Dear Opportunist,
America has juries with the intent to frustrate the government from always having its way, period: because of juries, the executive (who purports to act in the name of the law), legislative (who makes the laws), and judicial (who rules on the laws) can all be nullified and hindered by ordinary people: even if not particularly practicing "nullification" per se, they can at least hang trials over and over if something is questionable. So long as one analytical and logical reasoner is in the jury, and something about a trial is dubious, the motion against an accused fails: that is, at least, if that person gives a damn about being honest and upright. Far from being insensible and stupid, it's a feature: get over it. Note that it's not just the government, but the accused as well, that can appeal to the emotions of a jury.
Why would a nation in such a bad economic position (i.e. population total vs. productive population, defense capabilities in view, etc.) wish to present itself as a power of any kind? That would be silly, and make its neighbors nervous. Better to keep the hush on even if it were far more capable.
Best response to the "unintended consequences" deflection or diversion crying "guns no good, scary me, ahhh!!!" Would mod up if I had points given that people also divert with "but piracy's the symptom, not the problem!", such simple "logic" not understanding that sometimes treating symptoms is the only option that can be realized. Mod up, mod up.
My history is shaky on this, but I very much doubt your assertion that armed merchantmen were known as privateers who later became stronger pirates; actually, I know it's bull, because all merchant vessels at the time were armed, and privateers' vessels were dedicated to their task; they also happened to consist largely of former pirates made legitimate by grant of letters of course or letters of marque and reprisal, although some distinguished those granted these letters from privateers... it gets technical, hence the shaky history, but some dumbass that used a merchant vessel would probably not fare well in that business, unless for some reason it happened to be militaristic in design. "Privateers" very specifically had the blessing of a nation to...go after other nations' ships (i.e. enemy nations). They weren't merchantmen of the sort that just conduct trade: they were the agents of "private war", hence "privateer". Of further interest to some, the U.S. retains formal legal power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, without subjection to any treaty (you may note that the U.S. government and legal system is constructed in such a way that they cannot be subjected or made secondary to treaties with foreign powers, hence why very often treaties it signs are signed only with certain stipulations and/or exceptions, or never fully ratified though arrangements may be made to comply extensively and voluntarily). But anyway, simple point meant: "pirate"=armed illegal marauder, "privateer"="legitimized-by-license pirate". The USS Cole was bombed, by the way, not attacked by a man on a boat with a gun. It was attacked by determined terrorists, not people wanting to lawfully defend themselves. Methinks the U.S. should apply extraterritorality as it has with the likes of speech rights and force the issue around the world, as simply defining someone with a weapon as "hostile" without intent or purpose is illogical and serves the interests only of statists. Law enforcement in the U.S. that encounters someone (such as on the roads) whose license plates or I.D., when checked against databases, indicates they have weapons permits, actually speaks of feeling safer, because they know the person is a lawful carrier, as opposed to some punk that's going to shoot them in the face for inconvenience: I would bet that assuming registered commercial vessels are armed for self defense would be a similar case, especially given that commercial entities would not wish to suffer liabilities over someone shooting the wrong people, and be quite strong on the discipline if their folks were armed. But you should note that arming vessels for self defense against pirates likely has little to do with small arms, and includes vaster measures which would in aggregate still be cheaper than deploying warships to sparsely monitor shipping routes, and with some thought about technology could use a couple thousand dollars of off-the-shelf parts to detect incoming small craft, and turn the larger arms in the appropriate direction to sink them.
The incident with Babble occurred due to the hubris of man (don't kill me for using a Greek term). Maybe they touch on it here, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-458-the-bible-spring-2007/ although I do not know. And yeah, I know you were attempting a joke, but it is not a very good one: maybe with delivery it could be--plenty of bad jokes are funny because of the joker, but I figure someone might be interested in the MIT link. Don't know how well an engineering institution will pull-off teaching on literature and biblical stuff (mesuspects that some traditionalist--though not fundamentalists, religious organizations would probably do a whole lot better, but again, don't know). Now that I have said all I don't know, I'll have to put that MIT course on my own to-do/listen/watch/whatever list, but it could take a while to get to (stupid priorities).
(Because launching solar panels into space and beaming the power down to a receiving station near population centers is better than putting solar panels in the desert and running power to city centers via cables?)
It does depend location from location ("American" culture is not the same place to place), but generally speaking poor service means no tip, while good service means either a tip, or maybe a larger than usually expected tip (especially if you intend to return to the location). Not tipping might mean you ought not return to a location, except with a different server. While some here are commenting on "a tip is expected no matter what", that has not been my personal experience as an American, though I do try to take note of whether someone is being overworked and having a bad day such that even with mediocre service, if they try despite circumstances (or are near break down) I might give a small tip, and a few quick words in thanks or maybe a compliment or two, in encouragement.
