Proteins without useful functions tend not to stay around in populations. Chances are that this protein is important for something.
If the protein is created by the combination of an ordinarily inert gene and modern environmental conditions (i.e. obesity in the modern calorie abundant and sedentary environment) then the protein would not historically have been "around in populations" and the gene would not have been selected out.
You're making a common mistake, assuming that because nature has evolved us to be fairly optimal/healthy for past historical conditions, that we're optimized by evolution in a general sense for all time; or that all we're evolved to desire is good in the present. Not so.
We're optimized for a very different world then we've created, and in many ways we're maladapted to modern living. Evolution never planned for us getting everything we want or the option to sit all the time and eat as much as we like. In fact our desires are evolved to be healthy in accordance with the scarcity principle i.e. we desire most strongly that which is both needed and scarce.
Things which are historically needed but plentiful are often taken for granted and we've evolved mechanisms to effortlessly prevent gorging on them. Take breathing oxygen for example. Gorging oneself on oxygen isn't exactly a deadly sin because its levels have been plentiful throughout evolutionary history hence we evolved to take just as much as we need. But gorging on eating was recognized as "sinful" when it became possible with the advent of agriculture and when it became necessary for culture to address the inadequacy of evolved instinct to present conditions. We've been dealing with obesity and the "sin" of gluttony ever since.
No offense meant, but that (and the assumption that evolution is only relevant to reproductive age made by another poster) is actually false and a rather unfortunately common over-simplification of evolution. It presumes every gene must manifest in every individual during reproductive age and lead directly to reproduction to be of value. Not so.
Darwin and serious evolutionary biologists since have understood that's false; and in fact fails to explain the evolution of many social species especially primates/humans.
Many important fitness traits are shared by the group but only manifest in specialized ways in individuals, and may bear no direct relationship to that individual's reproduction. Yet, those genes still contribute to group survival and therefore would be selected for overall in the long run. Its group genetic potential leading to group increased fitness and reproduction as opposed to specific individual genetic manifestation and reproduction.
If these proteins are so bad, and so easy to genetically engineer out, then from an evolutionary standpoint, why do we have these genes? Are we sure this protein doesn't have a big positive effect that we are not aware of?
Imho that question is premised on flawed assumptions:
1) evolution might have selected against this gene as easily as geneticists 2) evolution had cause to, in historical context 3) therefore the gene must have some other benefit
The article suggests that a2P production is amplified by excessive fat storage, a condition rare to non-existent throughout evolution. Their hypothesis suggests:
a2P production may increase as a result of obesity
a2P -> inflammation
inflammation -> reduced metabolism and immunological functioning
That + modern living (calories, stress, sedentary) = exacerbated obesity.
Hence more a2p production, in a vicious cycle.
Historically calories were always scarce and required exercise. Hence there would be no natural precedent for selection against the a2P gene. Put simply a2P may be a byproduct of modern living. That's an important general principle: we're not adapted by evolution to modern life because we're changing our environment faster than biological evolution can keep up.
Our instinctual desire/effort/reward equation towards eating and rest are evolved proportional to historical scarcity. Today, successful adaptation and evolution is dependant on conscious choices individually and culturally, as well as the technological ability to re-program ourselves, both psychologically and physiologically.
> But discussions of choatic, but not conscious, systems such as weather don't touch on the Free Will issue.
Btw, that's also a rather silly and superficial distinction in regards to life on earth and the weather. If you want to be a weenie (which you seem to desire greatly) you could argue our free will and interaction with the universe makes everything non-deterministic or conversely the universe is deterministic and therefore no free will.
> or do you mean, "Regardless of any advances in technology and expenditure of extreme effort, it will never be possible to predict..."
That is also a silly infinitive assertion to make if you're trying to be perfectly correct.
Another silly person mentioned chaos and Feynman inappropriately in context of weather and modern forcasting which has improved exponentially since Feynman's era. The term "chaotic" isn't very meaningful these days because it's a blanket term for logarithmic increase in complexity, but lacking useful quantification. Under such simplistic definitions many systems are both chaotic and very much predictable.
I think your understanding of the terminology is rather superficial. Your introducing the philisopical dimension of the word into the discussion was a silly attempt to say something smart sounding.
Feynman's methods are totally outdated, as are his assumptions. He was in old age before the dawn of modern computing and since his death the field of simulating weather and fluid dynamics has been completly reinvented.
I meant deterministic in the sense of what we're able to predict, obviously.
Whether the entire universe is deterministic or whether free will even exists are philisophical and spiritual qustions outside the scope of this converstaion.
Sorry, but you're over estimating the chaotic qualities of weather based on some outdated thinking. Yes it's true weather is too chaotic to ever be completly deterministic and there is a limited horizon on forcasting. We're not ever likly to predict individual rainshowers months or years in advance for example.
However, it will be possible to predict large weather patterns long in advance, years and even decades. For averages over longer periods of time they're already making predictions by running simulations on a global resolution of only several miles.
