I think he was trying to say that in his opinion humans are less fit on multiple levels. This lack of fitness is allowed by modern society. People who can't reproduce normally reproduce. People who are dumb reproduce at higher rates than in the past. People who are less willing to kill others and who are less capable of killing others reproduce at lower rates than in the past. Etc. Etc.
And there was an implicit belief that evolving should result in smarter, healthier,stronger human beings. That's not evolution- it's more akin to eugenics.
Humans are subject to enormous selective pressures today. Many humans are not reproducing at all. Some humans are reproducing above the replacement rate.
Implicit in your comment is a belief that evolution has a direction. It does not.
If being careless about birth control and horny results in having more children who also have children, then that trait will become more prevalent.
There is no superior or inferior.
There is only genes resulting in higher reproduction of themselves or related genes (such as in siblings or even fellow villagers or even fellow nationalities).
I'm not disagreeing with your entire point. I also think people who have difficulty reproducing without heroic means are becoming more common.
If being insidiously stupid means the genes become more common due to lots of offspring, then that's a good reproductive trait.
The primary distinction is summarized in the second article as :
Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.
We can use evolutionary theory to make testable predictions. Animal breeders, regardless of their religious feelings use evolutionary theory to breed their animals (because money is at stake and any breeder that was too religious would go bankrupt and be selected out of the animal breeder population).
The development of new species has been observed in the real world among insects including specifically some mosquitoes in britain.
The theory of Evolution does not cover bio-genesis (the first living thing). Partially by definition.
The word theory is used today where the word "Law" used to be used. So the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity are synonymous.
If we still used the word "Law", the "Law" of Evolution would be how we referred to it. The Theory of Evolution is a very strong construct.
Personally, I find the long term bacteria experiment the most interesting. It shows that multiple random mutations separated by thousands of generations which had no effect for thousands of generations were required to develop the ability to consume "Citrate" as a food. Very cool stuff.
Every generation has mutations. The average rate of 60 mutations among surviving humans compared to their parents has been observed. Most of those mutations have no immediate bad or good effect. But thousands of years later, they might result in higher or lower reproduction rates when a selective pressure is applied to the population.
And they want to sell their products in captive markets protected by the government making importing the products from elsewhere where they sell it cheaper (or even give it away free in some cases) illegal.
They'll stop when they've pumped the wealth out of the richer companies and no one can afford to pay any more.
Among other things, I think you've missed the 55% drop in home heating oil usage as well as the monumental strides in wind electrical generation with a simultaneous drop of oil usage (mostly to natural gas).
Gasoline usage has dropped by over 10% over the last five years as well while the cost of gasoline was relatively stable. Plus over a million cars in the current u.s. fleet are now hybrid or pure electrical.
It started small but it has been growing quickly. Batteries are continuing to drop in price while increasing in storage so that may over come the drop in demand you would expect from the drop in gasoline prices.
So is burning "fossil" fuels. It's the same kind of organic matter- mostly plants and tiny animals. It was just unused longer.
Most of the earths history, the average temperature was about 12 degrees hotter except when it was entering an ice age. That's the "natural" temperature of the earth. Not the current "ice age" temperature ranges we live in. Nothing is going to prevent the temperature from eventually returning to that mean.
Burning fossil fuel accelerates the cycle and might push us above that natural temperature. We should be careful about the implications of burning too much fossil fuel to fast. And personally, I think treating it as "fuel" is dumb. There are many better uses for oil and coal (medicines and new chemicals yet discovered). We use it because it's cheaper. It's cheaper in part due to huge hidden subsidies such as 2 trillion dollars and 4 thousand spent going to war to protect private corporate interests oil wells. And ongoing naval and on land security costs that are not even enumerated.
Personally, I think oil at $100 a barrel is done. But not to the low side. To the high side. There is enough alternative energy now to shave off the top 3 to 4% of oil that was setting the price. And one result of the recent oil crash is that many frakking companies costs have dropped by over 50%. Some that were profitable at $90 a barrel oil are now capable of profit at $45 a barrel oil. And many are predrilling frakking wells for legal reasons so when oil goes up, the wells will be "frak ready".
