The researchers have noted that toxoplasmosis secretes domanine-like molecules in mice. It has already been established that mice and humans share receptors for this molecule. It has already been established that dopamine levels affect human behaviour and mood. Mutatis mutandis, toxoplasmosis affects human behaviour and mood.
"Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation."
On the contrary, it's been demonstrated before, only in lab rats (see how a rat acts, expose it to the parasites, see how the rat acts, kill the parasites, see how the rat acts). However, nothing similar has ever been performed with humans; the researcher is simply assuming that what goes for lab rats also goes for humans.
Careful here. The GP was correct when he said that causation cannot be proven. There's always the problem of Humean skepticism about induction. Scientists work with the much more restricted notion of verification.
Proof is the domain of mathematicians and philosophers.
I'm sure you're tired of justifying your decisions, but if I recall correctly, you can underclock those AMD processors. Linux has this facility (I think). I don't know of OBSD does too, but I would be surprised if it did.
Then again, if it keeps you from turning the heat on, it's not really waste heat.
The Microsoft groups are working out well to this day but typically you do not see companies getting involved in any type of forum that they do not control the mute button for.
Hey! Trolling the Microsoft hierarchy is a great idea!
Heh, the last OS X "service pack" brought us features Microsoft couldn't manage to incorporate into a new operating system.
Who cares if the OS X code bases are similar? They work well, and we get new features every cycle. Meanwhile, Microsoft works for nearly a decade to catch up and still fails. (The point release upgrades are $129, and are not mandatory.)
Please explain how Apple is in any way a monopolist. I see plenty of hardware vendors around: Sun, IBM, SGI, Dell, HP. Users have a choice. If they want OS X, they'll choose Apple. If they want AIX, they'll choose IBM. If they want the newest version of Solaris, they'll choose Sun. If they want Irix, they'll choose SGI. If they want to run Linux, they can choose any of these vendors.
You're ignoring a simple fact that invalidates all your points. If Apple dies, OS X dies with it. If OS X dies, so does the hypothetical clone Mac market.
First: If a student is getting F's and D-'s, he or she should be held back a year. There's no reason to torture the rest with the same boring material.
Second: It appears that I was too charitable with my interpretation of your post. It appears that you actually want linguistics taught, instead of just grammar. That simply isn't going to happen. Linguistics is far too abstract a field to be taught in high school. It can certainly be reduced in scope, say, by focusing on English and its immediate ancestors. But you would either end up with what is now taught (prescriptive syntax -- a.k.a. high school grammar) or a jumble of concrete and abstract subjects with dubious pedagogical benefits.[1] Especially considering:
Third: Literature is taught to, among other things, bring the student up to speed on modern culture. I didn't bring this up before, because it seemed to be outside the scope of the discussion (vis a vis becoming better speakers and writers). As much as I disliked Shakespeare in high school, and still do, I see the merit in introducing students to the corpus of one of the most influential English writers. Like it or not, allusions to Shakespeare abound in modern literature, and it would be a disservice to students to not teach the source of these ideas in favor of teaching what infrequently used words mean. Especially when one considers the rise of the use of dictionaries since Samuel Johnson's work.
Fourth: Regarding the use of iambic pentameter. It is one of the most common meters in the English language. One doesn't have to be writing poetry to use a meter.[3]
Fifth: School is always supposed to be challenging. A particular work should be above the student's head when first introduced. The student is expected to rise to meet it. This pattern continues through college and beyond.
Non-point: I cannot speak for your high school, but we studied around two hundred works of fiction and non-fiction in four years. Devoting six to Shakespeare does not seem excessive.
It is also clear that you are a learned individual, despite presumably being a product of a high school curriculum.
[1] A lot of linguistics research has shown that the best method to increase one's vocabulary is by simply using the words correctly. One doesn't even have to know the word's definition -- context supports the intended meaning. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, the meaning of a word is it's use in a language. Learning new words comes down to rote memorization and internalization of their appropriate uses. I do not intend to deny the usefulness of etymological rules of thumb when reading, however. But reading is far easier than speaking. There are fewer time constraints when reading, which makes dictionaries appropriate references. Indeed, rules of thumb can have a detrimental effect on the written word. Consider the case of the word "unoften". It is now considered obsolete, but I was tempted to use that as an antonym to "often" because of my familiarity with Latin and its relation to English.
