(http://i.imgur.com/MmEzCZv.jpg)(http://wpbusinesstips.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/mailchimp.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/MmEzCZv.jpg)I am 98% mailkimp. :(
(http://i.imgur.com/MmEzCZv.jpg)I am 98% mailkimp. :(
If you drop the 's' it'll auto-embed the naked link.
(http://i.imgur.com/fq8eKUu.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/8WLbluq.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/rJXcrPP.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/rJXcrPP.png)
And here I thought that was a liberal flavor of stupid.
Holy false dilemmas, Batman.
Buuuuuuuuuuuulllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. I just pointed out to you my own viewpoint, which offers a third POV that your false dilemma neglected, literally in the same exact post you quoted part of.
You imply that people who think that folks who believe "vaccination is wise" as well as "mandatory vaccination is wise" can also only believe "a stitch in time saves nine is wise, therefore pre-emptive hemming should be mandatory". It is a ridiculous position to take, which is why somebody named a fallacy after it.
Curiosity drill site reveals gray-blue 'dirt' beneath Mars' oxidized surface:
The future of lighting will be very cool!
Cool! Need these in my basement, where we hang out.The future of lighting will be very cool!
Very much looking forward to getting some of these: http://weburbanist.com/2015/02/17/new-artificial-lighting-tricks-human-brain-into-seeing-sunlight/ (http://weburbanist.com/2015/02/17/new-artificial-lighting-tricks-human-brain-into-seeing-sunlight/)
Curiosity drill site reveals gray-blue 'dirt' beneath Mars' oxidized surface:
it would be awesome if they made a bag big enough to life the cow off the ground.
(http://i.imgur.com/B5PRarL.jpg)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img661/8528/DyGjW7.jpg)
i think its because of fishing.
(click to show/hide)
i think its because of fishing.
Or because men blaspheme more frequently?
;D
(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5921/vhQIUz.jpg)
(click to show/hide)
One of the biggest problems with Celsius is that they used 100 degrees for boiling instead of 10 degrees... or maybe 1000 would've been OK. Also, unit of gram is too small for the base unit - a gram should've been the mass of a liter of water, not a mililiter.
We should re-do this.
Pluto:
(http://i.imgur.com/71dgASR.jpg)
Gentlemen, Pluto (again):
(http://i.imgur.com/z8reN4v.png)
Gentlemen, Pluto (again):
(http://i.imgur.com/z8reN4v.png)
Gentlemen, Pluto (again):
(http://i.imgur.com/z8reN4v.png)
Looks like no place you want to raise your kids.
Gentlemen, Pluto's backside:
Can someone explain the difference between a Lagrange point and a Trojan point? I always get hung up on that.
Gentlemen, Pluto w/true color data:
(http://i.imgur.com/tOtCIaX.jpg)
Gentlemen, Pluto w/true color data:
(http://i.imgur.com/tOtCIaX.jpg)
Gentlemen, Pluto (again):
(http://i.imgur.com/z8reN4v.png)
Gentlemen, Pluto w/true color data:
(http://i.imgur.com/tOtCIaX.jpg)
Right. My art education fails me. What am I looking at here, Anders?
(http://i.imgur.com/CxbrBQe.png)
from twitter
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/5416/ZNFXcr.jpg)
???
Why not? It looks like they were probably using the cow model to test out their software for mapping airflow. Notice how the cow has its nose directly into the oncoming wind. Real cows don't do that - they tend to turn their tails to the wind.
(http://i.imgur.com/B5PRarL.jpg)I get that humans aren't as good at hanging around in trees as apes are, but did they really have to just impale her throat on that branch like that?
Can someone explain the difference between a Lagrange point and a Trojan point? I always get hung up on that.The two Trojan points are among the five Lagrange points.
Can someone explain the difference between a Lagrange point and a Trojan point? I always get hung up on that.The two Trojan points are among the five Lagrange points.
In astronomy, a trojan is a minor planet or moon that shares an orbit with a planet or larger moon, but does not collide with it because it orbits near one of the two trojan points—the Lagrangian points of stability, L4 and L5—which lie approximately 60° ahead of and behind the larger body, respectively. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_%28astronomy%29)
Trojans are the objects, and they sit near the Trojan points, which is what Redamare was asking about.
Good job, anti-vaxxers!
(http://i.imgur.com/BGgIyEkl.jpg)
Backside of the moonYou could have captioned this, "Mooned by the Moon", but you didn't. For that I will never forgive you.
(http://i.imgur.com/XYMgRMk.jpg)
...
Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading who created the visualisation, told MailOnline: 'I wanted to try to visualise the global changes we have seen in different ways to learn about how we might improve our communication.
'The pace of change is immediately obvious, especially over the past few decades, and the relationship between current global temperatures and the internationally discussed limits are also clear.'
Within the animation it is also possible to see how global events such as the El Nino phenomenon alter temperatures around the world.
For example, there is a small amount of cooling between the 1880s and 1910 due to volcanic eruptions before warming again between 1910 and the 1940s.
Dr Hawkins said this warming was due to a small increase in solar output and natural variability and recovery from the volcanic eruptions.
Temperatures also remain largely flat between the 1950s and the 1970s, he explained in his blog, because aerosols released into the atmosphere mask the impact of greenhouse gases.
But from 1980 there is strong warming with temperatures pushed particularly high in 1998 and 2016 due to strong El Nino events.
...
(http://i.imgur.com/EbOGgifl.jpg)
Molten salt in water.
(https://giant.gfycat.com/RegularUnequaledDungenesscrab.gif)
It's just thermal.
It's just thermal.
What's causing the delay there? It sits in the water for about a second, with nothing happening, and suddenly WHOOMPH!
It's just thermal.
What's causing the delay there? It sits in the water for about a second, with nothing happening, and suddenly WHOOMPH!
that's 5000 frames per second. "Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so."
We can see when the video slows down. That still doesn't explain why it falls into the water a ways before exploding.It's just thermal.
What's causing the delay there? It sits in the water for about a second, with nothing happening, and suddenly WHOOMPH!
that's 5000 frames per second. "Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so."
So pouring molten [anything else] into water would have the same explosive result?
No, I think there's a chemical reaction going on.
So pouring molten [anything else] into water would have the same explosive result?
The sodium wouldn't react with the water because it's chemically bonded to the chlorine. Even heating it to molten won't demolecularise the salt.
it would be awesome if they made a bag big enough to life the cow off the ground.I would immediately invest in car wash company stock.
HFACTOR infuses pure hydrogen into water via patent-pending natural methods, unlike other hydrogen products which are manufactured utilizing magnesium and chemical processes.
Wait, what's extra hydrogen suppose to do for you?
Wait, what's extra hydrogen suppose to do for you?
Very good question
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's just thermal.
What's causing the delay there? It sits in the water for about a second, with nothing happening, and suddenly WHOOMPH!
that's 5000 frames per second. "Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so."
Found the original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDRWQUUUCF0
Compare what? It's the same video.Oops, sorry about that. I went back and fixed it.
Wait, what's extra hydrogen suppose to do for you?
(http://i.imgur.com/CX57yWF.jpg)
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1701/EclipseClouds_MODISanderson_1415.jpg)
Where to see the American Eclipse (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/)
My wife's uncle is renting a cabin in the zone, we plan on spending the weekend with them for it.(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1701/EclipseClouds_MODISanderson_1415.jpg)
Where to see the American Eclipse (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/)(click to show/hide)
I was just thinking this morning..."Huh, I wonder how they make non-organic tea."They use pianos.
(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
Fangs for the sharky reply.(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
You'll be long in the tooth before anything comes to you.
Fangs for the sharky reply.(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
You'll be long in the tooth before anything comes to you.
You should hire a retainer to work that out for you.Fangs for the sharky reply.(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
You'll be long in the tooth before anything comes to you.
I'm trying to find the wisdom in these posts.
You should hire a retainer to work that out for you.Fangs for the sharky reply.(https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv)I wish I could think of some biting comment to post...
https://i.imgur.com/o1490ps.gifv
You'll be long in the tooth before anything comes to you.