[quote]tipping in Japan IS terribly rude[/quote]
Is it rude or just not done? I can hardly imagine someone working as a server in a country as expensive as Japan taking a whole lot of offense at being given more money than they are paid by the establishment.
Tsk, tsk: Spanish doesn't have sex, it has gender, which is descended from the Latin cases with some Gallic corruption.
Mea culpa. I should know better. La corbata certainly isn't sexually or naturally female, and vestido certainly is not male. : ) Now as for really not replying anymore to finish what needs to be done...
I am particularly taken aback by your inclusion of my description of endosymbiosis as questionable.
It's the certainty about it:
Mitochondria and chloroplasts (and their less well-known cousins, chromoplasts and amyloplasts) actually started out as different kinds of bacteria and just got absorbed into a cell one day.
or maybe it is the nonchalance of presentation. "just go absorbed into a cell one day". It's quite the think to talk about two very different organisms of any kinds becoming one: endosymbiosis is one thing, but what we have at hand are truly integrated systems that behave as one and can only be separated in rare instances (yeast have been found to survive without them on some substrates). There is that sense of "well it had to have happened somewhere along these lines", but at least professors I had were somewhat reticent about insisting upon that; reasons for it include analogues between the organelles and other independent critters; difficulties include the elegant coordination between genetic regulation in the nucleus and that in mitochondria in the cell. Sure they are just difficulties, but the sort of thing at which some great minds do take pause...so again, perhaps any "problem" I have is more to the nonchalance of presentation. Maybe I just take after the example of those I studied under.
If your schedule can accommodate it, I am your willing student.
I wish. If it did I might ask also to be yours. As it is, I have been taking far too much time as it is interacting on these forums today (alerts via a mobile device), probably for escape: too much to do and much of it drudgery. But not getting it all done affects others dependent on me, so I intend this to be my final message of the day.
Forgive--I was not attempting to be florid, nor employing literary affect; it--ordis--is a Late Latin term used for logic order of things, without necessarily having any reference to time; I have seen it used rarely but it is remarkably useful, and I don't really think too hard about employing it. Similarly, I did not plan out that sentence, I just wrote it. I think a little differently, having studied languages where other signposts exist to help someone orient themselves around some communication. Spanish has sex, Latin, Greek, and other case based languages have their morphological termini as well.
Written English has something between that nesting and the remaining sense of pause imbued in punctuation for knowing how things fit: it's a bit of a mess; has some semantic inheritances and correlators, and here and there associated items, but still messy. As for clarity, an example I think upon is the likes of Organic Chemistry courses where professors explain to new students that the terms they will be employing are essentially the same that inorganic chemists employ, but just useful for the different contexts, when in reality they are actually speaking not of the same thing, as I have seen teachers assert, but of different aspects of the same thing. Indeed that should be intuitive, and to some it is, with others not so much. Programmers get into that realm frequently, like we see around here with debate over whether pointers and objects indicated are the same or really different. The answer is neither yes nor no. One is object, other is not; one inherits something of its nature from the other, the other a thing in itself (excepting that we start considering nothing is a thing in itself, but just for thought purposes).
What I've read of (professional) epistemology has always been strikingly compatible with what I already intuitively know—although my father having a philosophy education might have influenced that somewhat.
Yes perhaps. I could say something similar: having an English professor in the family who reads various languages and sends me mountains of books may have something to do with the oddities like using "ordis".
The other organism would not have to be a 'highly organized set of chemicals' to qualify as life in the first place.
I mean compared to the environment around them.
You and I are barely distinguishable from food for bacteria, but we've evolved to deal with them specifically
As organisms are organized chemicals and structures to deal with the environment, hence to
Why would there be other harsh conditions?
what I meant. Especially the conditions we currently conceive of as probably on early Earth. But to put it generally, all non-life conditions are essentially hostile to lifeforms.
If the reason for the break was failing out of school... it will just take a bit more motivation.;-)
Just kept getting sick. Had to leave so my GPA wouldn't get totally destroyed: you can't study when you're anesthetized on an ever-increasing dose of antihistamines for various cell receptors to keep your immune system from eating you. (Darn that sucked.)
It [...] helps if you're working in a modern science [...] there will be plenty of money around. If you're in grad school for english rhetoric... maybe not.
Don't know that I have ever actually used this myself, but I actually LOLed.