But there is nothing particularly magical about wood vs coal vs oil. They are all organic fuels. Hell- if we get fusion or start using solar energy from satellites, we don't need fossil fuel to bake the earth. Ignoring CO2, all we have to do is keep increasing energy at the same rate it's increased from the 1500's and by 2400, it'll be a balmy 200 degrees (or higher) on earth. We've reached the point where low energy use and a total maximum energy use are going to matter.
The family that lived in central america until 10 years ago and now lives on about $36k a year in california?
The family that lived in america until 10 years ago and now lives on $3 million a year in Monico?
The actual culprits in this story are mobile. And they are already moving around to avoid the bill due for their cost of living.
Almost by the definition of their immigration laws, most countries these days only accept people who are well off and probably would have the largest portion of the bill due for the pollution.
Is the bill to the country and who ever happens to live there now or is it to the wealthy few who may not even live in america any more and haven't for a generation or more.
If we can slow the rate of predation enough then the coral will have time to adapt. We should also look for sections of the coral reef which do better against starfish and "breed" it.
1) many states forbid protection from overtime for tech workers 2) forced holiday work 3) low company status 4) forced weekend work 5) forced night work 6) Sales force gets the glory even when tech does something tremendous to make the sale possible in the first place. 7) Told they are "not core business" and replaced by offshore workers (often doing tremendous damage to the business when all the business knowledge is shown out the door and people with no clue about the business replace them. 8) No training ("would make them leave")
I've also seen at least a half dozen horrific accidents from that behavior including running a full red 2 seconds after it changed.
People should slow and prepare to stop at amber lights. It is actively dangerous on feeder roads because the combined blind spot with the other road coming under the freeway. A few years ago, I saw one truck wipe out three other cars including an SUV and break off the traffic light by running a red.
At least some birds will find a way. Perhaps some breeds humans like won't make it but birds as a group won't be killed by it. No way to predict what form the selective pressure will push.
It wasn't so much that they had a falling out with the movie stuidios as that the movie studios decided they could all each charge consumers directly. So we got a disney channel and a warner move channel and etc.
None of which I subscribe to.
Netflix was actually a bargain. It's less of a bargain today tho I still subscribe (for now).
Once it's dead, I'll probably drop to subscribing to it every few years and perhaps go back to torrenting content (tho that's getting riskier than it used to be).
He did. They got a big payout when the company was sold.
More critical to me was his statement that some day he would opensource minecraft when it started to die off. Part of what made minecraft succeed was the open sourcey feel to it. If he had said upfront it would be closed source owned by microsoft many of the people who helped it succeed wouldn't have invested their time into it.
All I can say is talk to some retiring air traffic controllers. It's not like only a few of them saw it. The intercept was visible to air traffic controllers all over the country. It was the right thing to do based on the information the military and potus had at the time. But the heroic passenger bringing down the plane story was what we needed to hear then.
Based on how many controllers saw it, I expect it'll become common knowledge within the next few years as they all retire and don't need to maintain their security clearance any more.
Look back over my posts-- I don't post a lot of wild eyed shit.
It's a great story. But actually the plane was shot down before the passengers could act. The logs of the fighters scrambled were removed after about 3 hours but were clearly visible to air traffic control until them. No camera phones back then or it would have been pointless to even erase them.
The main physical evidence left actually on record is that the engine landed separately close to a half a mile away without a corresponding trail of debris leading there.
The passengers were aware and prepared to do something. But three planes had already hit buildings at that point.
I think marking this a troll is unfair since the parent poster concluded with an insulting, flamebait, trollish paragraph that was pretty much begging for a response.
I also think the parent poster falsely assumes an ideal world with one monolithic power source when the reality is we'll have a blended world and solar power is likely to be an order of magnitude cheaper than fusion for at least two more generations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, my agreement with your statement is total.
I have to say, after over thirty years of dealing with folks like that, it sure gets old and repetitive.
I think he was trying to say that in his opinion humans are less fit on multiple levels. This lack of fitness is allowed by modern society.
People who can't reproduce normally reproduce. People who are dumb reproduce at higher rates than in the past. People who are less willing to kill others and who are less capable of killing others reproduce at lower rates than in the past. Etc. Etc.
And there was an implicit belief that evolving should result in smarter, healthier,stronger human beings. That's not evolution- it's more akin to eugenics.
Humans are subject to enormous selective pressures today. Many humans are not reproducing at all. Some humans are reproducing above the replacement rate.
Implicit in your comment is a belief that evolution has a direction. It does not.