Medium scale weather events like hurricaines can be predicted days in advance now becasue it's not that chaotic, it relies on large events like global weather fronts, ocean temps, etc which allow prediction to a high degree of accuracy now. And yes, better methods and increased comuatational power are making those predictions more accurate, earlier.
You should actually read papers on what's being done on climate modeling by going to some of the relevant sites. Operating on classroom theory of chaos generalized to weather isn't exactly useful.
> While that is true, the real concern here (as it is in any court case) is how the law is interpreted.
Right. I think this is less about a legal principle or fine point, and more about establishing guidelines for a more capable patent office which is better capable of determining the not always obvious enough.
In cutting edge fields like Biotech there are probably patent officers who award patents when in doubt, which makes sense due to their high value and possibility for appeal later, but still allows the possibility of frivilous patents and must bog down the courts and place a great burden on the industry.
I particularly liked your reference to "patently obvious" which is a term many people probably use without considering its meaning.
The general principles for determining what's "patently obvious" have existed for a long time. One could say that the definition of obviousness isn't itself obvious, but it should by now at least be common knowledge to skilled practitioners of the art i.e. the patent office and courts.
> it seems unlikely that we will ever accurately predict these events. Chaos has already doomed weather forcasters
Let me guess, you heard a butterfly can cause a hurricaine due to chaos theory right?:rolleyes
It depends what you mean by "accurately" I guess. If you mean predictions with high probability several days in advance, yes that's doable. As you may recall we're already predicting hurricaine formation and movement days to a week or more in advance now, with a decent level of accuracy, and getting better all the time.
Global forcasting is already able to predict micro-climate changes months and even years in advance on a resolution of only several miles due to shifting weather patterns on a global/continential scale.
If weather was truly chaotic, i.e. if the total of all buterflys and other tiny variables made for completly unpredictable weather, then such predictions wouldn't be possible. Obviously the weather is not as chaotic as many HS professors have cliamed in that famous example. For that matter we wouldn't likely see big stable spots on Venus or have predictble trade winds here on earth, or all sorts of other fairly predictable features.
From monitoring the globe via satellite for things like ocean temps, and with many sensors for wind speed, forecasters construct fluid dynamic simulations which make it possible to predict smaller and smaller weather patterns further into the future, with increasing accuracy, butterflys or no.
> I, having used my car to get to work, can leave at any time, make any number of stops, run any number of errands, go anywhere I choose. The very nature of mass transit dictates that the mass-transit commuter does not have as much flexibility.
btw, that is wrong about a lack of flexibility. First of all you can leave any time with a train system, and not have to worry about traffic jams or drunk drivers. There are late night taxis where trains aren't 24hrs. Also many people enjoy having to leave work for "last train" rather than employers keeping workers into the wee hours of the morning and 80/hr weeks due to poor management and insufficient work forces, a common problem in our culture.
Maybe you've never been in a good transit system?
You can make as many stops with as much flexibility and go to as many places as you want, faster, and without parking, individually or in groups as large as you like, with efficiency and with less pollution. In fact, because there is less space wasted for huge parking lots and such, you generally have much denser destinations where more can be done. All the shopping, entertainment, dining, etc is more closely situated. The advantage is that people can walk around to go to much more locations and see more people than in a car culture. One can for example go with coworkers/family for dinner and then a movie or drink, or to the gym, or whatever, much more easily.
btw, Americans hang out at malls a lot, so it's pretty obvious they like such places. The difference is that in Europe and Japan the gathering places tend to be around train stations, and instead of sterile "malls" they tend to be neighborhoods of small business, whether it's the small cafe, butcher, boutique, etc.
The business surrounding train stations and malls tend to evolve differently. Malls tend to be built by large developers, run centrally and often somewhat sterilely, with little flexibility to expand or contract due to issues of parking and the expense of real estate development. That tends to limit consumers options to franchises, food courts, and anme brand stores. By comparison business around train stations is often integrated right into the community and therefore has more ability to expand and contract by converting between residential/business/vacant. As a result business around train stations tend to be less franchised, more entrepreneurial, and more interesting and diverse with a real sense of community.
So, in the US you hop in a car and go from work to A to B to home. Each A + B are probably in a distinct location requiring a drive inbetween, where traffic is an issue and commute times vary. If A was a restaurant and B a gym or other recreation they'd probably require a drive in-between or be at a mall limiting the quality of both. If you're traveling with others then each has to worry about their car and parking. The 'advantage' is one doesn't need to walk much if at all, which means a trip to the gym (with a commute there) or probably no exercise. In fact one has to make a deliberate effort to take time to exercise in addition to commute time.
In a place like Japan or Europe, you simply take the train which is reliable and on time, and have no traffic issues, so you'll on average arrive faster. You get off the train and can walk a short distance to your A + B destination which are probably close to each other near the station, by design, decades ago. That integrates healthy living right into the day, seamlessly. If you're with friends, no problem. You'll have a greater number of interesting choices of activities at your destination. If you drink, no need to worry about driving.
> How is it not a choice? Losing weight is simple - expend more calories than you take in.
That's rather simplistic and superficial. What informs choices? Culture predominantly. And culture determines whether we're romantic about the supposed freedom of the car culture or concerned about the rising obesity epidemic and the increased difficulty of exercising in a car culture with long commutes.