So we go from internal to external digestion with just a little hint of biological warfare? The actual fact that the other organism is a highly organized set of chemicals to qualify as life in the first place perhaps might defy simply generalizing that one need only spit something at them which causes disorder and the other is barely distinguishable from food to the more evolved organism, given that the latter itself would have to be able to survive other harsh conditions that should cause disorder or breakdown without such countermeasures. Fun to talk though, keep it coming. I am interested in anything you have to show me I am wrong, and eager to learn. I was a biology student until getting rather sick, and would be going back perhaps soon if it weren't for a family member needing oversight and care, so my exposure to the discipline for the good part of several years has been limited to neurobiology and to some advanced research on the role of a certain protein (I can't actually talk about in specifics) in effects upon mental development and capability for a friend getting a PhD in that arena, (checking for problems in her theories, papers, etc.), and helping sort through students' papers for problems in their grading (though of course ensuring all decisions made final are by her review since she was in charge of those classes; also to help check to see her standards were applied consistently from beginning to end of grading to make sure students are treated fairly rather than varying due to being near the top of the stack where a grader is sure to be less tired and frustrated, or near the end). From that perspective, so sorry for your graduate status: it is often comparable to slavery these days, and no real protections or safeguards from the institution which can spit someone out at any time or heap enough atop someone to just crush them. Congrats on being in your final year: the proverbial light at the tunnel's end is good to see in any endeavor suffered long.
Diagramming can be fun, but doesn't always work when confronted with the likes of semantic inheritance or signposts. The comment on/. is an echo of "that are" but for the singular, and I meant only that/. can be quite the adversarial community of people shouting at each other. It can also be one full of pomposity or long windedness, and people showing off, and for the fun of it I tried to catch all that in the style of my last reply.
; )
I feel the pain though, as my brain got into nesting things neatly the first semester of Java pouring over pages and pages of printouts years ago trying to find the one darn little bracket that had to be missing. That and playing around with HTML. Subsequent cancer treatments later fried the fruits of those labors out of my mind, but got what was left interested in biology and the sciences; also leftover was trying to look at grammar and language like a bunch of neat nests (and it has taken years to undo this since semantic signposts and other signals are also important--especially to those interested in reading very old literatures). If you agree with some of the philosophical stuff also, by the way, and would like further reading, I have read a bit by Stephen Hawking about why he chose physics over biology and it parallels my observations (in meaning, if any gets angry over ordis, his words definitely take priority on such things): complained that biologists just did not define or explain things well. That they lacked precision. There are some old works on epistemology relevant to such things as well: "The Order and Integration of Knowledge" by Martin is such a work, cheap if you can find it.
Too bad that more minds that demand that sort of rigor don't jump into biology with greater frequency, since often they do great things when they come to the dark side even if, as Crick put it, it's like starting fresh since so much more experimental corroboration is necessary, yet look at what happened when Francis Crick did! I remember a few years back when another physicist started dabbling he found an equation describing the structure and distribution of vascular networks for perhaps every known example of life that has any, but can't recall his name at the moment (sorry). Darn I should, as it was big news among the bionerds at the time.
Actually there is plenty of travesty in your writing on the level of popular science journalism with which I could take issue, but I did not and will not for the medium of communication and the fact that it is impertinent to the audience here which is unlikely to have many with the background to understand or benefit from it much, and frankly much of what happens in popular science journalism does because to write in anything less than a large tome will by consequence of the nature of the topics elucidated make for nothing more than inaccurate communication to those without the background. Further I avoid doing so for the esoteric realms to be broached in critique of science and modes of explanation for phenomena in order to answer the statements you made, which even most highly trained scientists, who at heart are experimentalists and not philosophers able to critique logic and narrative for consistency and rationality in accord with nature or observations they have made and fitted with certain explanations, or metaphysical professors able to discern where a statement concerns existential ramifications as opposed to ontologies, struggle to appreciate.
Now I didn't mention any of that in the first reply and I even put a smiley at the end like this, : ) in a sort of expression of solidarity towards someone who, trying to explain complicated things to a bunch of people who might not have ever had the privilege or time to get the background necessary to understand them, is ensconced with difficulties that seem impossible to surmount, especially when trying to talk to a large denominator given no hint as to what exactly that group actually knows prior, but you didn't catch that. I know in the heated political and ideological battleground that are the modern natural sciences, especially biology with the positivists screaming "God is dead" (and apparently not understanding what Nietzsche meant) and the theists screaming "nuh uh", the egomaniacs competing for grants and shouting "no your stupider" at each other (I was "privileged" with getting to see some REALLY big science egos personally; a professor in my family who has been known to get to host the likes of the late Stephen J. Gould also gives me some juicy details on this sort of a thing), and other battles, and that is the community called "Slashdot", we tend to get adversarial, but perhaps you ought take a moment to figure if someone giving you a playful jab is really an adversary or just being friendly. You know,
: )
Yes you can. If you go to a page of wikipedia besides its home page and then stop the page loading right after the page content appears, the black-out screen does not take over. : )
As a bioguy, you are oversimplifying a lot here: and reducing the doubt regarding these things from view. For points 1-4. For the computer nerds sure, but still... : )
No to mention that the first life had an advantage in there currently being no existing life to compete with. Any new life would immediately have to compete with heavily evolved organisms that do not see the new life as special... just as a new snack.