[2] Indeed, I would have written "One does not have to be writing poetry to use a meter", but that wouldn't fit any idiomatic stress patterns. Both would be understanable, but the first is more readable.
Captain Planet, he's our hero, Gonna take pollution down to zero, He's our powers magnified, And he's fighting on the planet side
Captain Planet, he's our hero, Gonna take pollution down to zero, Gonna help him put us under, Bad guys who like to loot and plunder.
We're the planeteers, You can be one too! 'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do, Looting and polluting is not the way, Hear what Captain Planet has to say:
English grammar is at its core a merely description of how English works in some contexts. There is no "why" to how it works except for historical accident.
By the time a person reaches high school, they have been taught English grammar for about 5 years. English grammar is taught to freshmen as well. Note that by the time one is a freshman, the whole of English grammar can be taught in a year. Would you want students to be taught the same material, year after year?
In addition to being a new and essential skill, literary analysis is helpful. Literature exposes students to literary style. Grammar might help one frame correct sentences, but will not help one write a readable paragraph, page, chapter, or book.
Nevermind that you have to read to become a confident reader. And that includes reading material that is initially over one's head.
We understand each other. My point was the claim that the media has a leftward bias is vacuous, due to the stunted political demographics you mentioned.
There is no leftward bias in the media, because there is no legitimate leftist political party in the US. The Republicans are extremely far right. The Democrats are right of center.
Yes. I can deal with thinking about an infinite chain of simulators. But thinking about their feedback effects hurt my mind. I only did it for a few seconds, but I had a very noisy hallucination. Try it!
There's a reason why modern philosophical ethics are hard. It's specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
Wow, dumb "sentence". Maybe I accidentally selected and deleted a fragment. Correcting myself:
It's hard specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and morality have to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
The legal system isn't based on the assumption of free will. It's based on the assumption that people are agents, and as such, can be responsible for actions. The distinction is very fine, so an example is useful.
Let's consider a feral cat. One day, it sees a bird. It's hungry, so it chases it and kills it. The cat is responsible for (that is, acted as an agent to cause) the death of the bird. The matter whether the cat has free will or not (and many people will say the cat doesn't) does not enter into that consideration.
You might interject that there is a disanalogy here. After all, laws seem to stop most people from breaking (the heinous) crimes, which might indicate that people have free will. But on closer inspection, it doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Whether or not free will exists, it is clear that laws are a force guiding people's actions. But this is compatible with both claims. People might choose to obey the law, coming to this decision in a rational manner. Or they might just be motivated by vague fears stemming from environmental factors, just as the cat was motivated by hunger.
There's a reason why modern philosophical ethics are hard. It's specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
Fair enough. Beer isn't for everyone. But I would suggest you give Belgian beers a try before you completely dismiss them. The Lambics (or Lambieks) were originally made by Trappist monks using... weird water. It's actually contaminated with lactobaccilii of several varieties (the stuff that makes sourdough sour). They don't taste anything like ales and lagers, especially when made with fruit. Framboises are raspberry lambics and krieks are cherry lambics. They taste more like fruity champagne than beer. Boon makes a good kriek. It's like $12 for a 12 oz bottle, but worth every penny. Lindemans makes a great framboise. I get it for $8.50 for a champange bottle's worth. (It's worth noting that these bottles come corked -- definitely not your typical beer.)
I would also suggest you try some meads. They're also called "honey wines." I don't know much about commercial meads, as I've only had homebrewed stuff and occassionally the house mead at the local Ethiopean restaurant. Meads made with oranges are very delicious. Depending on how they're fermented and aged, they can be very sweet or very dry.
I hope you don't mind all this unsolicited advice. I'm of the mind that one should only drink the best, especially if one is being moderate.
You obviously have the moderation thing down, so don't be afraid to experiment. There are lots of great beers, wines, and liquors out there. And since you don't drink much, you won't spend a fortune on them.
Slashdot Mirror
The researchers have noted that toxoplasmosis secretes domanine-like molecules in mice. It has already been established that mice and humans share receptors for this molecule. It has already been established that dopamine levels affect human behaviour and mood. Mutatis mutandis, toxoplasmosis affects human behaviour and mood.
Careful here. The GP was correct when he said that causation cannot be proven. There's always the problem of Humean skepticism about induction. Scientists work with the much more restricted notion of verification.