I'm trying to find the wisdom in these posts.
This thread is practically transcend dental.
This thread is practically transcend dental.
Can I join the pun parade or should I bite my tongue?
My wife's uncle is renting a cabin in the zone, we plan on spending the weekend with them for it.(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1701/EclipseClouds_MODISanderson_1415.jpg)
Where to see the American Eclipse (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/)(click to show/hide)
Every movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the same five characteristics of science denial (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC). These are fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories. When someone wants to cast doubt on a scientific finding, FLICC is an integral part of the misinformation toolbox.https://skepticalscience.com/gorilla-suits-and-blowfish-fallacies.html
What do gorilla suits and blowfish fallacies have to do with climate change?
QuoteEvery movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the same five characteristics of science denial (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC). These are fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories. When someone wants to cast doubt on a scientific finding, FLICC is an integral part of the misinformation toolbox.https://skepticalscience.com/gorilla-suits-and-blowfish-fallacies.html
What do gorilla suits and blowfish fallacies have to do with climate change?
That's...not how the uncertainty principle works
That's...not how the uncertainty principle worksYeah, it properly reads "Am I going to get laid tonight?"
It's suspected that the President watches Infowars and talks to Alex Jones.
This is Alex Jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Km5UVbP2Fs
"How did the pedophiles get an AI?"
- Joe Rogan, to Alex Jones
That's...not how the uncertainty principle worksYeah, it properly reads "Am I going to get laid tonight?"
That's Schroedinger's Cat, not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The HUP states that, essentially, it is impossible to know, for very small objects (like subatomic particle levels of smallness), exactly where the object at the time of detection *and* its speed. There are ways you can figure out either one individually but not both at the same time.
That's Schroedinger's Cat, not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The HUP states that, essentially, it is impossible to know, for very small objects (like subatomic particle levels of smallness), exactly where the object at the time of detection *and* its speed. There are ways you can figure out either one individually but not both at the same time.
That's Schroedinger's Cat and the Uncertainty Principle.
If you try to see whether or not you will get laid tonight, that will have an effect on whether or not you will get laid tonight.
There is all the observer effect, where actually observing something changes its nature.
Sometimes it seems there's more uncertainty than certainty.
There is also the observer effect, where actually observing something changes its nature.
Sometimes it seems there's more uncertainty than certainty.
I don't know about that.
There is all the observer effect, where actually observing something changes its nature.The idea that a particle has an exact momentum and position and we just can't pin down one without messing up the other is a common misconception.
There is all the observer effect, where actually observing something changes its nature.The idea that a particle has an exact momentum and position and we just can't pin down one without messing up the other is a common misconception.
The misconception is that a particle has an exact momentum and position. Which is why I said that.There is all the observer effect, where actually observing something changes its nature.The idea that a particle has an exact momentum and position and we just can't pin down one without messing up the other is a common misconception.
I think the idea is that we can know a sub-atomic particle's position or it's momentum, but if we know one we can't know the other. You think that's a misconception?
Despite what Jeff Goldblum might tell you, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle had no applicability to dinosaurs on Isla Sorna.His is position was similar to "if we observe the Andromeda Galaxy we have affected the Andromeda Galaxy." Stupid on the face of it.
Well, you're taking one side of a controversy (which is fair enough) and then calling the other side a "misconception" (which is no settled matter).Didn't you just say "that's true" when I said it wasn't the observer effect, and now when I repeated that you're saying it's not settled?
What position do you think you're arguing against?
I never said that actively measuring subatomic things doesn't have an effect on them.
I just pointed out that there's a common misconception that this is the only reason we can't pin down position and momentum at the same time. The misconception is that a particle has an exact momentum and position. I keep repeating that because I don't know how to say it more simply.
(https://i.imgur.com/klKShkp.gif)
That website is a terrible spam trap.
And some people still think there's no God!
And some people still think there's no God!
I know you're joking, but it's precisely images like that that reinforce my non-belief. The incongruity of the tininess and insignificance of organisms in an impossibly thin organic layer on a small rocky planet in this endless sea of nothingness teeming with galaxies filled with billions of stars with the idea that these organisms are somehow significant is just absurd. We're the bacteria on a speck of dust in a cathedral and we think the music is playing for us.
That place must have either really bad tires or really bad roads.Or neither. They were collected to be recycled. Then lightning hit the pile and it ignited. (Assuming it's the tire conflagration I'm familiar with.) Those industrial-strength rubber mats that are used to soften the floor a bit for workers are made out of old tires, and there are other uses as well.
To be fair, that image alone doesn't prove climate change, or really anything other than tyres, when burned, produce black smoke. It could be argued either that the smoke is not harmful, or that it dissipates into the atmosphere, or something like that. Then you have to go and find some actual data.Did I say it did?
Did I say that you said it did?To be fair, that image alone doesn't prove climate change, or really anything other than tyres, when burned, produce black smoke. It could be argued either that the smoke is not harmful, or that it dissipates into the atmosphere, or something like that. Then you have to go and find some actual data.Did I say it did?
"To be fair..." is a code for "You're wrong and here's why."Did I say that you said it did?To be fair, that image alone doesn't prove climate change, or really anything other than tyres, when burned, produce black smoke. It could be argued either that the smoke is not harmful, or that it dissipates into the atmosphere, or something like that. Then you have to go and find some actual data.Did I say it did?
To be fair, the caption given with the image kind of did make the suggestion that a ton of black smoke produced by burning tyres was causally connected to global warming. Which it is."To be fair..." is a code for "You're wrong and here's why."Did I say that you said it did?To be fair, that image alone doesn't prove climate change, or really anything other than tyres, when burned, produce black smoke. It could be argued either that the smoke is not harmful, or that it dissipates into the atmosphere, or something like that. Then you have to go and find some actual data.Did I say it did?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZTajzCB.jpg)♫Little brown jug, oh I love you!
Hot Take:
(http://i.imgur.com/log7TmE.png)
AeroFarms, a vertical farm in New Jersey:Ah, "city farms" prototype?
(http://i.imgur.com/pmIkyAD.jpg)
AeroFarms, a vertical farm in New Jersey:Ah, "city farms" prototype?
(http://i.imgur.com/pmIkyAD.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Xx5AUfp.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Xx5AUfp.jpg)
1912! Holy shit I thought the earliest predictions were in the 30s!
Arrhenius’s paper is the first to quantify the contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect (Sections I-IV) and to speculate about whether variations in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have contributed to long-term variations in climate (Section V). Throughout this paper, Arrhenius refers to carbon dioxide as “carbonic acid” in accordance with the convention at the time he was writing.
Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
Holy crow that took a long time to load.Odd, it went like clockwork for me.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCRyoShXsAIl0cz.jpg:large)
Explanation: Where will you be during the Eclipse across America? On August 21, the shadow of the Moon will cross the continental USA for the first time since 1979. The predicted path -- a certainty given modern astronomical knowledge -- is shown in the featured NASA video. Most people in the USA will be within a day's drive to the path of the total solar eclipse, while the rest of North America will see a partial solar eclipse. In the path of totality, given clear-enough skies, the Moon will block out the Sun making it eerily dark for as long as 2 minutes and 40 seconds. If interested in attending an eclipse party, please contact your local amateur astronomical society, science center, park, or university to see if one is already being planning. Some eclipse chasers have traveled to the end of the world to see a total eclipse of the Sun, and along the way have recorded many entertaining adventure stories.
Herd_Immunity.gifv (http://i.imgur.com/J7LANQ4.mp4)
Just a meteor hitting the moon.Nope, alien spaceship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fe58ROYG0
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ4UF2jWAAALDAf.jpg)Nah, just have him boarded.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ4UF2jWAAALDAf.jpg)
I find its expression a bit wooden.His bark is definitely worse than his bite.
Fuck this, I'm going to get totally sanded.I saw what you did there. A little plane for my taste.