You're talking about phagocytosis. If we working from the assumption that early life should be simpler, you have to talk about it deriving energy from simpler chemicals in the environment: one organism eating another is (dare I say it) far more complex than the (also complex) task of ingesting rawer materials less organized than in, say, a cellular compact: not the sort of thing Occam's (mentioned and fought over above) prefers in early stages of development. More likely would be the earlier appeared organism would out-compete the newbie for the same raw materials, that is, if the newbie required any of the same stuff for viability.
Perhaps not in his defence given nothing about it is mentioned, but which might make the whole ordeal sensible to those who know, Google
ubuntu android emulation
ubuntu run android apps native
and similar. Canonical has been working to get Android apps running on its distro, and you can always install the emulator for Linux whether provided by Google or some other party that builds one. : )
I just had this thought, that with the likes of Wine, Android emulators, those working to run native Android apps on Linux, etc. the Linux ecosystem with a few more translation layers might be likened to an early kind of Borg...
Meh. An OS two versions behind the current release will be, hopefully, well tested for bugs and problems it might encounter on the hardware. That I hope is a main driver for the lag. I worked for a company which had a sister company producing STBs, and there was a ton they could do with software, but it was always seemingly months or years away because they had to be sure of the consequences of new software before deployment. As for updates, well, at least there might be Cyanogenmod, though it means the geekier folks of families also become the support guy for yet another device. The problem in this area is that the phone makers are not the phone distributors, who are their real customers, not the users, and the phone distributors' real products are the services, not the devices: the device is essentially orphaned unless the latter decides to get updates to it, or the consumer decides to take charge. Apple on the other hand sells its baby, and remains in control of software and hardware both, meaning support that continues into the future. All that might not matter, however, because the consumers are interested in the apps, not the OS, and the phone distributors often give upgrades on the phones every few years; worst case scenarios include vulnerabilities on 'smart' devices in use for years for financial transactions and sensitive personal data (or that of others) that do not get effectively addressed due to the lack of responsibility over the code on the device.
Ask traditional Protestants about their take on that. : ) Heck, even a traditional Catholic about his or her take on them darn stubborn read-the-bible-for-myself Protestants about accepting authority without question. : )
A hunk of Salmon ultimately would be unnecessary. Not lot of salmon meat is needed, just an initial sample of salmon DNA and an understanding of PCR (and a lab to utilize it) to produce the DNA en masse; more to the point, not a lot of DNA would be needed I think to store much information on some chip.
Maybe they should be called a necessary evil, or were (depends on the person under consideration). Those fast carbs are perfect for extremely impoverished people to get some basic sustenance: those who count dollars and cents closely; I have had room mates who, and myself have actually counted the cost per calorie to be able to purchase sufficient food for a duration with the income had. One trick, however, is that one who must consume a lot of simple carbohydrates should probably being doing a lot of physical work as well: or mental work to burn off the sugars from the blood (though such might lead to needing more of this type of food). In other words, physical laborers and college students. On which note, I found apples cheaper than coffee and often more effective to stay awake during long study nights, probably the combination and ratio of carbohydrates and/to liquid content.
Europe also depends on the U.S. militarily, however, and the two economic blocs (one national, one supranational) are dependent upon each other, with Europe needing banking adjustments and manipulations here, and the U.S. wanting to ensure efforts are undertaken there, to re-assure all the absentee owners of financial assets and shares that their "wealth" is somehow secure despite being backed by mountains of uncollectible debt, bad mortgages, and a lot of speculation. These owners are not just the super rich, these "assets" are nest eggs for the middle class, benefits of jobs provided to all classes, ways by which governments from national to local village assemblies tried to ensure they could get returns on monies collected, or to pay off benefits promised, whether to avoid paying their workers much, or to get themselves elected by a populace wanting more. The U.S. is probably getting the deals because they are convenient to the politicians there, not simply for the U.S. putting pressure on them. "You want us to provide intelligence, then we need access to data streams." Stuff like that. On top of it, Europe isn't exactly a conglomerate of nations forged on the basis of protecting the rights of men rather than welfare of the state (individuals--in the last century), so all the outrage there with throwing governments out in favor of putting in whoever promises to meet the outraged's' demands would perhaps do as much good there as it does here in the U.S. with politicians (and people) who do not actually care about rights anymore, at least not the rights of the other guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Opportunist, America has juries with the intent to frustrate the government from always having its way, period: because of juries, the executive (who purports to act in the name of the law), legislative (who makes the laws), and judicial (who rules on the laws) can all be nullified and hindered by ordinary people: even if not particularly practicing "nullification" per se, they can at least hang trials over and over if something is questionable. So long as one analytical and logical reasoner is in the jury, and something about a trial is dubious, the motion against an accused fails: that is, at least, if that person gives a damn about being honest and upright. Far from being insensible and stupid, it's a feature: get over it. Note that it's not just the government, but the accused as well, that can appeal to the emotions of a jury.