In reality if you take a large group of people who share the same culture and split them into two different environments, one which promotes health and one which promotes unhealthy living, you'll get more unhealthy people in the unhealthy environment every time. In other words people's choices are predictable in large aggregates according to the cultural and environmental predetermined factors. According to your theory each individual is entirely free to choose a healthy life and therefore the results should be equal. In reality people are shaped by their environments much more than they like to admit. Individual choice exists within statistical probabilities. As the saying goes "I believe in self determination because I can't help it."
Cultural shifting of the probabilities only happens over long periods of time or due to major events. For example, after a few generations of car culture and obesity we may choose as a culture to shift towards more sustainable and healthy living, which will shift those brackets of probability in which people "choose" how to live.
> The options are different in Japan than in America. Given their real estate and population density situation, the cost of using personal vehicles as the primary mode of travel is far higher than it is in America.
Not true. There are some differences, but again they're rather superficial and not as important as you think. Japan does have higher population density than the USA on the whole when you count places like Montana, as does just about every developed country. However, much of the US population lives in metropolitan areas with population densities just as high as European or Japanese metro areas and yet their rail systems are consistently far better than ours as a cultural choice.
Also you're putting the historical events in reverse. The low population density sprawl came after the switch to a car culture, mostly after WWII, not the other way around. We didn't build a rail based infrastructure because it wasn't an option due to several unfortunate circumstance.
For one thing there was "white flight" which was less a "choice" than the product of racism due to circumstances beyond most peoples control. A minority of whites and a racist economic policy created a financial avalanche of shifting property values that forced the rest of whites and non-whites to segregate into suburban and urban. That wasn't a widespread cultural choice so much as it was stumbled into by a few in a circumstance which dragged everyone else along to their detriment.
As that mass exodus occurred new towns were being constructed piece meal with very little central planning or long term investment. It was all about cheap pre-fab homes with cheap loans (if you were white) and the resulting sprawl was incapable of building good infrastructure. Again, many people were forced economically to move to the burbs as urban property values and business plummeted as a result of bank's desire to build sprawl.
At the same time the concentration of wealth among industrialists and the big ticket industrial economy (which was a product of WWII) needed to sell cars and big refrigerators and washers and such.
So, the suburban car culture we have now is largely due to factors beyond the control of most Americans. It was marketed by industrialists, oil companies, and developers who became incredibly rich. It was spurred in many regards by a minority of racists and what can be called anti-social sentiments which led to a domino effect in economic policies. It happened in an ad-hoc manner which made civic infrastructure impossible, both in th
> The fundamental problem is that, given the choice, lots of people will choose to do that which is less healthy.
Ehhh... not really. The idea Americans choose to be unhealthy is a bit untrue. We don't have that much of a fair or equal choice considering that our culture herds us towards unhealthy lifestyles. Why for example are so many suburban people so fat? Do they choose to be?
Not in the context of driving vs. trains anyways. We like to pretend we have more freedom in our car culture, but in reality we have less. They do have cars in Japan afterall, they make the best cars in the world. Their highways are better than ours too.
What they have that we don't have are bullet trains and a very good rapid transist system. They *chose* that.
Actually the markets are always co-located with the train stations and since nobody is buying large amounts the wait/line time is nil. So you don't have to "go" there at all and it's a very different experience from American super-market shopping. The main difference is the ability to get small quantities of ultra-fresh perishable foods like fish or meats.
You wouldn't need to stop at the market any more than you currently do now, and probably less considering delivery. In places like Japan many people have bulk grocery orders delivered like the 20lb bag of rice for example (which is way more efficient for everybody) or drive to the store once a month or so like we do.
The benefits of a public transit system are more to do with the health benefits of walking a few blocks each way, the energy efficiency, the time efficiency of traffic jam-free on-time trains, the ability to read or such while in transit, the freedom from parking and other car related hassles, and reduction in things like DUI related deaths. It's just a better way to live.
Many people here can't imagine there is a better way, especially because we have all these unrealistic and romantic notions about our car culture. We tend to irrationally crave the impossible combination of health and happiness combined with a lack of exercise, but that's impossible. Or we do stupid things like spend 2 hours driving every day to spend 30 minutes in the gym.
People who have better transit systems tend to have a more functional lifestyle, be healthier, more energy efficient, less polluting, have more social life, etc. Our car culture is really unhealthy because people just aren't designed to live like that.
> There's absolutely no way I could carry 20 or 30 bags of groceries on a train without a team of sherpas.
Actually the way it works in places like Tokyo (or wherever they have good public transit) is that groceries are co-located at the train station or right beside it. Often the train stations are split level deals with food stalls and daily shopping downstairs. This has some benefits. For one thing people tend to eat much more nutrition dense fresh food and much less high bulk, high calorie, preserved food.
Another benefit is that people get accustomed to a mile or two walking exercise every day inbetween the home, office, and stations. Try getting many Americans to exercise daily. That has huge health benefits and takes the same time as many people spend driving in America, as well as social benefits. Then there is the additional time to read or such on the train.