If being careless about birth control and horny results in having more children who also have children, then that trait will become more prevalent.
There is no superior or inferior.
There is only genes resulting in higher reproduction of themselves or related genes (such as in siblings or even fellow villagers or even fellow nationalities).
I'm not disagreeing with your entire point. I also think people who have difficulty reproducing without heroic means are becoming more common.
If being insidiously stupid means the genes become more common due to lots of offspring, then that's a good reproductive trait.
You are correct
While full details on the difference are in the links,
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars...
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~r...
The primary distinction is summarized in the second article as :
Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.
---
TLDR, I was mistaken and misremembered.
Google for
C. p. f. molestus,
mosquito london underground
1998 or 1999.
it's old news.
Evolution is a conclusion based on facts.
It is not a fact in and of itself.
We can use evolutionary theory to make testable predictions. Animal breeders, regardless of their religious feelings use evolutionary theory to breed their animals (because money is at stake and any breeder that was too religious would go bankrupt and be selected out of the animal breeder population).
The development of new species has been observed in the real world among insects including specifically some mosquitoes in britain.
The theory of Evolution does not cover bio-genesis (the first living thing). Partially by definition.
The word theory is used today where the word "Law" used to be used. So the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity are synonymous.
If we still used the word "Law", the "Law" of Evolution would be how we referred to it. The Theory of Evolution is a very strong construct.
Personally, I find the long term bacteria experiment the most interesting. It shows that multiple random mutations separated by thousands of generations which had no effect for thousands of generations were required to develop the ability to consume "Citrate" as a food. Very cool stuff.
Every generation has mutations. The average rate of 60 mutations among surviving humans compared to their parents has been observed. Most of those mutations have no immediate bad or good effect. But thousands of years later, they might result in higher or lower reproduction rates when a selective pressure is applied to the population.
And they want to sell their products in captive markets protected by the government making importing the products from elsewhere where they sell it cheaper (or even give it away free in some cases) illegal.
They'll stop when they've pumped the wealth out of the richer companies and no one can afford to pay any more.
They are talking about writing java mods to the game which change the way it behaves.
For example- "timber" is a mod that causes all of a tree to fall when lower blocks are chopped.
"Toughboats" is a mod that makes boats not take damage.
Some mods get pretty sophisticated and past a certain point, you are going to be rooting thru the deobfuscated actual minecraft source code.
Cool stuff.
Well, it's a vicious feedback loop. The better it works, the lower gasoline prices get- which undercuts the reason for alternative energy.
This is the third major oil price collapse. Each time, a lot of companies that were depending on higher prices get slaughtered.
Among other things, I think you've missed the 55% drop in home heating oil usage as well as the monumental strides in wind electrical generation with a simultaneous drop of oil usage (mostly to natural gas).
Gasoline usage has dropped by over 10% over the last five years as well while the cost of gasoline was relatively stable. Plus over a million cars in the current u.s. fleet are now hybrid or pure electrical.
It started small but it has been growing quickly. Batteries are continuing to drop in price while increasing in storage so that may over come the drop in demand you would expect from the drop in gasoline prices.
So is burning "fossil" fuels. It's the same kind of organic matter- mostly plants and tiny animals. It was just unused longer.
Most of the earths history, the average temperature was about 12 degrees hotter except when it was entering an ice age. That's the "natural" temperature of the earth. Not the current "ice age" temperature ranges we live in. Nothing is going to prevent the temperature from eventually returning to that mean.
Burning fossil fuel accelerates the cycle and might push us above that natural temperature. We should be careful about the implications of burning too much fossil fuel to fast. And personally, I think treating it as "fuel" is dumb. There are many better uses for oil and coal (medicines and new chemicals yet discovered). We use it because it's cheaper. It's cheaper in part due to huge hidden subsidies such as 2 trillion dollars and 4 thousand spent going to war to protect private corporate interests oil wells. And ongoing naval and on land security costs that are not even enumerated.
Personally, I think oil at $100 a barrel is done. But not to the low side. To the high side. There is enough alternative energy now to shave off the top 3 to 4% of oil that was setting the price. And one result of the recent oil crash is that many frakking companies costs have dropped by over 50%. Some that were profitable at $90 a barrel oil are now capable of profit at $45 a barrel oil. And many are predrilling frakking wells for legal reasons so when oil goes up, the wells will be "frak ready".