The problem is corporate charter says that in their institutional role, they must do whatever they can to make the most profit.
You realize that it doesn't have to? Besides that,
Why would a nation in such a bad economic position (i.e. population total vs. productive population, defense capabilities in view, etc.) wish to present itself as a power of any kind? That would be silly, and make its neighbors nervous. Better to keep the hush on even if it were far more capable.
Best response to the "unintended consequences" deflection or diversion crying "guns no good, scary me, ahhh!!!" Would mod up if I had points given that people also divert with "but piracy's the symptom, not the problem!", such simple "logic" not understanding that sometimes treating symptoms is the only option that can be realized. Mod up, mod up.
My history is shaky on this, but I very much doubt your assertion that armed merchantmen were known as privateers who later became stronger pirates; actually, I know it's bull, because all merchant vessels at the time were armed, and privateers' vessels were dedicated to their task; they also happened to consist largely of former pirates made legitimate by grant of letters of course or letters of marque and reprisal, although some distinguished those granted these letters from privateers... it gets technical, hence the shaky history, but some dumbass that used a merchant vessel would probably not fare well in that business, unless for some reason it happened to be militaristic in design. "Privateers" very specifically had the blessing of a nation to...go after other nations' ships (i.e. enemy nations). They weren't merchantmen of the sort that just conduct trade: they were the agents of "private war", hence "privateer". Of further interest to some, the U.S. retains formal legal power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, without subjection to any treaty (you may note that the U.S. government and legal system is constructed in such a way that they cannot be subjected or made secondary to treaties with foreign powers, hence why very often treaties it signs are signed only with certain stipulations and/or exceptions, or never fully ratified though arrangements may be made to comply extensively and voluntarily). But anyway, simple point meant: "pirate"=armed illegal marauder, "privateer"="legitimized-by-license pirate". The USS Cole was bombed, by the way, not attacked by a man on a boat with a gun. It was attacked by determined terrorists, not people wanting to lawfully defend themselves. Methinks the U.S. should apply extraterritorality as it has with the likes of speech rights and force the issue around the world, as simply defining someone with a weapon as "hostile" without intent or purpose is illogical and serves the interests only of statists. Law enforcement in the U.S. that encounters someone (such as on the roads) whose license plates or I.D., when checked against databases, indicates they have weapons permits, actually speaks of feeling safer, because they know the person is a lawful carrier, as opposed to some punk that's going to shoot them in the face for inconvenience: I would bet that assuming registered commercial vessels are armed for self defense would be a similar case, especially given that commercial entities would not wish to suffer liabilities over someone shooting the wrong people, and be quite strong on the discipline if their folks were armed. But you should note that arming vessels for self defense against pirates likely has little to do with small arms, and includes vaster measures which would in aggregate still be cheaper than deploying warships to sparsely monitor shipping routes, and with some thought about technology could use a couple thousand dollars of off-the-shelf parts to detect incoming small craft, and turn the larger arms in the appropriate direction to sink them.
The incident with Babble occurred due to the hubris of man (don't kill me for using a Greek term). Maybe they touch on it here, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-458-the-bible-spring-2007/ although I do not know. And yeah, I know you were attempting a joke, but it is not a very good one: maybe with delivery it could be--plenty of bad jokes are funny because of the joker, but I figure someone might be interested in the MIT link. Don't know how well an engineering institution will pull-off teaching on literature and biblical stuff (mesuspects that some traditionalist--though not fundamentalists, religious organizations would probably do a whole lot better, but again, don't know). Now that I have said all I don't know, I'll have to put that MIT course on my own to-do/listen/watch/whatever list, but it could take a while to get to (stupid priorities).
(Because launching solar panels into space and beaming the power down to a receiving station near population centers is better than putting solar panels in the desert and running power to city centers via cables?)
Freeman Dyson, see.
It does depend location from location ("American" culture is not the same place to place), but generally speaking poor service means no tip, while good service means either a tip, or maybe a larger than usually expected tip (especially if you intend to return to the location). Not tipping might mean you ought not return to a location, except with a different server. While some here are commenting on "a tip is expected no matter what", that has not been my personal experience as an American, though I do try to take note of whether someone is being overworked and having a bad day such that even with mediocre service, if they try despite circumstances (or are near break down) I might give a small tip, and a few quick words in thanks or maybe a compliment or two, in encouragement.