Proof is the domain of mathematicians and philosophers.
Wow, thanks for the science lesson!
Actually, real science is done by noting correlations, hypothesizing a mechanism that explains the correlation, and testing it.
The researchers have tested the mechanism. RTFA.
I'm sure you're tired of justifying your decisions, but if I recall correctly, you can underclock those AMD processors. Linux has this facility (I think). I don't know of OBSD does too, but I would be surprised if it did.
Then again, if it keeps you from turning the heat on, it's not really waste heat.
Go! Go P0wer Rangers!
Go! Go! Power Rangers!
G0! Go POwer Rangers!
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!
Go! Go POwer Rangers!
Go! Go! P0wer Rangers!
G0! Go Power Rangers!
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!
The Microsoft groups are working out well to this day but typically you do not see companies getting involved in any type of forum that they do not control the mute button for.
Hey! Trolling the Microsoft hierarchy is a great idea!
Heh, the last OS X "service pack" brought us features Microsoft couldn't manage to incorporate into a new operating system.
Who cares if the OS X code bases are similar? They work well, and we get new features every cycle. Meanwhile, Microsoft works for nearly a decade to catch up and still fails. (The point release upgrades are $129, and are not mandatory.)
Please explain how Apple is in any way a monopolist. I see plenty of hardware vendors around: Sun, IBM, SGI, Dell, HP. Users have a choice. If they want OS X, they'll choose Apple. If they want AIX, they'll choose IBM. If they want the newest version of Solaris, they'll choose Sun. If they want Irix, they'll choose SGI. If they want to run Linux, they can choose any of these vendors.
You're ignoring a simple fact that invalidates all your points. If Apple dies, OS X dies with it. If OS X dies, so does the hypothetical clone Mac market.
You are a tedious little turd.
First: If a student is getting F's and D-'s, he or she should be held back a year. There's no reason to torture the rest with the same boring material.
Second: It appears that I was too charitable with my interpretation of your post. It appears that you actually want linguistics taught, instead of just grammar. That simply isn't going to happen. Linguistics is far too abstract a field to be taught in high school. It can certainly be reduced in scope, say, by focusing on English and its immediate ancestors. But you would either end up with what is now taught (prescriptive syntax -- a.k.a. high school grammar) or a jumble of concrete and abstract subjects with dubious pedagogical benefits.[1] Especially considering:
Third: Literature is taught to, among other things, bring the student up to speed on modern culture. I didn't bring this up before, because it seemed to be outside the scope of the discussion (vis a vis becoming better speakers and writers). As much as I disliked Shakespeare in high school, and still do, I see the merit in introducing students to the corpus of one of the most influential English writers. Like it or not, allusions to Shakespeare abound in modern literature, and it would be a disservice to students to not teach the source of these ideas in favor of teaching what infrequently used words mean. Especially when one considers the rise of the use of dictionaries since Samuel Johnson's work.
Fourth: Regarding the use of iambic pentameter. It is one of the most common meters in the English language. One doesn't have to be writing poetry to use a meter.[3]
Fifth: School is always supposed to be challenging. A particular work should be above the student's head when first introduced. The student is expected to rise to meet it. This pattern continues through college and beyond.
Non-point: I cannot speak for your high school, but we studied around two hundred works of fiction and non-fiction in four years. Devoting six to Shakespeare does not seem excessive.
It is also clear that you are a learned individual, despite presumably being a product of a high school curriculum.
[1] A lot of linguistics research has shown that the best method to increase one's vocabulary is by simply using the words correctly. One doesn't even have to know the word's definition -- context supports the intended meaning. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, the meaning of a word is it's use in a language. Learning new words comes down to rote memorization and internalization of their appropriate uses. I do not intend to deny the usefulness of etymological rules of thumb when reading, however. But reading is far easier than speaking. There are fewer time constraints when reading, which makes dictionaries appropriate references. Indeed, rules of thumb can have a detrimental effect on the written word. Consider the case of the word "unoften". It is now considered obsolete, but I was tempted to use that as an antonym to "often" because of my familiarity with Latin and its relation to English.
[2] Indeed, I would have written "One does not have to be writing poetry to use a meter", but that wouldn't fit any idiomatic stress patterns. Both would be understanable, but the first is more readable.
What's your point?