I agree it's very difficult to do without cars in the US, but in many places like Japan is entirely possible and even preferable. The Japanese system much better as it has many side benefits Americans probably can't imagine not having tried it.
The "freedom" of a car culture is actually a big myth mostly due to car advertising and not knowing nay better. A good transit system that goes everywhere and is supplemented by taxis is actually much more liberating to get anywhere fast, avoid traffic, not have to park, lends itself to more community and less drive through sprawl, and much healthier for the bits of brief exercise one gets inbetween.
Woo hoo! I for one plan to celebrate this anniversity and American car culture alone in my suburban home!! First I'll eat an entire box of Crispy Cremes, 4 pocket pizzas, and a salad of iceberg lettuce with cocktail shrimp and a cup of ranch dressing while watching 10 hours straight of anime made for age 10 children. For variety I play video games and take naps. At no point will I be further from my sofa or computer desk than the bathroom, kitchen or bedroom.
Later I'll roll my diabetic and wheezing 250lb physique into the new GM model "Baron Harkonnen" which gets 10 MPG on the way to my local fast food drive-through while listening to anime soundtracks on the in-car DVD with premium sound system. Round trip: 2 gallons of gasoline for 20 miles driven, 20 meters walked, sedentary only calories burned, 3000 calories consumed, and brain flat-lined in a semi-dreamlike state the whole time.
Oh yea. Living the good life in America! (At least till my organs start failing by about age 40)
> Did my big talk about Judgment Day strike you as particularly convincing?
It was idiotic. There is no comparison between a scientific fact held by the global scientific consensus on one hand and a faith held by a tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians on the other. A complete non sequitur.
If you can't tell the difference you're a real idiot.
> Pretty amazing that the only place on Earth where you see a continuing big fight about global warming is America.
I know. I'm an American and it's really painful that there are so many ignorant dip-shits on these kinds of issues. Though I guess nobody escapes blame. It's the other shoe dropping for all those decades of low math and science test scores and neglect of the sciences.
Still though, I can't really say that any other people would have done better in our circumstances. Maybe it's partly due to our prosperous and isolated nature that we couldn't help becoming ignorant, lazy, and decadent to some extent.
Our revolutionary spirit combined with a sprawling landscape created a culture that takes for granted individualism without consequences, reckless abandon, and endless resources to be exploited. Don't forget Europeans and Asians had no shortage of feudalism and fascism while they grew population density and eventually stabilized to a more interdependent, enlightened culture.
Also, have to remember we're a big country and some parts are very enlightened, well educated, etc. Berkeley across the bay from me has the most PhD per capita in the world I believe. There's more enlightened people on the coasts and in the major cities than in an entire European country like France or England.
Well, I think that's pretty f'ing retarded attitude. Some people wouldn't bother to leave a flaming building or try to put the fire out if it wasn't spelled out for them, twice.
The debate is over, and the the global scientific consensus is in that global warming is real and a major threat to all of us, but especially hundreds of millions of poor people around the world. There are only a handful of oil and coal industry cranks that say global warming isn't real.
If you're waiting for a perfect consensus, where nobody dissents in the world, then that's pretty idiotic.
I've studied the issue in depth for well over a decade. I've read many of the most important studies and countless scientific articles published in journals on the subject.
Unlike the people who claim to be skeptical about global warming (when did "skeptical" become a synonym for ignorant and intellectually lazy?) I actually know something about it and value the consensus opinion of the global scientific community as opposed to a handful of cranks funded by oil and coal interests.
Based on that opinion, better than most, Gore's film is very good. Of course it has to simply somewhat because it's a movie. But the underlying science and the poitnt of the film emphasizing the seriousness of global warming and what people can do, all that is very solid.
These people criticizing it by nit picking and generally splitting hairs with it because of some political bias are a bunch of ignorant assholes, imho.
The Prius and fuel efficient vehicles are only one part of a solution. They do help though, and I really don't see what some ignorant people's problem is with fuel efficiency. What kind of moron is against better technology that's more efficient?
Combine the Prius and greater fuel efficiency with more bio-fuels, more solar, and various other solutions, and combined they'll make a big difference. The hostility towards them from some people is truly moronic.
Eventually we may switch to a hydrogen economy, in about 50 years or so. But even then it's not even an energy source but still has to be created by burning fossil fuels or solar or something else. It's no excuse to avoid conservation and renewable energy now.
I think the word you're looking for is ignorant not apathetic. Or to be more specific totally getting spun by Big Oil lobbyists.
It's not one scientist vs another. It's the entire global scientific community consensus that global warming is real, vs literally a handful of cranks, most of whom are totally outside their areas of expertise or on the payroll of big oil.
The debate is over. The only people who still don't know this are the sciences illiterate. Anyone who read science journals over the last decade or so knows this already.
Another problem is our joke of a news media. Anyone expecting their local TV big lip blond "journalist" to inform them on global warming... I have some news for: you're clueless.