He might be a little tough to lumber around in that condition.It's the only way to survive when one is starting a splinter group.
(https://i.imgur.com/rcY9V5P.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rcY9V5P.png)
Great now we have chemtrails spreading gay.
(https://i.imgur.com/rcY9V5P.png)
Lava tubes exist on Earth, but their lunar counterparts are much larger. For a lava tube to be detectable by gravity data, it would need to extend several kilometers in length and at least one kilometer in height and width -- which means the lava tube near the Marius Hills is spacious enough to house one of the United States' largest cities, if the gravity results are correct.
(https://i.imgur.com/X7lE3cz.png)
From: Warning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers)
Spoilers!!!!I feel like if you've watched enough to understand it, it's not really a spoiler any more.
If you watch the previews it's not a spoiler.Spoilers!!!!I feel like if you've watched enough to understand it, it's not really a spoiler any more.
(https://i.imgur.com/KhuxMs8.jpg)
If you watch the previews it's not a spoiler.Spoilers!!!!I feel like if you've watched enough to understand it, it's not really a spoiler any more.
We need to get it to Eleven to close that shit.
Who 'zat guy?And is a Mustang really a truck?
Or is it just a composite of an average youtuber? :)
Apparently the first thing that we evolved and lost was dance.Early swingers. ;)
<video>
I went to google that and the first result's super distracting: http://co2.digitalcartography.org/
You can click-drag to manipulate the focal point of the map projection!
People distribution?I went to google that and the first result's super distracting: http://co2.digitalcartography.org/
You can click-drag to manipulate the focal point of the map projection!
That's pretty cool. Why would there be so much at the north pole, and not at the south pole?
People distribution?I went to google that and the first result's super distracting: http://co2.digitalcartography.org/
You can click-drag to manipulate the focal point of the map projection!
That's pretty cool. Why would there be so much at the north pole, and not at the south pole?
the scale is only what.. 377ppm to 395ppm?It shows how CO2 moves around the planet.
its interesting to look at but does it actually mean anything?
But can anti-vaxxers read? ???
But can anti-vaxxers read? ???
Buncha graphic death there.
Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.Buncha graphic death there.
BOOOOOO!
Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.Buncha graphic death there.
BOOOOOO!
(https://i.imgur.com/4d9YFbR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4d9YFbR.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaYMTkKVAAAFxBa.jpg)
Buncha graphic death there.
(https://i.imgur.com/X3anCgk.jpg)
"SKILLFULLY COMBINED WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INGREDIENTS."
"We won't tell you what those ingredients are, however, you'd just be frightened."
39.3701 inches.(https://i.imgur.com/X3anCgk.jpg)
How much is an "m" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(unit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(unit)
This link works:
Minim (unit) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(unit))
Examination of the drug product involved in this action disclosed that the article contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients xapable of producing certain curative and therapeutic effects claimed in the labeling.https://fdanj.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/fdnj20156
The cause of the long-term surface changes associated with this phenomenon are fairly well known.[6] As shown in the USGS figure, aquifers are frequently associated with compressible layers of silt or clay.
As the groundwater is pumped out, the effective stress changes, precipitating consolidation, which is often non-reversible. Thus, the total volume of the silts and clays is reduced, resulting in the lowering of the surface. The damage at the surface is much greater if there is differential settlement, or large-scale features, such as sinkholes and fissures.
I've read that it's still sinking but not quite as dramatically. They've already got most of the water out.
I've never seen telephone poles that high. They would whip like crazy during the sirocco.
(And yes, wrong continent, but you know what I mean.)
Yeah, that. Sirocco was more Bogart, however. ;DI've never seen telephone poles that high. They would whip like crazy during the sirocco.
(And yes, wrong continent, but you know what I mean.)
Santa Ana winds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds)
The Case of the Backwards Orbiting Asteroid
Explanation: Why does asteroid 2015 BZ509 orbit the Sun the backwards? As shown in the featured animation, Jupiter's trojan asteroids orbit the Sun in two major groups -- one just ahead of Jupiter, and one just behind -- but all orbit the Sun in the same direction as Jupiter. Asteroid BZ509 however, discovered in 2015 and currently unnamed, orbits the Sun in retrograde and in a more complex gravitational dance with Jupiter. The reason why is currently unknown and a topic of research -- but if resolved might tell us about the early Solar System. A recently popular hypothesis holds that BZ509 was captured by Jupiter from interstellar space billions of years ago, while a competing conjecture posits that BZ509 came from our Solar System's own distant Oort cloud of comets, perhaps more recently. The answer may only become known after more detailed models of the likelihood and stability of orbits near Jupiter are studied, or, possibly, by observing direct properties of the unusual object.
(https://i.imgur.com/ujE8IvA.png)
Doesn't every living reproducing organism (that we would call "food") have DNA/RNA in it's cells. Regardless of if it's been modified or not, they all have genes.
Are we perhaps talking about modified genes not originally found in nature?
There is no correct answer.
Some genetically modified foods have genes, some do not.
Some non-genetically modified foods have genes, some do not.
The correct answer is still False, though.
Thanks. Monsanto World Headquarters is a few miles south of me. Never seen any "Frankenfood" people out front.Are we perhaps talking about modified genes not originally found in nature?
No.
There are foods derived from living organisms, both GMO and non-GMO, generally highly processed foods, which have no DNA or genes, left in the food.
Sugar (sucrose, of course) is a good example. It's a simple molecule and there are no sugar cane genes or DNA present. It's a food, it can be derived from GMO or Non-GMO sources and has no genes.
So, that silly poll, probably designed and published to show that there are a lot of people who aren't as smart as the pollster, is really pretty stupid.
"Men have brown eyes and women do not."
I'd say that's a false statement.
I think what CarbShark is trying to say is that a gene is only a gene when it is a part of a living organism. When we eat something, we kill it first, therefore the molecules that made genes when the organism was alive are no longer actually genes. Even, I suppose, if I pick a leaf from a lettuce plant and immediately shove it into my mouth-hole, at the very moment of separation from the plant the genes in the leaf become instantaneously inactive and no longer deserve the title of "gene". Instead, they are merely sequences of an inert molecule.The correct answer is still False, though.
There are genetically modified foods that have genes. There are non-genetically modified foods that do not have genes.
Yet False is correct?
I think what CarbShark is trying to say is that a gene is only a gene when it is a part of a living organism. When we eat something, we kill it first, therefore the molecules that made genes when the organism was alive are no longer actually genes. Even, I suppose, if I pick a leaf from a lettuce plant and immediately shove it into my mouth-hole, at the very moment of separation from the plant the genes in the leaf become instantaneously inactive and no longer deserve the title of "gene". Instead, they are merely sequences of an inert molecule.The correct answer is still False, though.
There are genetically modified foods that have genes. There are non-genetically modified foods that do not have genes.
Yet False is correct?
Although I may be way off here. CarbShark may have some strange definition of the word "gene" that I was previously unaware of.
Yes, sometimes both a statement and its opposite are false.
It is poorly written, but that doesn't mean there's no correct answer.
(https://i.imgur.com/ddZuvz1.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ddZuvz1.png)
Hmmmm.... I think I might try that, thanks :)
(https://i.imgur.com/ddZuvz1.png)
Hmmmm.... I think I might try that, thanks :)
If all else fails there's always sci-hub.
Explanation: This big space diamond has an estimated value of over 80 billion dollars. It's only diamond in shape, though -- asteroid 162173 Ryugu is thought to be composed of mostly nickel and iron. Asteroids like Ryugu are interesting for several reasons, perhaps foremost because they are near the Earth and might, one day in the far future, pose an impact threat. In the nearer term, Ryugu is interesting because it may be possible to send future spacecraft there to mine it, thus providing humanity with a new source of valuable metals. Scientifically, Ryugu is interesting because it carries information about how our Solar System formed billions of years ago, and why its orbit takes it so close to Earth. Japan's robotic spacecraft Hayabusa2 just arrived at this one-kilometer wide asteroid in late June. The featured image shows surface structures unknown before spacecraft Hayabusa2's arrival, including rock fields and craters. Within the next three months, Hayabusa2 is scheduled to unleash several probes, some that will land on Ryugu and hop around, while Hayabusa2 itself will mine just a little bit of the asteroid for return to Earth.