[quote]tipping in Japan IS terribly rude[/quote] Is it rude or just not done? I can hardly imagine someone working as a server in a country as expensive as Japan taking a whole lot of offense at being given more money than they are paid by the establishment.
Tsk, tsk: Spanish doesn't have sex, it has gender, which is descended from the Latin cases with some Gallic corruption.
Mea culpa. I should know better. La corbata certainly isn't sexually or naturally female, and vestido certainly is not male.
: )
Now as for really not replying anymore to finish what needs to be done...
I am particularly taken aback by your inclusion of my description of endosymbiosis as questionable.
It's the certainty about it:
Mitochondria and chloroplasts (and their less well-known cousins, chromoplasts and amyloplasts) actually started out as different kinds of bacteria and just got absorbed into a cell one day.
or maybe it is the nonchalance of presentation. "just go absorbed into a cell one day". It's quite the think to talk about two very different organisms of any kinds becoming one: endosymbiosis is one thing, but what we have at hand are truly integrated systems that behave as one and can only be separated in rare instances (yeast have been found to survive without them on some substrates). There is that sense of "well it had to have happened somewhere along these lines", but at least professors I had were somewhat reticent about insisting upon that; reasons for it include analogues between the organelles and other independent critters; difficulties include the elegant coordination between genetic regulation in the nucleus and that in mitochondria in the cell. Sure they are just difficulties, but the sort of thing at which some great minds do take pause...so again, perhaps any "problem" I have is more to the nonchalance of presentation. Maybe I just take after the example of those I studied under.
If your schedule can accommodate it, I am your willing student.
I wish. If it did I might ask also to be yours. As it is, I have been taking far too much time as it is interacting on these forums today (alerts via a mobile device), probably for escape: too much to do and much of it drudgery. But not getting it all done affects others dependent on me, so I intend this to be my final message of the day.
Forgive--I was not attempting to be florid, nor employing literary affect; it--ordis--is a Late Latin term used for logic order of things, without necessarily having any reference to time; I have seen it used rarely but it is remarkably useful, and I don't really think too hard about employing it. Similarly, I did not plan out that sentence, I just wrote it. I think a little differently, having studied languages where other signposts exist to help someone orient themselves around some communication. Spanish has sex, Latin, Greek, and other case based languages have their morphological termini as well.
Written English has something between that nesting and the remaining sense of pause imbued in punctuation for knowing how things fit: it's a bit of a mess; has some semantic inheritances and correlators, and here and there associated items, but still messy. As for clarity, an example I think upon is the likes of Organic Chemistry courses where professors explain to new students that the terms they will be employing are essentially the same that inorganic chemists employ, but just useful for the different contexts, when in reality they are actually speaking not of the same thing, as I have seen teachers assert, but of different aspects of the same thing. Indeed that should be intuitive, and to some it is, with others not so much. Programmers get into that realm frequently, like we see around here with debate over whether pointers and objects indicated are the same or really different. The answer is neither yes nor no. One is object, other is not; one inherits something of its nature from the other, the other a thing in itself (excepting that we start considering nothing is a thing in itself, but just for thought purposes).
What I've read of (professional) epistemology has always been strikingly compatible with what I already intuitively know—although my father having a philosophy education might have influenced that somewhat.
Yes perhaps. I could say something similar: having an English professor in the family who reads various languages and sends me mountains of books may have something to do with the oddities like using "ordis".
: )
The other organism would not have to be a 'highly organized set of chemicals' to qualify as life in the first place.
I mean compared to the environment around them.
You and I are barely distinguishable from food for bacteria, but we've evolved to deal with them specifically
As organisms are organized chemicals and structures to deal with the environment, hence to
Why would there be other harsh conditions?
what I meant. Especially the conditions we currently conceive of as probably on early Earth. But to put it generally, all non-life conditions are essentially hostile to lifeforms.
If the reason for the break was failing out of school... it will just take a bit more motivation. ;-)
Just kept getting sick. Had to leave so my GPA wouldn't get totally destroyed: you can't study when you're anesthetized on an ever-increasing dose of antihistamines for various cell receptors to keep your immune system from eating you. (Darn that sucked.)
It [...] helps if you're working in a modern science [...] there will be plenty of money around. If you're in grad school for english rhetoric... maybe not.
Don't know that I have ever actually used this myself, but I actually LOLed.