Slashdot Mirror
If the protein is created by the combination of an ordinarily inert gene and modern environmental conditions (i.e. obesity in the modern calorie abundant and sedentary environment) then the protein would not historically have been "around in populations" and the gene would not have been selected out.
You're making a common mistake, assuming that because nature has evolved us to be fairly optimal/healthy for past historical conditions, that we're optimized by evolution in a general sense for all time; or that all we're evolved to desire is good in the present. Not so.
We're optimized for a very different world then we've created, and in many ways we're maladapted to modern living. Evolution never planned for us getting everything we want or the option to sit all the time and eat as much as we like. In fact our desires are evolved to be healthy in accordance with the scarcity principle i.e. we desire most strongly that which is both needed and scarce.
Things which are historically needed but plentiful are often taken for granted and we've evolved mechanisms to effortlessly prevent gorging on them. Take breathing oxygen for example. Gorging oneself on oxygen isn't exactly a deadly sin because its levels have been plentiful throughout evolutionary history hence we evolved to take just as much as we need. But gorging on eating was recognized as "sinful" when it became possible with the advent of agriculture and when it became necessary for culture to address the inadequacy of evolved instinct to present conditions. We've been dealing with obesity and the "sin" of gluttony ever since.
No offense meant, but that (and the assumption that evolution is only relevant to reproductive age made by another poster) is actually false and a rather unfortunately common over-simplification of evolution. It presumes every gene must manifest in every individual during reproductive age and lead directly to reproduction to be of value. Not so.
Darwin and serious evolutionary biologists since have understood that's false; and in fact fails to explain the evolution of many social species especially primates/humans.
Many important fitness traits are shared by the group but only manifest in specialized ways in individuals, and may bear no direct relationship to that individual's reproduction. Yet, those genes still contribute to group survival and therefore would be selected for overall in the long run. Its group genetic potential leading to group increased fitness and reproduction as opposed to specific individual genetic manifestation and reproduction.
Imho that question is premised on flawed assumptions:
1) evolution might have selected against this gene as easily as geneticists
2) evolution had cause to, in historical context
3) therefore the gene must have some other benefit
The article suggests that a2P production is amplified by excessive fat storage, a condition rare to non-existent throughout evolution. Their hypothesis suggests:
a2P production may increase as a result of obesity
a2P -> inflammation
inflammation -> reduced metabolism and immunological functioning
That + modern living (calories, stress, sedentary) = exacerbated obesity.
Hence more a2p production, in a vicious cycle.
Historically calories were always scarce and required exercise. Hence there would be no natural precedent for selection against the a2P gene. Put simply a2P may be a byproduct of modern living. That's an important general principle: we're not adapted by evolution to modern life because we're changing our environment faster than biological evolution can keep up.
Our instinctual desire/effort/reward equation towards eating and rest are evolved proportional to historical scarcity. Today, successful adaptation and evolution is dependant on conscious choices individually and culturally, as well as the technological ability to re-program ourselves, both psychologically and physiologically.
> But discussions of choatic, but not conscious, systems such as weather don't touch on the Free Will issue.
Btw, that's also a rather silly and superficial distinction in regards to life on earth and the weather. If you want to be a weenie (which you seem to desire greatly) you could argue our free will and interaction with the universe makes everything non-deterministic or conversely the universe is deterministic and therefore no free will.
> or do you mean, "Regardless of any advances in technology and expenditure of extreme effort, it will never be possible to predict..."
That is also a silly infinitive assertion to make if you're trying to be perfectly correct.
Another silly person mentioned chaos and Feynman inappropriately in context of weather and modern forcasting which has improved exponentially since Feynman's era. The term "chaotic" isn't very meaningful these days because it's a blanket term for logarithmic increase in complexity, but lacking useful quantification. Under such simplistic definitions many systems are both chaotic and very much predictable.
:rolleyes
I think your understanding of the terminology is rather superficial. Your introducing the philisopical dimension of the word into the discussion was a silly attempt to say something smart sounding.
Feynman's methods are totally outdated, as are his assumptions. He was in old age before the dawn of modern computing and since his death the field of simulating weather and fluid dynamics has been completly reinvented.
I meant deterministic in the sense of what we're able to predict, obviously. Whether the entire universe is deterministic or whether free will even exists are philisophical and spiritual qustions outside the scope of this converstaion.
Sorry, but you're over estimating the chaotic qualities of weather based on some outdated thinking. Yes it's true weather is too chaotic to ever be completly deterministic and there is a limited horizon on forcasting. We're not ever likly to predict individual rainshowers months or years in advance for example.
However, it will be possible to predict large weather patterns long in advance, years and even decades. For averages over longer periods of time they're already making predictions by running simulations on a global resolution of only several miles.
Medium scale weather events like hurricaines can be predicted days in advance now becasue it's not that chaotic, it relies on large events like global weather fronts, ocean temps, etc which allow prediction to a high degree of accuracy now. And yes, better methods and increased comuatational power are making those predictions more accurate, earlier.
You should actually read papers on what's being done on climate modeling by going to some of the relevant sites. Operating on classroom theory of chaos generalized to weather isn't exactly useful.