Heck, this thread could just contain a live link to APOD.I get them in the mail every day. :love:
Imagine a nickel-iron asteroid like this tugged into orbit around Earth and anchoring a space elevator.
"What could possibly go wrong?"Imagine a nickel-iron asteroid like this tugged into orbit around Earth and anchoring a space elevator.
my first thought upon reading the line, "and might, one day in the far future, pose an impact threat" was, 'or a lot sooner when the attempt to bring it into a closer Earth orbit goes horribly wrong'
See, I was thinking that a bunch of open core fission reactors could use asteroid material as reaction mass to push it in an earth-lunar conveyor orbit. Mining, transit, science, and cool-as-heck all in one.If you're not in rush "gravity tugs" would be safer. Have a mass in a triangular relationship with the asteroid and Earth. The mass gives a slight pull to the asteroid and, if managed properly, the big rock goes into a different orbit.
Safer in what sense? I mean space is already radioactive as hell. Mining out a big asteroid would provide good shielding from that and from the reactors. You'd want active engines for a conveyor, I think, since the mass of the thing would be constantly changing as the asteroid is mined out and turned into a habitat.In the sense that you don't need so much equipment and you have time to adjust the trajectory if it looks to be going wonky.
Sensible if you're just aiming to be close but not TOO close. :)The most important thing would be to get-r-done before any government got involved. :-[
/me Slowly and cautiously raises his hand.
I'm subscribed in my RSS feed reader, the hovertext is always printed below the cartoon in case you're on a device that can't hover. I don't know if that's the case on the actual site or not.
(click to show/hide)
Oh no! The sun sets? This could be the fatal blow for solar energy. Why has nobody in the solar industry ever considered this before?Wind dies. Sun sets.
(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
Just remember, no acid has a pH higher than water.(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
That plus the oxidane is enough to kill you.
(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
That plus the oxidane is enough to kill you.
Oh please, all that stuff is completely diluted by all that water. ::)
(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
(click to show/hide)
DHMO is nothing. It's all the hydric acid you really have to worry about.
That is the same stuff that is in jet chemtrails.
You people are scaring me. Good thing I only drink coffee and whisky. Keeps me safe!To make matters worse, it's bipolar.
What I want to know is why the government has it pumped right into our homes!The mind control element, dude! Once people start on the stuff they have to have it and will do damn near anything to get it. And the government controls supply and distribution. Think about that. /alexjones
What I want to know is why the government has it pumped right into our homes!
You'd think the government would wake up when there's clouds of the shit floating around and SOLID CHUNKS OF IT FALLING FROM THE SKY!!!!!!!
I find it interesting that none of it seems to fall on Saudi Arabia.Gotta keep the sand worms somewhere.
Holy shit, well I just checked an instrument I bought that is supposed to detect this stuff in the air in my house and apparently it's at like 70% of saturation! I don't know what it was that set off the Illuminati type folks but I guess I'm a target now. }|8o#My house is nowhere near that high. But I do have a little wooden box that seems to stay around 74%...I keep my poisonous flammable plant sticks in there.
"Sometimes a poisonous flammable plant stick is just a poisonous flammable plant stick."Holy shit, well I just checked an instrument I bought that is supposed to detect this stuff in the air in my house and apparently it's at like 70% of saturation! I don't know what it was that set off the Illuminati type folks but I guess I'm a target now. }|8o#My house is nowhere near that high. But I do have a little wooden box that seems to stay around 74%...I keep my poisonous flammable plant sticks in there.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzYwMjc3ODEzOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTI1NDM1._V1_UY317_CR9,0,214,317_AL_.jpg)"Sometimes a poisonous flammable plant stick is just a poisonous flammable plant stick."Holy shit, well I just checked an instrument I bought that is supposed to detect this stuff in the air in my house and apparently it's at like 70% of saturation! I don't know what it was that set off the Illuminati type folks but I guess I'm a target now. }|8o#My house is nowhere near that high. But I do have a little wooden box that seems to stay around 74%...I keep my poisonous flammable plant sticks in there.
Wait, who was talking about water? This is about DHMO.
Wait, who was talking about water? This is about DHMO.
Yes the stuff that Monsanto uses to grow their crops.
They have really big green houses on their facility here in St. Louis.Wait, who was talking about water? This is about DHMO.
Yes the stuff that Monsanto uses to grow their crops.
[pedant] Monsanto doesn't grow crops, farmers do, they just provide the seeds (and roundup) [\pedant]
Wait, who was talking about water? This is about DHMO.
Yes the stuff that Monsanto uses to grow their crops.
[pedant] Monsanto doesn't grow crops, farmers do, they just provide the seeds (and roundup) [\pedant]
(https://vicskeptics.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lynne-kelly-skeptic-guide-quote-1200w.jpg)
I assume that the originator is this Lynne Kelly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Kelly_(science_writer)), Australian skeptic.
(https://vicskeptics.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lynne-kelly-skeptic-guide-quote-1200w.jpg)
I assume that the originator is this Lynne Kelly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Kelly_(science_writer)), Australian skeptic.
That is all good and well until you realize that the person beside you is only making one set of footprints in the sand which is proof that God is actually carrying him.
(https://alwaysquestionauthority.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/1469926_779685588723537_981205669_n.png)
Something we should all try to keep in mind everyday.
"You don't mess around wasting your time in this life because you expect to have another one" is true of people who don't believe in an afterlife, whether or not those people still in fact mess around wasting time in this life. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then whatever you do now can't possibly be "because you expect to have another [life]".
(https://alwaysquestionauthority.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/1469926_779685588723537_981205669_n.png)
Something we should all try to keep in mind everyday.
I don't know if this is true. It can be but it certainly isn't a given. I know plenty of people that don't believe in God that don't live life to the fullest and a few that have taken their lives. The opposite is true with believers. Just because I know I am going to eventually get a new car doesn't mean I am going to pinball my current one off trees and treat it like crap. If tomorrow they figured out how at the end of our lives to load who we are into a computer so that we could live indefinitely in a computer universe doesn't mean that I would live all that different or that my current life would have less meaning.
(https://i.imgur.com/iAJpokI.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=SsR_fRDIQXk
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/205851496007467009/501134495563513866/Screenshot_2018-10-14_Florida_Democrat_Invokes_Blood_of_Jesus_Against_Witches_Warlocks_Seeking_to_Ha.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/Lt3IE0u.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Lt3IE0u.jpg)
That's not spaghetti, man. That would have to be due to some other god.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lt3IE0u.jpg)
That's not spaghetti, man. That would have to be due to some other god.
They're called pastafarians, man, they don't discriminate.
(https://i.imgur.com/O3CfzHt.gif)Mercury got whacked.
not animating. >:(https://i.imgur.com/B1LQwu3.gifv
My mind keeps flipping it from on its back to on its front.The legs wouldn't have been so clear. The body mass would have obscured them. As it is it's not hard to see the crotch.
I suppose that’s cool for scale, but I’m completely distracted by the fact that light travels far too fast to orbit at the surface of the Earth. It would be able to orbit less than a centimeter from the center of mass of the earth (and Earth would therefore have to be a black hole).You could imagine it being reflected or in an optical cable or something, though admittedly it still wouldn't technically be an "orbit".
Also, photons can orbit at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius (of a neutral unmoving spherical distribution of mass), and I'm pretty certain it would be impossible for any sort of matter that obeys Relativity to be smaller than that without collapsing into a black hole.
The wording of your post made it seem like you were saying Earth in particular would have to be a black hole for light to orbit, rather than that black holes are the only possible things light could orbit.Also, photons can orbit at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius (of a neutral unmoving spherical distribution of mass), and I'm pretty certain it would be impossible for any sort of matter that obeys Relativity to be smaller than that without collapsing into a black hole.