So we go from internal to external digestion with just a little hint of biological warfare? The actual fact that the other organism is a highly organized set of chemicals to qualify as life in the first place perhaps might defy simply generalizing that one need only spit something at them which causes disorder and the other is barely distinguishable from food to the more evolved organism, given that the latter itself would have to be able to survive other harsh conditions that should cause disorder or breakdown without such countermeasures. Fun to talk though, keep it coming. I am interested in anything you have to show me I am wrong, and eager to learn. I was a biology student until getting rather sick, and would be going back perhaps soon if it weren't for a family member needing oversight and care, so my exposure to the discipline for the good part of several years has been limited to neurobiology and to some advanced research on the role of a certain protein (I can't actually talk about in specifics) in effects upon mental development and capability for a friend getting a PhD in that arena, (checking for problems in her theories, papers, etc.), and helping sort through students' papers for problems in their grading (though of course ensuring all decisions made final are by her review since she was in charge of those classes; also to help check to see her standards were applied consistently from beginning to end of grading to make sure students are treated fairly rather than varying due to being near the top of the stack where a grader is sure to be less tired and frustrated, or near the end). From that perspective, so sorry for your graduate status: it is often comparable to slavery these days, and no real protections or safeguards from the institution which can spit someone out at any time or heap enough atop someone to just crush them. Congrats on being in your final year: the proverbial light at the tunnel's end is good to see in any endeavor suffered long.
Diagramming can be fun, but doesn't always work when confronted with the likes of semantic inheritance or signposts. The comment on /. is an echo of "that are" but for the singular, and I meant only that /. can be quite the adversarial community of people shouting at each other. It can also be one full of pomposity or long windedness, and people showing off, and for the fun of it I tried to catch all that in the style of my last reply.
; )
I feel the pain though, as my brain got into nesting things neatly the first semester of Java pouring over pages and pages of printouts years ago trying to find the one darn little bracket that had to be missing. That and playing around with HTML. Subsequent cancer treatments later fried the fruits of those labors out of my mind, but got what was left interested in biology and the sciences; also leftover was trying to look at grammar and language like a bunch of neat nests (and it has taken years to undo this since semantic signposts and other signals are also important--especially to those interested in reading very old literatures). If you agree with some of the philosophical stuff also, by the way, and would like further reading, I have read a bit by Stephen Hawking about why he chose physics over biology and it parallels my observations (in meaning, if any gets angry over ordis, his words definitely take priority on such things): complained that biologists just did not define or explain things well. That they lacked precision. There are some old works on epistemology relevant to such things as well: "The Order and Integration of Knowledge" by Martin is such a work, cheap if you can find it.
Too bad that more minds that demand that sort of rigor don't jump into biology with greater frequency, since often they do great things when they come to the dark side even if, as Crick put it, it's like starting fresh since so much more experimental corroboration is necessary, yet look at what happened when Francis Crick did! I remember a few years back when another physicist started dabbling he found an equation describing the structure and distribution of vascular networks for perhaps every known example of life that has any, but can't recall his name at the moment (sorry). Darn I should, as it was big news among the bionerds at the time.
Actually there is plenty of travesty in your writing on the level of popular science journalism with which I could take issue, but I did not and will not for the medium of communication and the fact that it is impertinent to the audience here which is unlikely to have many with the background to understand or benefit from it much, and frankly much of what happens in popular science journalism does because to write in anything less than a large tome will by consequence of the nature of the topics elucidated make for nothing more than inaccurate communication to those without the background. Further I avoid doing so for the esoteric realms to be broached in critique of science and modes of explanation for phenomena in order to answer the statements you made, which even most highly trained scientists, who at heart are experimentalists and not philosophers able to critique logic and narrative for consistency and rationality in accord with nature or observations they have made and fitted with certain explanations, or metaphysical professors able to discern where a statement concerns existential ramifications as opposed to ontologies, struggle to appreciate.
Now I didn't mention any of that in the first reply and I even put a smiley at the end like this, : ) in a sort of expression of solidarity towards someone who, trying to explain complicated things to a bunch of people who might not have ever had the privilege or time to get the background necessary to understand them, is ensconced with difficulties that seem impossible to surmount, especially when trying to talk to a large denominator given no hint as to what exactly that group actually knows prior, but you didn't catch that. I know in the heated political and ideological battleground that are the modern natural sciences, especially biology with the positivists screaming "God is dead" (and apparently not understanding what Nietzsche meant) and the theists screaming "nuh uh", the egomaniacs competing for grants and shouting "no your stupider" at each other (I was "privileged" with getting to see some REALLY big science egos personally; a professor in my family who has been known to get to host the likes of the late Stephen J. Gould also gives me some juicy details on this sort of a thing), and other battles, and that is the community called "Slashdot", we tend to get adversarial, but perhaps you ought take a moment to figure if someone giving you a playful jab is really an adversary or just being friendly. You know,
: )
Yes you can. If you go to a page of wikipedia besides its home page and then stop the page loading right after the page content appears, the black-out screen does not take over. : )
As a bioguy, you are oversimplifying a lot here: and reducing the doubt regarding these things from view. For points 1-4. For the computer nerds sure, but still... : )
No to mention that the first life had an advantage in there currently being no existing life to compete with. Any new life would immediately have to compete with heavily evolved organisms that do not see the new life as special... just as a new snack.