> While that is true, the real concern here (as it is in any court case) is how the law is interpreted.
Right. I think this is less about a legal principle or fine point, and more about establishing guidelines for a more capable patent office which is better capable of determining the not always obvious enough.
In cutting edge fields like Biotech there are probably patent officers who award patents when in doubt, which makes sense due to their high value and possibility for appeal later, but still allows the possibility of frivilous patents and must bog down the courts and place a great burden on the industry.
I particularly liked your reference to "patently obvious" which is a term many people probably use without considering its meaning.
The general principles for determining what's "patently obvious" have existed for a long time. One could say that the definition of obviousness isn't itself obvious, but it should by now at least be common knowledge to skilled practitioners of the art i.e. the patent office and courts.
What a silly example. The test relies on trickery and a deliberate misunderstanding of the rules is all. The only thing invented was a good con job.
> it seems unlikely that we will ever accurately predict these events. Chaos has already doomed weather forcasters
:rolleyes
Let me guess, you heard a butterfly can cause a hurricaine due to chaos theory right?
It depends what you mean by "accurately" I guess. If you mean predictions with high probability several days in advance, yes that's doable. As you may recall we're already predicting hurricaine formation and movement days to a week or more in advance now, with a decent level of accuracy, and getting better all the time.
Global forcasting is already able to predict micro-climate changes months and even years in advance on a resolution of only several miles due to shifting weather patterns on a global/continential scale.
If weather was truly chaotic, i.e. if the total of all buterflys and other tiny variables made for completly unpredictable weather, then such predictions wouldn't be possible. Obviously the weather is not as chaotic as many HS professors have cliamed in that famous example. For that matter we wouldn't likely see big stable spots on Venus or have predictble trade winds here on earth, or all sorts of other fairly predictable features.
From monitoring the globe via satellite for things like ocean temps, and with many sensors for wind speed, forecasters construct fluid dynamic simulations which make it possible to predict smaller and smaller weather patterns further into the future, with increasing accuracy, butterflys or no.
> I, having used my car to get to work, can leave at any time, make any number of stops, run any number of errands, go anywhere I choose. The very nature of mass transit dictates that the mass-transit commuter does not have as much flexibility.
btw, that is wrong about a lack of flexibility. First of all you can leave any time with a train system, and not have to worry about traffic jams or drunk drivers. There are late night taxis where trains aren't 24hrs. Also many people enjoy having to leave work for "last train" rather than employers keeping workers into the wee hours of the morning and 80/hr weeks due to poor management and insufficient work forces, a common problem in our culture.
Maybe you've never been in a good transit system?
You can make as many stops with as much flexibility and go to as many places as you want, faster, and without parking, individually or in groups as large as you like, with efficiency and with less pollution. In fact, because there is less space wasted for huge parking lots and such, you generally have much denser destinations where more can be done. All the shopping, entertainment, dining, etc is more closely situated. The advantage is that people can walk around to go to much more locations and see more people than in a car culture. One can for example go with coworkers/family for dinner and then a movie or drink, or to the gym, or whatever, much more easily.
btw, Americans hang out at malls a lot, so it's pretty obvious they like such places. The difference is that in Europe and Japan the gathering places tend to be around train stations, and instead of sterile "malls" they tend to be neighborhoods of small business, whether it's the small cafe, butcher, boutique, etc.
The business surrounding train stations and malls tend to evolve differently. Malls tend to be built by large developers, run centrally and often somewhat sterilely, with little flexibility to expand or contract due to issues of parking and the expense of real estate development. That tends to limit consumers options to franchises, food courts, and anme brand stores. By comparison business around train stations is often integrated right into the community and therefore has more ability to expand and contract by converting between residential/business/vacant. As a result business around train stations tend to be less franchised, more entrepreneurial, and more interesting and diverse with a real sense of community.
So, in the US you hop in a car and go from work to A to B to home. Each A + B are probably in a distinct location requiring a drive inbetween, where traffic is an issue and commute times vary. If A was a restaurant and B a gym or other recreation they'd probably require a drive in-between or be at a mall limiting the quality of both. If you're traveling with others then each has to worry about their car and parking. The 'advantage' is one doesn't need to walk much if at all, which means a trip to the gym (with a commute there) or probably no exercise. In fact one has to make a deliberate effort to take time to exercise in addition to commute time.
In a place like Japan or Europe, you simply take the train which is reliable and on time, and have no traffic issues, so you'll on average arrive faster. You get off the train and can walk a short distance to your A + B destination which are probably close to each other near the station, by design, decades ago. That integrates healthy living right into the day, seamlessly. If you're with friends, no problem. You'll have a greater number of interesting choices of activities at your destination. If you drink, no need to worry about driving.
> How is it not a choice? Losing weight is simple - expend more calories than you take in.
That's rather simplistic and superficial. What informs choices? Culture predominantly. And culture determines whether we're romantic about the supposed freedom of the car culture or concerned about the rising obesity epidemic and the increased difficulty of exercising in a car culture with long commutes.