Which is, I think, what I said? I may have been slightly off on the orbital radius of a 1c object (it would actually be around 1.2 cm), but I hardly think that changes my point.
The wording of your post made it seem like you were saying Earth in particular would have to be a black hole for light to orbit, rather than that black holes are the only possible things light could orbit.Also, photons can orbit at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius (of a neutral unmoving spherical distribution of mass), and I'm pretty certain it would be impossible for any sort of matter that obeys Relativity to be smaller than that without collapsing into a black hole.
Which is, I think, what I said? I may have been slightly off on the orbital radius of a 1c object (it would actually be around 1.2 cm), but I hardly think that changes my point.
Zebra fish Nervous system growing over 16 hours:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V_mr1vtkSeY/VUo-zrrn1MI/AAAAAAAAUFI/trVAc_rT6Hc/s1600/07aef80249fd17aa63e1%5B1%5D.jpg)
Mystery solved.
Building the ISS
Building the ISSOkay, so where are our flying cars? ;D
https://i.imgur.com/uEeChpf.mp4
(https://i.redd.it/jxxlummyu8i21.jpg)
My backyard....(https://i.redd.it/jxxlummyu8i21.jpg)
A lovely picture. From where is it taken?
A rover.(https://i.redd.it/jxxlummyu8i21.jpg)
A lovely picture. From where is it taken?
A rover.(https://i.redd.it/jxxlummyu8i21.jpg)
A lovely picture. From where is it taken?
They were teasing.Seriously. I mean, where do we have cameras that can take pictures of the Earth and have a hilly skyline in the picture?
A rover.(click to show/hide)
A lovely picture. From where is it taken?
That was located?
Ok, I've had enough of you.
I don't understand why people here feel they have a lisence to be rude to me without me being rude.
You have to admit that dumb questions will get hilarious answers.Ok, I've had enough of you.
I don't understand why people here feel they have a lisence to be rude to me without me being rude.
Sadly, the best way to get an answer out of someone on the Internet is to simply post the wrong answer yourself: The desire to simply be a dick is always outweighed by the need to prove how much smarter they are than someone else.
Actually that’s not true. The best way to get an answer is to ... oh, wait ...Ok, I've had enough of you.
I don't understand why people here feel they have a lisence to be rude to me without me being rude.
Sadly, the best way to get an answer out of someone on the Internet is to simply post the wrong answer yourself: The desire to simply be a dick is always outweighed by the need to prove how much smarter they are than someone else.
(https://i.imgur.com/HAwoU6hg.jpg)
Explanation: Welcome to an equinox on planet Earth. Today is the first day of spring in our fair planet's northern hemisphere, fall in the southern hemisphere, with day and night nearly equal around the globe. At an equinox Earth's terminator, the dividing line between day and night, connects the planet's north and south poles as seen at the start of this remarkable time-lapse video compressing an entire year into twelve seconds. To make it, the Meteosat satellite recorded these infrared images every day at the same local time from a geosynchronous orbit. The video actually starts at the September 2010 equinox with the terminator aligned vertically. As the Earth revolves around the Sun, the terminator tilts to provide less daily sunlight to the northern hemisphere, reaching the solstice and northern hemisphere winter at the maximum tilt. As the year continues, the terminator tilts back again and March 2011 equinox arrives halfway through the video. Then the terminator swings past vertical the other way, reaching the the June 2011 solstice and the beginning of northern summer. The video ends as the September equinox returns.
https://www.evogeneao.com/explore/tree-of-life-explorerI love that image - but my first thought is that mammals are grossly overrepresented, mostly at the expense of birds.
https://www.evogeneao.com/explore/tree-of-life-explorerI love that image - but my first thought is that mammals are grossly overrepresented, mostly at the expense of birds.
Look at it from a little distance.
(http://i.imgur.com/GWVgey8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yzWmnBd.jpg)
女仆罪恶美国(https://i.imgur.com/yzWmnBd.jpg)
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/9/9f/Americanmaid.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160729131532&path-prefix=protagonist)女仆罪恶美国(https://i.imgur.com/yzWmnBd.jpg)
American maid sin?
More likely, "puppies are cute" was the motivator. Hunter kills Mom, takes one or pups home to the kids. Second place would be wolves scavenging and becoming accustomed to being around humans to the point when the two species were willing to be in proximity.
And always remember "a dog is a wolf with the interesting parts bred out of it."
More likely, "puppies are cute" was the motivator. Hunter kills Mom, takes one or pups home to the kids. Second place would be wolves scavenging and becoming accustomed to being around humans to the point when the two species were willing to be in proximity.
And always remember "a dog is a wolf with the interesting parts bred out of it."
Social structures are just like any other evolutionary process.They are and they aren't. They differ in that they're the product of brains communicating, and thus subject to memetic evolution, not just genetic evolution. That means that what is advantageous to the meme may survive at the expense of the genetic fitness of the individual.
Social structures are just like any other evolutionary process.They are and they aren't. They differ in that they're the product of brains communicating, and thus subject to memetic evolution, not just genetic evolution. That means that what is advantageous to the meme may survive at the expense of the genetic fitness of the individual.
Social structures are just like any other evolutionary process.They are and they aren't. They differ in that they're the product of brains communicating, and thus subject to memetic evolution, not just genetic evolution. That means that what is advantageous to the meme may survive at the expense of the genetic fitness of the individual.
Genetics, in this case, can be indirectly involved. Genetics may provide the underlying tendency for social interaction, but does not dictate the how that will occur.
Humans did, I think, breed for puppies that were plyable.
For example, becoming celibate reduces your fitness to zero, and I've yet to hear of any genetic basis for that choice.
Yeah, but I'm guessing the two species approached each other gradually at first, and the breeding probably came later.Why? The humans would have taken puppies after killing the adults. The neo-dogs would have been weeded, the ones that didn't see humans as their alpha would have been killed. Wolves don't need humans.
Yeah, but I'm guessing the two species approached each other gradually at first, and the breeding probably came later.Why? The humans would have taken puppies after killing the adults. The neo-dogs would have been weeded, the ones that didn't see humans as their alpha would have been killed. Wolves don't need humans.
Yeah, but I'm guessing the two species approached each other gradually at first, and the breeding probably came later.Why? The humans would have taken puppies after killing the adults. The neo-dogs would have been weeded, the ones that didn't see humans as their alpha would have been killed. Wolves don't need humans.
Why not just eat the puppies like they would rabbits and other cute critters? People eat dogs today, so they probably did back then. But wolves get big and dangerous, and they would not be the easiest animals to keep, so why were they the first to be fully domesticated? I think people probably lived in some degree of symbiosis with and recognized the usefulness of wolves to some extent before they started breeding them.
Yeah every proposed explanation I've seen for how we started living together has been gradual.
Sure, wolves don't need humans (and humans don't need wolves), but so what? Lots of beneficial things are unnecessary and facultative symbiosis is already a thing in nature.
Yeah every proposed explanation I've seen for how we started living together has been gradual.That's why I've been stressing puppies. Babies and puppies are a match made in Darwinism. ;D
Sure, wolves don't need humans (and humans don't need wolves), but so what? Lots of beneficial things are unnecessary and facultative symbiosis is already a thing in nature.
Yeah every proposed explanation I've seen for how we started living together has been gradual.That's why I've been stressing puppies. Babies and puppies are a match made in Darwinism. ;D
Sure, wolves don't need humans (and humans don't need wolves), but so what? Lots of beneficial things are unnecessary and facultative symbiosis is already a thing in nature.
I mean, sure, maybe we took in wolf puppies, but there's no need to posit something so frankly bizarre as a common occurrence when a gradual development of facultative symbiosis already explains what it needs to.Yeah every proposed explanation I've seen for how we started living together has been gradual.That's why I've been stressing puppies. Babies and puppies are a match made in Darwinism. ;D
Sure, wolves don't need humans (and humans don't need wolves), but so what? Lots of beneficial things are unnecessary and facultative symbiosis is already a thing in nature.