You're talking about phagocytosis. If we working from the assumption that early life should be simpler, you have to talk about it deriving energy from simpler chemicals in the environment: one organism eating another is (dare I say it) far more complex than the (also complex) task of ingesting rawer materials less organized than in, say, a cellular compact: not the sort of thing Occam's (mentioned and fought over above) prefers in early stages of development. More likely would be the earlier appeared organism would out-compete the newbie for the same raw materials, that is, if the newbie required any of the same stuff for viability.
Perhaps not in his defence given nothing about it is mentioned, but which might make the whole ordeal sensible to those who know, Google
ubuntu android emulation
ubuntu run android apps native
and similar. Canonical has been working to get Android apps running on its distro, and you can always install the emulator for Linux whether provided by Google or some other party that builds one. : )
I just had this thought, that with the likes of Wine, Android emulators, those working to run native Android apps on Linux, etc. the Linux ecosystem with a few more translation layers might be likened to an early kind of Borg...
Meh. An OS two versions behind the current release will be, hopefully, well tested for bugs and problems it might encounter on the hardware. That I hope is a main driver for the lag. I worked for a company which had a sister company producing STBs, and there was a ton they could do with software, but it was always seemingly months or years away because they had to be sure of the consequences of new software before deployment. As for updates, well, at least there might be Cyanogenmod, though it means the geekier folks of families also become the support guy for yet another device. The problem in this area is that the phone makers are not the phone distributors, who are their real customers, not the users, and the phone distributors' real products are the services, not the devices: the device is essentially orphaned unless the latter decides to get updates to it, or the consumer decides to take charge. Apple on the other hand sells its baby, and remains in control of software and hardware both, meaning support that continues into the future. All that might not matter, however, because the consumers are interested in the apps, not the OS, and the phone distributors often give upgrades on the phones every few years; worst case scenarios include vulnerabilities on 'smart' devices in use for years for financial transactions and sensitive personal data (or that of others) that do not get effectively addressed due to the lack of responsibility over the code on the device.
Ask traditional Protestants about their take on that. : ) Heck, even a traditional Catholic about his or her take on them darn stubborn read-the-bible-for-myself Protestants about accepting authority without question. : )
A hunk of Salmon ultimately would be unnecessary. Not lot of salmon meat is needed, just an initial sample of salmon DNA and an understanding of PCR (and a lab to utilize it) to produce the DNA en masse; more to the point, not a lot of DNA would be needed I think to store much information on some chip.
Maybe they should be called a necessary evil, or were (depends on the person under consideration). Those fast carbs are perfect for extremely impoverished people to get some basic sustenance: those who count dollars and cents closely; I have had room mates who, and myself have actually counted the cost per calorie to be able to purchase sufficient food for a duration with the income had. One trick, however, is that one who must consume a lot of simple carbohydrates should probably being doing a lot of physical work as well: or mental work to burn off the sugars from the blood (though such might lead to needing more of this type of food). In other words, physical laborers and college students. On which note, I found apples cheaper than coffee and often more effective to stay awake during long study nights, probably the combination and ratio of carbohydrates and/to liquid content.
Europe also depends on the U.S. militarily, however, and the two economic blocs (one national, one supranational) are dependent upon each other, with Europe needing banking adjustments and manipulations here, and the U.S. wanting to ensure efforts are undertaken there, to re-assure all the absentee owners of financial assets and shares that their "wealth" is somehow secure despite being backed by mountains of uncollectible debt, bad mortgages, and a lot of speculation. These owners are not just the super rich, these "assets" are nest eggs for the middle class, benefits of jobs provided to all classes, ways by which governments from national to local village assemblies tried to ensure they could get returns on monies collected, or to pay off benefits promised, whether to avoid paying their workers much, or to get themselves elected by a populace wanting more. The U.S. is probably getting the deals because they are convenient to the politicians there, not simply for the U.S. putting pressure on them. "You want us to provide intelligence, then we need access to data streams." Stuff like that. On top of it, Europe isn't exactly a conglomerate of nations forged on the basis of protecting the rights of men rather than welfare of the state (individuals--in the last century), so all the outrage there with throwing governments out in favor of putting in whoever promises to meet the outraged's' demands would perhaps do as much good there as it does here in the U.S. with politicians (and people) who do not actually care about rights anymore, at least not the rights of the other guys.