In reality if you take a large group of people who share the same culture and split them into two different environments, one which promotes health and one which promotes unhealthy living, you'll get more unhealthy people in the unhealthy environment every time. In other words people's choices are predictable in large aggregates according to the cultural and environmental predetermined factors. According to your theory each individual is entirely free to choose a healthy life and therefore the results should be equal. In reality people are shaped by their environments much more than they like to admit. Individual choice exists within statistical probabilities. As the saying goes "I believe in self determination because I can't help it."
Cultural shifting of the probabilities only happens over long periods of time or due to major events. For example, after a few generations of car culture and obesity we may choose as a culture to shift towards more sustainable and healthy living, which will shift those brackets of probability in which people "choose" how to live.
> The options are different in Japan than in America. Given their real estate and population density situation, the cost of using personal vehicles as the primary mode of travel is far higher than it is in America.
Not true. There are some differences, but again they're rather superficial and not as important as you think. Japan does have higher population density than the USA on the whole when you count places like Montana, as does just about every developed country. However, much of the US population lives in metropolitan areas with population densities just as high as European or Japanese metro areas and yet their rail systems are consistently far better than ours as a cultural choice.
Also you're putting the historical events in reverse. The low population density sprawl came after the switch to a car culture, mostly after WWII, not the other way around. We didn't build a rail based infrastructure because it wasn't an option due to several unfortunate circumstance.
For one thing there was "white flight" which was less a "choice" than the product of racism due to circumstances beyond most peoples control. A minority of whites and a racist economic policy created a financial avalanche of shifting property values that forced the rest of whites and non-whites to segregate into suburban and urban. That wasn't a widespread cultural choice so much as it was stumbled into by a few in a circumstance which dragged everyone else along to their detriment.
As that mass exodus occurred new towns were being constructed piece meal with very little central planning or long term investment. It was all about cheap pre-fab homes with cheap loans (if you were white) and the resulting sprawl was incapable of building good infrastructure. Again, many people were forced economically to move to the burbs as urban property values and business plummeted as a result of bank's desire to build sprawl.
At the same time the concentration of wealth among industrialists and the big ticket industrial economy (which was a product of WWII) needed to sell cars and big refrigerators and washers and such.
So, the suburban car culture we have now is largely due to factors beyond the control of most Americans. It was marketed by industrialists, oil companies, and developers who became incredibly rich. It was spurred in many regards by a minority of racists and what can be called anti-social sentiments which led to a domino effect in economic policies. It happened in an ad-hoc manner which made civic infrastructure impossible, both in th
> The fundamental problem is that, given the choice, lots of people will choose to do that which is less healthy.
Ehhh... not really. The idea Americans choose to be unhealthy is a bit untrue. We don't have that much of a fair or equal choice considering that our culture herds us towards unhealthy lifestyles. Why for example are so many suburban people so fat? Do they choose to be?
Not in the context of driving vs. trains anyways. We like to pretend we have more freedom in our car culture, but in reality we have less. They do have cars in Japan afterall, they make the best cars in the world. Their highways are better than ours too.
What they have that we don't have are bullet trains and a very good rapid transist system. They *chose* that.
He's right, his way is superior and his point that not enough Americans are aware there is a better way is also true.
If he wins the "superiority contest" then so did the guy who invented the wheel or the hybrid gas/electric drivetrain.
Having animostiy towards someone pointing out there is a better way, that's obnoxious.
Actually the markets are always co-located with the train stations and since nobody is buying large amounts the wait/line time is nil. So you don't have to "go" there at all and it's a very different experience from American super-market shopping. The main difference is the ability to get small quantities of ultra-fresh perishable foods like fish or meats.
You wouldn't need to stop at the market any more than you currently do now, and probably less considering delivery. In places like Japan many people have bulk grocery orders delivered like the 20lb bag of rice for example (which is way more efficient for everybody) or drive to the store once a month or so like we do.
The benefits of a public transit system are more to do with the health benefits of walking a few blocks each way, the energy efficiency, the time efficiency of traffic jam-free on-time trains, the ability to read or such while in transit, the freedom from parking and other car related hassles, and reduction in things like DUI related deaths. It's just a better way to live.
Many people here can't imagine there is a better way, especially because we have all these unrealistic and romantic notions about our car culture. We tend to irrationally crave the impossible combination of health and happiness combined with a lack of exercise, but that's impossible. Or we do stupid things like spend 2 hours driving every day to spend 30 minutes in the gym.
People who have better transit systems tend to have a more functional lifestyle, be healthier, more energy efficient, less polluting, have more social life, etc. Our car culture is really unhealthy because people just aren't designed to live like that.
> There's absolutely no way I could carry 20 or 30 bags of groceries on a train without a team of sherpas.
Actually the way it works in places like Tokyo (or wherever they have good public transit) is that groceries are co-located at the train station or right beside it. Often the train stations are split level deals with food stalls and daily shopping downstairs. This has some benefits. For one thing people tend to eat much more nutrition dense fresh food and much less high bulk, high calorie, preserved food.