Ah, you prefer your bizarre theory over your characterization of my theory as bizarre. Got it.I mean, sure, maybe we took in wolf puppies, but there's no need to posit something so frankly bizarre as a common occurrence when a gradual development of facultative symbiosis already explains what it needs to.Yeah every proposed explanation I've seen for how we started living together has been gradual.That's why I've been stressing puppies. Babies and puppies are a match made in Darwinism. ;D
Sure, wolves don't need humans (and humans don't need wolves), but so what? Lots of beneficial things are unnecessary and facultative symbiosis is already a thing in nature.
The difference is that my "bizzare" "theory" (which isn't a theory at all so much as a defense of the suggestion that it was a gradual process) is actually what I've seen suggested by all the (admittedly not extensive) research I can remember reading about it.Your vague memories are "similar support"? LOL
Does your "we took home the puppies of wolves we killed" theory have similar support, or is it just your hunch?
(https://i.imgur.com/DUXe3rP.jpg)I see wat u did
You know, in an attempt to find images in the image thread? /passiveaggressiveness
So you've got nothing. Gotcha.The difference is that my "bizzare" "theory" (which isn't a theory at all so much as a defense of the suggestion that it was a gradual process) is actually what I've seen suggested by all the (admittedly not extensive) research I can remember reading about it.Your vague memories are "similar support"? LOL
Does your "we took home the puppies of wolves we killed" theory have similar support, or is it just your hunch?
Nope, the guy who runs the African painted dog sanctuary in Tanzania told us that puppies are routinely adopted by natives. No reason this didn't happen ~40,000 years ago. And you have...So you've got nothing. Gotcha.The difference is that my "bizzare" "theory" (which isn't a theory at all so much as a defense of the suggestion that it was a gradual process) is actually what I've seen suggested by all the (admittedly not extensive) research I can remember reading about it.Your vague memories are "similar support"? LOL
Does your "we took home the puppies of wolves we killed" theory have similar support, or is it just your hunch?
Social structures are just like any other evolutionary process.They are and they aren't. They differ in that they're the product of brains communicating, and thus subject to memetic evolution, not just genetic evolution. That means that what is advantageous to the meme may survive at the expense of the genetic fitness of the individual.
Nope, the guy who runs the African painted dog sanctuary in Tanzania told us that puppies are routinely adopted by natives. No reason this didn't happen ~40,000 years ago. And you have...So fully modern humans (who are no doubt well aware of the existence of domestic dogs) will sometimes adopt the puppies of a smaller wild canid species. That doesn't mean the adoption of gray wolf pups frequently enough to affect the evolution of subpopulations of wolves.
But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
Before we go into that: I think that hints at a misunderstanding of fitness: evolutionary fitness is determined exclusively by your ability to reproduce. Everything else is secondary. It has nothing directly to do with being the strongest in a physical strength or health sense, it has to do with how many copies of yourself (or more specifically, your genes) you can leave behind. Everything else is just what follows from that. So by definition you can't have genes that are detrimental to fitness but not detrimental to your ability to reproduce.
EDIT: To clarify: there's ways to quibble about the exact definition; for example, do you measure fitness as change in gene frequency over one generation, two, or many? But it's always about reproduction. If you can't or haven't and won't reproduce and you are not 100% immortal, your fitness is zero.
I don’t think that’s what Darwin meant by fit. I think he meant fit in terms of well adapted to the environment.
And reproduction per se is not primary. It is secondary to survival. Of course.
Fitness (often denoted w or ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype.
Fitness may refer to:
...
Fitness (biology), an individual's ability to propagate its genes
This is how Darwin described it:I don’t think that’s what Darwin meant by fit. I think he meant fit in terms of well adapted to the environment.
And reproduction per se is not primary. It is secondary to survival. Of course.
No, it actually isn't. If you can reproduce by dying, that is a viable strategy that numerous species employ. Since nothing is really immortal, reproduction is key.
In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[3][4] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[5][6]
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
The biological concept of fitness refers to reproductive success, as opposed to survival, and is not explicit in the specific ways in which organisms can be more "fit" (increase reproductive success) as having phenotypic characteristics that enhance survival and reproduction (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).[citation needed]
Critiquing the phrase
While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.[13]
...
The phrase can also be interpreted to express a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals or species, in some sense of "fit", will survive some test. Nevertheless, when extended to individuals it is a conceptual mistake, the phrase is a reference to the transgenerational survival of the heritable attributes; particular individuals are quite irrelevant. This becomes more clear when referring to Viral quasispecies, in survival of the flattest, which makes it clear to survive makes no reference to the question of even being alive itself; rather the functional capacity of proteins to carry out work.
Interpretations of the phrase as expressing a theory are in danger of being tautological, meaning roughly "those with a propensity to survive have a propensity to survive"; to have content the theory must use a concept of fitness that is independent of that of survival.[5][14]
The first three sentences from that wikipedia page:Quote"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
And a little later:QuoteThe biological concept of fitness refers to reproductive success, as opposed to survival, and is not explicit in the specific ways in which organisms can be more "fit" (increase reproductive success) as having phenotypic characteristics that enhance survival and reproduction (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).[citation needed]
Critiquing the phrase
While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.[13]
...
The phrase can also be interpreted to express a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals or species, in some sense of "fit", will survive some test. Nevertheless, when extended to individuals it is a conceptual mistake, the phrase is a reference to the transgenerational survival of the heritable attributes; particular individuals are quite irrelevant. This becomes more clear when referring to Viral quasispecies, in survival of the flattest, which makes it clear to survive makes no reference to the question of even being alive itself; rather the functional capacity of proteins to carry out work.
Interpretations of the phrase as expressing a theory are in danger of being tautological, meaning roughly "those with a propensity to survive have a propensity to survive"; to have content the theory must use a concept of fitness that is independent of that of survival.[5][14]
We were discussing how we understand evolution to work today
We were discussing how we understand evolution to work today
Not really. We were discussing human/wolf/dog socialization. From that evolutionary issues arose but those are tangential to the issue.
Darwin’s remarks on fittest and kin selection are more relevant.
(http://i.imgur.com/5Wx6nZP.gif)Credit to the Mythbusters.
We were discussing how we understand evolution to work today
Not really. We were discussing human/wolf/dog socialization. From that evolutionary issues arose but those are tangential to the issue.
Darwin’s remarks on fittest and kin selection are more relevant.
We have 150 years of theory and empirical research since Darwin. What makes you think that we should just ignore all that here? It's a rhetorical question.
Not if it leads people to argue that we can have higher fitness with lower reproductive value or vice versa, because that is literally a contradiction in terms.
Not if it leads people to argue that we can have higher fitness with lower reproductive value or vice versa, because that is literally a contradiction in terms.
No one is arguing that.
Quote it and we can talk. I have a feeling we’re talking past each otherNot if it leads people to argue that we can have higher fitness with lower reproductive value or vice versa, because that is literally a contradiction in terms.
No one is arguing that.
Scroll back. That's how we got here.
(http://i.imgur.com/5Wx6nZP.gif)Credit to the Mythbusters.
I used to be a volunteer at the St. Louis Science Center. We did demonstrations at local school, fairs, etc. We had a "dancing fire" segment that enthralled almost all the kids. (One ran like hell. I made a note to let the teachers know beforehand what we were going to do.)(http://i.imgur.com/5Wx6nZP.gif)Credit to the Mythbusters.
I made a little cannon for my physics teacher. It fires a marble across the room. The marble breaks the current at the "muzzle" of the cannon barrel that is driving an electromagnet that drops a tin lid which is struck by the marble just as it hits the floor. All very cool and the kids are amazed.
Quote it and we can talk. I have a feeling we’re talking past each otherNot if it leads people to argue that we can have higher fitness with lower reproductive value or vice versa, because that is literally a contradiction in terms.
No one is arguing that.
Scroll back. That's how we got here.