You seem to think that there is an organization, that's anarchic, going up against centralized organizations/nations/etc.
As long as people are free to make choices (and that always has been and always will be true), liberty won't fail. Because that is liberty.
Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
He's our powers magnified,
And he's fighting on the planet side
Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
Gonna help him put us under,
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder.
We're the planeteers,
You can be one too!
'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do,
Looting and polluting is not the way,
Hear what Captain Planet has to say:
"THE POWER IS YOURS!!"
Your post is very misguided.
English grammar is at its core a merely description of how English works in some contexts. There is no "why" to how it works except for historical accident.
By the time a person reaches high school, they have been taught English grammar for about 5 years. English grammar is taught to freshmen as well. Note that by the time one is a freshman, the whole of English grammar can be taught in a year. Would you want students to be taught the same material, year after year?
In addition to being a new and essential skill, literary analysis is helpful. Literature exposes students to literary style. Grammar might help one frame correct sentences, but will not help one write a readable paragraph, page, chapter, or book.
Nevermind that you have to read to become a confident reader. And that includes reading material that is initially over one's head.
This is the problem with anarchy; everyone will tend towards choosing different things.
That's not the problem with anarchy. It's the point.
We understand each other. My point was the claim that the media has a leftward bias is vacuous, due to the stunted political demographics you mentioned.
There is no leftward bias in the media, because there is no legitimate leftist political party in the US. The Republicans are extremely far right. The Democrats are right of center.
Yes. I can deal with thinking about an infinite chain of simulators. But thinking about their feedback effects hurt my mind. I only did it for a few seconds, but I had a very noisy hallucination. Try it!
Why are you insisting it is a pseudo-problem when Wittgenstein never did?
Presumably because it has all the hallmarks of a pseudoproblem.
The Private Language Argument bears directly on freewill and determinism.
There's a reason why modern philosophical ethics are hard. It's specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
Wow, dumb "sentence". Maybe I accidentally selected and deleted a fragment. Correcting myself:
It's hard specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and morality have to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
The legal system isn't based on the assumption of free will. It's based on the assumption that people are agents, and as such, can be responsible for actions. The distinction is very fine, so an example is useful.
Let's consider a feral cat. One day, it sees a bird. It's hungry, so it chases it and kills it. The cat is responsible for (that is, acted as an agent to cause) the death of the bird. The matter whether the cat has free will or not (and many people will say the cat doesn't) does not enter into that consideration.
You might interject that there is a disanalogy here. After all, laws seem to stop most people from breaking (the heinous) crimes, which might indicate that people have free will. But on closer inspection, it doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Whether or not free will exists, it is clear that laws are a force guiding people's actions. But this is compatible with both claims. People might choose to obey the law, coming to this decision in a rational manner. Or they might just be motivated by vague fears stemming from environmental factors, just as the cat was motivated by hunger.
There's a reason why modern philosophical ethics are hard. It's specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.
Fair enough. Beer isn't for everyone. But I would suggest you give Belgian beers a try before you completely dismiss them. The Lambics (or Lambieks) were originally made by Trappist monks using... weird water. It's actually contaminated with lactobaccilii of several varieties (the stuff that makes sourdough sour). They don't taste anything like ales and lagers, especially when made with fruit. Framboises are raspberry lambics and krieks are cherry lambics. They taste more like fruity champagne than beer. Boon makes a good kriek. It's like $12 for a 12 oz bottle, but worth every penny. Lindemans makes a great framboise. I get it for $8.50 for a champange bottle's worth. (It's worth noting that these bottles come corked -- definitely not your typical beer.)
I would also suggest you try some meads. They're also called "honey wines." I don't know much about commercial meads, as I've only had homebrewed stuff and occassionally the house mead at the local Ethiopean restaurant. Meads made with oranges are very delicious. Depending on how they're fermented and aged, they can be very sweet or very dry.
I hope you don't mind all this unsolicited advice. I'm of the mind that one should only drink the best, especially if one is being moderate.
107 Gb/s sounds like a lot. How much is that in Metallica discographies/s?
You obviously have the moderation thing down, so don't be afraid to experiment. There are lots of great beers, wines, and liquors out there. And since you don't drink much, you won't spend a fortune on them.
I think you'd have a pretty good idea how it got there in that situation.
You first, I'm having a beer.