But there is nothing particularly magical about wood vs coal vs oil. They are all organic fuels. Hell- if we get fusion or start using solar energy from satellites, we don't need fossil fuel to bake the earth. Ignoring CO2, all we have to do is keep increasing energy at the same rate it's increased from the 1500's and by 2400, it'll be a balmy 200 degrees (or higher) on earth. We've reached the point where low energy use and a total maximum energy use are going to matter.
The family that lived in central america until 10 years ago and now lives on about $36k a year in california?
The family that lived in america until 10 years ago and now lives on $3 million a year in Monico?
The actual culprits in this story are mobile. And they are already moving around to avoid the bill due for their cost of living.
Almost by the definition of their immigration laws, most countries these days only accept people who are well off and probably would have the largest portion of the bill due for the pollution.
Is the bill to the country and who ever happens to live there now or is it to the wealthy few who may not even live in america any more and haven't for a generation or more.
There is more high quality entertainment on than I can watch. And I've been retired 3 years.
So I filter on price.
The current prices of entertainment and talent are unreasonably high given the glut.
If we can slow the rate of predation enough then the coral will have time to adapt.
We should also look for sections of the coral reef which do better against starfish and "breed" it.
currently use a nokia 521 for about a year.
saving almost $800 a year.
I think I'm processing the proprioception data visually but I'm not sure. It's an odd effect.
1) many states forbid protection from overtime for tech workers
2) forced holiday work
3) low company status
4) forced weekend work
5) forced night work
6) Sales force gets the glory even when tech does something tremendous to make the sale possible in the first place.
7) Told they are "not core business" and replaced by offshore workers (often doing tremendous damage to the business when all the business knowledge is shown out the door and people with no clue about the business replace them.
8) No training ("would make them leave")
But mainly it's the hours worked.
I've also seen at least a half dozen horrific accidents from that behavior including running a full red 2 seconds after it changed.
People should slow and prepare to stop at amber lights. It is actively dangerous on feeder roads because the combined blind spot with the other road coming under the freeway. A few years ago, I saw one truck wipe out three other cars including an SUV and break off the traffic light by running a red.
At least some birds will find a way. Perhaps some breeds humans like won't make it but birds as a group won't be killed by it. No way to predict what form the selective pressure will push.
It wasn't so much that they had a falling out with the movie stuidios as that the movie studios decided they could all each charge consumers directly. So we got a disney channel and a warner move channel and etc.
None of which I subscribe to.
Netflix was actually a bargain. It's less of a bargain today tho I still subscribe (for now).
Once it's dead, I'll probably drop to subscribing to it every few years and perhaps go back to torrenting content (tho that's getting riskier than it used to be).
He did. They got a big payout when the company was sold.
More critical to me was his statement that some day he would opensource minecraft when it started to die off. Part of what made minecraft succeed was the open sourcey feel to it. If he had said upfront it would be closed source owned by microsoft many of the people who helped it succeed wouldn't have invested their time into it.
He didn't say that. He said any kind of reciprocation would count-- even a plate of chicken.
Friendship is a two way street.
All I can say is talk to some retiring air traffic controllers. It's not like only a few of them saw it. The intercept was visible to air traffic controllers all over the country. It was the right thing to do based on the information the military and potus had at the time. But the heroic passenger bringing down the plane story was what we needed to hear then.
Based on how many controllers saw it, I expect it'll become common knowledge within the next few years as they all retire and don't need to maintain their security clearance any more.
Look back over my posts-- I don't post a lot of wild eyed shit.
It's a great story. But actually the plane was shot down before the passengers could act. The logs of the fighters scrambled were removed after about 3 hours but were clearly visible to air traffic control until them. No camera phones back then or it would have been pointless to even erase them.
The main physical evidence left actually on record is that the engine landed separately close to a half a mile away without a corresponding trail of debris leading there.
The passengers were aware and prepared to do something. But three planes had already hit buildings at that point.
I think marking this a troll is unfair since the parent poster concluded with an insulting, flamebait, trollish paragraph that was pretty much begging for a response.
I also think the parent poster falsely assumes an ideal world with one monolithic power source when the reality is we'll have a blended world and solar power is likely to be an order of magnitude cheaper than fusion for at least two more generations.