But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
Quote it and we can talk. I have a feeling we’re talking past each otherNot if it leads people to argue that we can have higher fitness with lower reproductive value or vice versa, because that is literally a contradiction in terms.
No one is arguing that.
Scroll back. That's how we got here.
Here's what I was reacting to:But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
These are genetic traits that constrict or prevent these individuals from passing their genes on to the next generation, but they are preserved in that they improve the survival prospects of the rest of the population.No, they are preserved in that they improve the survival to reproduction prospects of other individuals with those same genes.
These are genetic traits that constrict or prevent these individuals from passing their genes on to the next generation, but they are preserved in that they improve the survival prospects of the rest of the population.No, they are preserved in that they improve the survival to reproduction prospects of other individuals with those same genes.
I made a little cannon for my physics teacher. It fires a marble across the room. The marble breaks the current at the "muzzle" of the cannon barrel that is driving an electromagnet that drops a tin lid which is struck by the marble just as it hits the floor. All very cool and the kids are amazed.
I don't think Laninist would want me to explain what he meant there. So I'll just say that's well supported by evolutionary theory.
I believe from your remarks that you're looking at evolution from an oversimplified single generational perspective.
Correct me if this is not an accurate interpretation: you're saying that the gene's that foster individual members of a species to be able to reproduce are carried forward and those that interfere with that are not.
I'm saying that's not always the case. There are numerous examples across numerous species where genes that prevent the ability of some individuals in that species to successfully reproduce are preserved, as the traits and or behaviors associated with those genes help other members of the population to survive and successfully reproduce.
These are genetic traits that constrict or prevent these individuals from passing their genes on to the next generation, but they are preserved in that they improve the survival prospects of the rest of the population.No, they are preserved in that they improve the survival to reproduction prospects of other individuals with those same genes.
In some cases they are increasing the survival to reproduction of other individuals with similar genes.
But, no. It is not the case that in a population of anything more complex than bees and ants, and even then, that members of a population has the same genes.
They often have similar genes, but not the same. Mammals born to the same mother can have different fathers, for example.
With complex social interactions found in mammals non-breeding individuals may be contributing to the survival of competing members of their parent's species.
In evolutionary biology, inclusive fitness is one of two metrics of evolutionary success as defined by W. D. Hamilton in 1964:An individual's own child, who carries one half of the individual's genes, is defined as one offspring equivalent. A sibling's child, who will carry one-quarter of the individual's genes, is 1/2 offspring equivalent. Similarly, a cousin's child, who has 1/16 of the individual's genes, is 1/8 offspring equivalent.
- Personal fitness is the number of offspring that an individual begets (regardless of who rescues/rears/supports them)
- Inclusive fitness is the number of offspring equivalents that an individual rears, rescues or otherwise supports through its behaviour (regardless of who begets them)
From the gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately depends on leaving behind the maximum number of copies of itself in the population. Prior to Hamilton's work, it was generally assumed that genes only achieved this through the number of viable offspring produced by the individual organism they occupied. However, this overlooked a wider consideration of a gene's success, most clearly in the case of the social insects where the vast majority of individuals do not produce offspring.
They often have similar genes, but not the same. Mammals born to the same mother can have different fathers, for example.I'm talking about individual genes, or individual genetic traits, not entire genomes.
Mods, can the evolution discussion be moved to a new thread? I'm sure it's interesting, but it is very very very very very very far from the subject of this thread.
They often have similar genes, but not the same. Mammals born to the same mother can have different fathers, for example.I'm talking about individual genes, or individual genetic traits, not entire genomes.
(You were apparently talking about the same thing, until just now when it became more convenient to move the goalposts.)
A particular gene that lowers the reproductive success of individuals who have it will propagate (its genetic trait will be preserved) only to the extent that it increases the reproductive success of other individuals who also have that exact same gene.
If even a single copy of a gene makes you sterile, even if it makes you live 10x longer than everyone else and even if it somehow lets you guarantee the survival and reproduction of all of your fertile siblings and nieces and nephews and their offspring and so on for twenty generations, that gene that makes you so great and powerful won't propagate because none of the people with that particular gene will ever reproduce.
Mods, can the evolution discussion be moved to a new thread? I'm sure it's interesting, but it is very very very very very very far from the subject of this thread.
I also want to point out another thing that snuck past me: herd behavior is something different. For that to be kin selection, the herd would have to have an incredibly high degree of genetic homogeneity. Herd behavior is a trait that is advantageous on average for those that have the trait. On the most basic level, it works by greatly reducing the chance that a predator on the hunt will single you out among all the animals in the herd.
The fact that you apparently think this contradicts what I said suggests you're kinda shit at reading.QuoteIf even a single copy of a gene makes you sterile, even if it makes you live 10x longer than everyone else and even if it somehow lets you guarantee the survival and reproduction of all of your fertile siblings and nieces and nephews and their offspring and so on for twenty generations, that gene that makes you so great and powerful won't propagate because none of the people with that particular gene will ever reproduce.
Again, single generation, on dimensional approach.
If there is a single gene that makes a small percentage of a mating pair's offspring sterile, but for the reasons I've outlined several times now, that enhances the survival of the rest of the offspring, the genes the make that small percentage sterile will be preserved.
(https://i.redd.it/j52kb71aacr21.jpg)Shared that with one of my moronic cousins.
But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
Before we go into that: I think that hints at a misunderstanding of fitness: evolutionary fitness is determined exclusively by your ability to reproduce. Everything else is secondary. It has nothing directly to do with being the strongest in a physical strength or health sense, it has to do with how many copies of yourself (or more specifically, your genes) you can leave behind. Everything else is just what follows from that. So by definition you can't have genes that are detrimental to fitness but not detrimental to your ability to reproduce.
EDIT: To clarify: there's ways to quibble about the exact definition; for example, do you measure fitness as change in gene frequency over one generation, two, or many? But it's always about reproduction. If you can't or haven't and won't reproduce and you are not 100% immortal, your fitness is zero.
The fact that you apparently think this contradicts what I said suggests you're kinda shit at reading.QuoteIf even a single copy of a gene makes you sterile, even if it makes you live 10x longer than everyone else and even if it somehow lets you guarantee the survival and reproduction of all of your fertile siblings and nieces and nephews and their offspring and so on for twenty generations, that gene that makes you so great and powerful won't propagate because none of the people with that particular gene will ever reproduce.
Again, single generation, on dimensional approach.
If there is a single gene that makes a small percentage of a mating pair's offspring sterile, but for the reasons I've outlined several times now, that enhances the survival of the rest of the offspring, the genes the make that small percentage sterile will be preserved.
Yes, I disagree with your belief that my posts said something they didn't say.The fact that you apparently think this contradicts what I said suggests you're kinda shit at reading.QuoteIf even a single copy of a gene makes you sterile, even if it makes you live 10x longer than everyone else and even if it somehow lets you guarantee the survival and reproduction of all of your fertile siblings and nieces and nephews and their offspring and so on for twenty generations, that gene that makes you so great and powerful won't propagate because none of the people with that particular gene will ever reproduce.
Again, single generation, on dimensional approach.
If there is a single gene that makes a small percentage of a mating pair's offspring sterile, but for the reasons I've outlined several times now, that enhances the survival of the rest of the offspring, the genes the make that small percentage sterile will be preserved.
So you agree that it is correct.
You just disagree that in your posts you said the exact opposite.
No. Predators prey on the weakest individuals. That's basically the very young, the very old, the sick, the injured and the stupid (or unlucky).
A large herd protects the weaker members by sheer numbers. They will trample predators or work together using horns. Zebras use their stripes to confuse the predators.
The larger the herd, the better protection (generally).
But too many aggressive males competing for the females can disrupt herds and cause them to split and become weaker.
But if x% of the males are not aggressively competing for mates, then the herd can grow a bit larger and provide better protection for the newborns.
And, if that happens that x% of offspring that are not reproducing gene will be preserved.
And it seems you're looking at both kin selection and herd behavior backwards.
