whose government is a republic by officially naming their state "The Commonwealth of Virginia".
And why shouldn't a parent, I believe I saw the FATHER carrying the little girl and broken stroller, take their child to a public venue for a sale? It's not like it was advertised as "Come on down and battle for a 'puter!!! Grab your knives and nightsticks and leave the kids at home! First come, first beaten!!!" It was supposed to simply be the local citizenry purchasing used computers from the local government.
Don't know anything about that. I was just astounded that the OP had a globe of the U. S. My globe has a LOT more than just the U.S. on it.
That's a trick question, right?
They are a state. Commonwealth just means that they are a state that has their form of government based on the republic model.
That's because they are citizens of their state. they ar also citizens of their country, county, and city. For the GP here is a definition of citizen.
citizen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-zn)
n.
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
A civilian.
A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: "We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community" (Franklin D. Roosevelt).
I know a few of us U.S. citizens think the world revolves around us, but we usually acknowledge that the earth is a bit larger than just the U. S. :)
But go look at the movies from the 30's, 40's, and 50's. A few big ones a vear, and then lots of them put out on modest budgets to make modest profits. Pretty much the definition of your "watchable" movies. Why is it a crime these days to make a movie for say $35m, have a gross income of $60m, and a net loss of $5m on the books through the wonders of accounting, and move on to the next picture?
And if that portion of the population is also the group most likely to part with their disposable income, then the marketers are happy.
Marketing books are written from a psychologists "point of view" because marketing is basically the psychology of getting someone to buy something.
By the way, how does true happiness come from controlling your wants? There is a LOT of things I want, but don't have. I'm pretty content. I've heard others say happiness is wanting what you have, but there are a lot of things I have that I don't want. Still, I'm not unhappy.
I was unavailable until today, so the reply is quite late.
I have no problem with standardization. I just wish as a society we would either use words as they have been historically, or standardize on one tensing method and use it. Either people "pleaded" for their life, or we "runed" to the store, or they pled and ran. Either way I don't care, I just wish we could settle on one.
One article on CNN a few years ago featured a family trapped in a flash flood. The mother "pleaded" with them to save her baby as they "clinged" to the roof of the car. Some passerby "flinged" a rope to them but was not successful. I was in total awe of the sheer lack of the concept that not every verb and participle is made past tense by adding "ed" to the end.
Well, where the hell's the bar then? Every VFW and Elks I've been in have a bar. It's almost always populated by curmudgeonly old farts, I think that's a legal requirement.
With CNN and FOX assainating irregular past tense verbs on sight, I want tactical nukes.
It depends on where you live. Some places the power company owns the poles. In other places the telephone companies own them. Then there are the distribution companies. They just own the poles and right-of-ways and don't make either electricity or dial tone. Regardless of who owns them they are almost always part of a regulated utility monopoly, and therefore come under the controls of the PUC in your state, and they don't want the poles to become overloaded. Either technically or visually. There are regulations on how many cables can be on the poles or burried in the right-of-way. There are regulations on how close they can be. So, when it's all said and done, most places it is almost impossible to get cable for new technologies run, so forget competing technologies. Why in the world do you think municipal wireless initiatives are getting so much push? No cost for wiring IS a factor, but a lot of places they simply CAN'T run the wire.
For the love of god, please stop insulting Muppets like that. :)
Latin for does not follow. I have known the definition for years, no need to look it up. To me it is like saying "a meteor didn't hit me today, I must be imortal." Saying that the universal crap shoot didn't come up snake eyes for him before he bred means that it was selected for does not follow. I am truly trying to get my mind around some of the things I've read in the thread.
Every definition of selection I have ever seen, even ones concerning only biology, usually refer to it having to do with favoring one or several traits over others to give an advantage over other organisms to reproduce. This I have no problem with. Just because the process is weighted and constrained doesn't mean it isn't random from the matematical view that the outcome is nondeterministic when the inputs are known. If we ever discover a "less likely to be struck by lightning" gene or an "I can survive meteor strikes" gene I will hop on the natural selection is not random bandwagon.
Once again. Random does not mean boundless. Let us all repeat that.
But according to so many people NS is not random. If it is deterministic you should be able to tell which genes will be passed on. Which mutations will be selected for and so on.
Surviving to pass on genes implies no "best" to me it simply implies that it survived. The genes were not selected. They simply were available when the opertunity to pass them on occured. You can call that selection if you wish. Simply not being where the hungry lions were doesn't seem much of a "selection" to me. To me, "If it survived long enough to reproduce than those genes were selected", seems to be a non sequitur.
ok. Tour de France references now. Cool. Ok. Now some time in the future a group of terrorists decide that these racers are an affront to whatever it is that they believe in. They set up a roadside bomb that kills the breakaway riders, but the pelleton survives. The faster riders no longer have an advantage. They have been selected out of the race. How many times over the years has the number one seeded rider won the Tour? Less times than they have lost. The selection pressures are not constant. They change, and they change in a random way. You can't tell me what genes will be passed on to future generations of any species. You use NS to simply mean "if it survived it is the best suited to it's enviroment, therefore those genes are being selected for"?
Just a few points. Number 2 specifically states steer, which implies intent. Number 3 is vague enough that I won't argue it.
That said, I still don't see anything guiding it. Even using the third definition you gave. Something may be excellently suited to it's enviroment, and then bam, extinct. I'm not even talking about meteors and other cataclysms.
p.s I thought that was the management at ALL networks.
I believe you may have missed my point. The poster above me mentioned that something guided the selection process. I was looking for clarification on his point. As far as I can tell natural selection is a crap shoot since what defines "best suited to it's enviroment" is defined AFTER the fact, as you mention.
"If you argue that it's not random it just indicates you have a crappy understanding of what random means." Oooh. That will show me.
No, it is random. That is like saying pick a number between one and ten. You've constrained the output. That doesn't mean it isn't random within the contraints. The input is random. The output is a preassure wave. It has a an average frequency that we interperet as the "pure tone" you mention. If you measure every crest, they all vary from each other slightly. This variation is random. It will be within the constraints that you have set by the barrel length, diameter, and material that the flute is constructed from, but it will not be an absolutely perfect frequency. Now, the trombone player accidentily hit's your flute with his slide and dents you flute. Is the tone pure anymore? If not, you get kicked out of the band. I have never said that there were not constraints on the system, but within the constraints it is random.
Ok, once again, I think we are using slightly different definitions, or are applying the same definition in slightly different ways. Please inform me how it is not a random process? Just because some outcome is more likely than another doesn't mean the process is not random. Whether you or any organism survives to pass on it's genes is a total crap shoot. If someone slips on the steps, falls down, and dies, it does not mean that that person was less genetically atuned to it's enviroment, it meant that it sucked to be him. He is no longer a member of the gene lottory. He genes were selected out. Randomly. Now there are genes for traits that can make it less likely to slip on the steps, and they will have a greater chance to be passed on, but it is far from a certainty. If enough humans tripped and died, something else would take over our niche in the enviroment, or maybe several somethings would occupy different parts. Natural selection is a random process. If it wasn't it would be deterministic, and it just plain isn't.