Another benefit is that people get accustomed to a mile or two walking exercise every day inbetween the home, office, and stations. Try getting many Americans to exercise daily. That has huge health benefits and takes the same time as many people spend driving in America, as well as social benefits. Then there is the additional time to read or such on the train.
I agree it's very difficult to do without cars in the US, but in many places like Japan is entirely possible and even preferable. The Japanese system much better as it has many side benefits Americans probably can't imagine not having tried it.
The "freedom" of a car culture is actually a big myth mostly due to car advertising and not knowing nay better. A good transit system that goes everywhere and is supplemented by taxis is actually much more liberating to get anywhere fast, avoid traffic, not have to park, lends itself to more community and less drive through sprawl, and much healthier for the bits of brief exercise one gets inbetween.
Woo hoo! I for one plan to celebrate this anniversity and American car culture alone in my suburban home!! First I'll eat an entire box of Crispy Cremes, 4 pocket pizzas, and a salad of iceberg lettuce with cocktail shrimp and a cup of ranch dressing while watching 10 hours straight of anime made for age 10 children. For variety I play video games and take naps. At no point will I be further from my sofa or computer desk than the bathroom, kitchen or bedroom.
Later I'll roll my diabetic and wheezing 250lb physique into the new GM model "Baron Harkonnen" which gets 10 MPG on the way to my local fast food drive-through while listening to anime soundtracks on the in-car DVD with premium sound system. Round trip: 2 gallons of gasoline for 20 miles driven, 20 meters walked, sedentary only calories burned, 3000 calories consumed, and brain flat-lined in a semi-dreamlike state the whole time.
Oh yea. Living the good life in America! (At least till my organs start failing by about age 40)
> Did my big talk about Judgment Day strike you as particularly convincing?
It was idiotic. There is no comparison between a scientific fact held by the global scientific consensus on one hand and a faith held by a tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians on the other. A complete non sequitur.
If you can't tell the difference you're a real idiot.
> Pretty amazing that the only place on Earth where you see a continuing big fight about global warming is America.
I know. I'm an American and it's really painful that there are so many ignorant dip-shits on these kinds of issues. Though I guess nobody escapes blame. It's the other shoe dropping for all those decades of low math and science test scores and neglect of the sciences.
Still though, I can't really say that any other people would have done better in our circumstances. Maybe it's partly due to our prosperous and isolated nature that we couldn't help becoming ignorant, lazy, and decadent to some extent.
Our revolutionary spirit combined with a sprawling landscape created a culture that takes for granted individualism without consequences, reckless abandon, and endless resources to be exploited. Don't forget Europeans and Asians had no shortage of feudalism and fascism while they grew population density and eventually stabilized to a more interdependent, enlightened culture.
Also, have to remember we're a big country and some parts are very enlightened, well educated, etc. Berkeley across the bay from me has the most PhD per capita in the world I believe. There's more enlightened people on the coasts and in the major cities than in an entire European country like France or England.
Well, I think that's pretty f'ing retarded attitude. Some people wouldn't bother to leave a flaming building or try to put the fire out if it wasn't spelled out for them, twice.
The debate is over, and the the global scientific consensus is in that global warming is real and a major threat to all of us, but especially hundreds of millions of poor people around the world. There are only a handful of oil and coal industry cranks that say global warming isn't real.
If you're waiting for a perfect consensus, where nobody dissents in the world, then that's pretty idiotic.
I've studied the issue in depth for well over a decade. I've read many of the most important studies and countless scientific articles published in journals on the subject.
Unlike the people who claim to be skeptical about global warming (when did "skeptical" become a synonym for ignorant and intellectually lazy?) I actually know something about it and value the consensus opinion of the global scientific community as opposed to a handful of cranks funded by oil and coal interests.
Based on that opinion, better than most, Gore's film is very good. Of course it has to simply somewhat because it's a movie. But the underlying science and the poitnt of the film emphasizing the seriousness of global warming and what people can do, all that is very solid.
These people criticizing it by nit picking and generally splitting hairs with it because of some political bias are a bunch of ignorant assholes, imho.
The Prius and fuel efficient vehicles are only one part of a solution. They do help though, and I really don't see what some ignorant people's problem is with fuel efficiency. What kind of moron is against better technology that's more efficient?
Combine the Prius and greater fuel efficiency with more bio-fuels, more solar, and various other solutions, and combined they'll make a big difference. The hostility towards them from some people is truly moronic.
Eventually we may switch to a hydrogen economy, in about 50 years or so. But even then it's not even an energy source but still has to be created by burning fossil fuels or solar or something else. It's no excuse to avoid conservation and renewable energy now.
I think the word you're looking for is ignorant not apathetic. Or to be more specific totally getting spun by Big Oil lobbyists.
It's not one scientist vs another. It's the entire global scientific community consensus that global warming is real, vs literally a handful of cranks, most of whom are totally outside their areas of expertise or on the payroll of big oil.
The debate is over. The only people who still don't know this are the sciences illiterate. Anyone who read science journals over the last decade or so knows this already.
Another problem is our joke of a news media. Anyone expecting their local TV big lip blond "journalist" to inform them on global warming... I have some news for: you're clueless.