But nothing in genetic evolution prevents genes from surviving at the expense of the the "fitness of the individual." Indeed, it is my understanding that some genes are highly conserved despite being detrimental to fitness as long as they do not impose an actual impediment to reproduction.
Before we go into that: I think that hints at a misunderstanding of fitness: evolutionary fitness is determined exclusively by your ability to reproduce. Everything else is secondary. It has nothing directly to do with being the strongest in a physical strength or health sense, it has to do with how many copies of yourself (or more specifically, your genes) you can leave behind. Everything else is just what follows from that. So by definition you can't have genes that are detrimental to fitness but not detrimental to your ability to reproduce.
EDIT: To clarify: there's ways to quibble about the exact definition; for example, do you measure fitness as change in gene frequency over one generation, two, or many? But it's always about reproduction. If you can't or haven't and won't reproduce and you are not 100% immortal, your fitness is zero.
But that's exactly the point: if you are defining it in terms of the chances of reproduction of an individual (as you did in the post I was responding to), a gene may in fact decrease those chances and yet be highly conserved if that gene increases the likelihood of itself being passed on.
Katie Bauman posing with 5 petabytes of data necessary to image a black hole
5,000,000,000,000 kilobytes processed to create a 16 kilobytes picture!
Katie Bauman posing with 5 petabytes of data necessary to image a black holeIs the raw data available for download?
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aVYVL0M_700bwp.webp)
5,000,000,000,000 kilobytes processed to create a 16 kilobytes picture!
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F8C9/production/_106398636_mediaitem106398635.jpg)
You'd have a looooong time to enjoy the view. ;)(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F8C9/production/_106398636_mediaitem106398635.jpg)
Meh, not that impressive. Probably cause the photo was taken from too far away. It probably looks pretty cool up close.
That raises a lot of questions about what male genitals are for, if thousands of generations of reproduction don't count as successes...
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F8C9/production/_106398636_mediaitem106398635.jpg)
Meh, not that impressive. Probably cause the photo was taken from too far away. It probably looks pretty cool up close.
I know, that was a joke. It's not a good idea to get a close up of a black hole.
(smaller than the orbit of Pluto)Not quite
Ah, interesting, I guess the article I read had it wrong.
That article says 40 billion km across. The orbit of Pluto is about 15 billion km across.Ah, interesting, I guess the article I read had it wrong.
Not if this is correct.
https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1907a/ (https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1907a/)
(smaller than the orbit of Pluto)
(smaller than the orbit of Pluto)
We must keep in mind that the shadow that we see in the picture, does NOT correspond to the size of the black hole. The radius of the shadow is 2.6 times bigger than the black hole itself... so yes, it could be "just" the size of the orbit of Pluto.
Correlation ≠ Causation
Correlation ≠ Causation
...but it's suggestive.
(https://i.imgur.com/bGpN2pv.jpg)Um, no, that kid had your genes too. ::)
It's a somewhat flawed argument, but it made me laugh anyway.
...and an eager swallower of Cato bullshit on climate change. He is an object lesson for all skeptics lest they get too smug about how woo-woo proof they are.It's a somewhat flawed argument, but it made me laugh anyway.
Not only is he a libertarian, he's a full-on Ayn Rand Objectivist...
...and an eager swallower of Cato bullshit on climate change. He is an object lesson for all skeptics lest they get too smug about how woo-woo proof they are.It's a somewhat flawed argument, but it made me laugh anyway.
Not only is he a libertarian, he's a full-on Ayn Rand Objectivist...
...and an eager swallower of Cato bullshit on climate change. He is an object lesson for all skeptics lest they get too smug about how woo-woo proof they are.It's a somewhat flawed argument, but it made me laugh anyway.
Not only is he a libertarian, he's a full-on Ayn Rand Objectivist...
Boulders on Bennu
Image Credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, University of Arizona
Explanation: An abundance of boulders litters the surface asteroid 101955 Bennu in this dramatic close-up from the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft. Taken on March 28 from a distance of just 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) the field of view is about 50 meters across while the light colored boulder at top right is 4.8 meters tall. Likely a loose conglomerate rubble pile asteroid, Bennu itself spans less than 500 meters. That's about the height of the Empire State Building. Mapping the near Earth asteroid since the spacecraft's arrival in December of 2018, the OSIRIS-REx mission plans a TAG (Touch-and-Go) maneuver for July 2020 to sample Bennu's rugged surface, returning the sample to planet Earth in September 2023. Citizen scientists have been invited to help choose the sample collection site.
I've been wondering is that loose rocks and boulders on the surface, or is it loose rocks and boulders all the way down?Either way or something in-between.
How much gravity would it take to crush a random collection of rocks into a solid core?How much of a disturbance would it take to break up a random collection of rocks?
And why are they rocks anyway?
Sorry, I wasn't clear.How much gravity would it take to crush a random collection of rocks into a solid core?How much of a disturbance would it take to break up a random collection of rocks?
And why are they rocks anyway?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And why are they rocks anyway?What else would they be?
And why are they rocks anyway?
What else would they be?
Not rocks.And why are they rocks anyway?What else would they be?
I've been wondering is that loose rocks and boulders on the surface, or is it loose rocks and boulders all the way down?
Cool. Having a time with my eyes these days. >:(I've been wondering is that loose rocks and boulders on the surface, or is it loose rocks and boulders all the way down?
The quoted excerpt describes it as "likely a loose conglomerate rubble pile asteroid".
I got a couple of minutes into it before I couldn’t take it any more. It’s just a montage of space clips having nothing at all really to do with the eras they’re supposed to represent and missing out on all of the most important events at least in the early universe. And its depiction of the Big Bang was insulting.
Well it wasn't really a time lapse, but I enjoyed the visuals and I appreciate the idea behind it.
The opening credit sequence for "The Big Bang Theory" was better.
@SteffenMalskaer got the difficult task of retrieving our oceanographic moorings and weather station on sea ice in North West Greenland this year. Rapid melt and sea ice with low permeability and few cracks leaves the melt water on top.
Explanation: Today, the solstice is at 15:54 Universal Time, the Sun reaching the northernmost declination in its yearly journey through planet Earth's sky. A June solstice marks the astronomical beginning of summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the south. It also brings the north's longest day, the longest period between sunrise and sunset. In fact the June solstice sun is near the top, at the most northern point in the analemma or figure 8 curve traced by the position of the Sun in this composite photo. The analemma was created (video) from images taken every 10 days at the same time from June 21, 2018 and June 7, 2019. The time was chosen to be the year's earliest sunset near the December solstice, so the analemma's lowest point just kisses the unobstructed sea horizon at the left. Sunsets arranged along the horizon toward the right (north) are centered on the sunset at the September equinox and end with sunset at the June solstice.
They're talking about the thawing of the Arctic, I suspect. Tropical North Pole.
They're talking about the thawing of the Arctic, I suspect. Tropical North Pole.Continental drift?
Lazy artist syndrome, I believe.They're talking about the thawing of the Arctic, I suspect. Tropical North Pole.
If that’s what they’re going for, why are the continents they show Africa and Australia (and in a geographically impossible relation to each other)?
They're talking about the thawing of the Arctic, I suspect. Tropical North Pole.
If that’s what they’re going for, why are the continents they show Africa and Australia (and in a geographically impossible relation to each other)?
The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.And that's bullshit.
The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.
And that's bullshit.
(https://i.imgur.com/0Zij9Er.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sxCuCfX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fnSXKgS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HOtm4y5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/frauhLX.jpg)
https://boingboing.net/2018/03/28/robbie-barrats-ai-generated.html
That is bizarre, not only because of the geographic impossibility of the image but because in those particular continents its the first day of winter.
Still BULLSHIT.The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.
And that's bullshit.
No, it really is not. Fountain was originally submitted in 1917 for a Paris exhibition of the Société des Artistes Indépendants (Society of Independent Artists). Duchamp himself said the purpose of the piece was to test the boundaries of what the museum directors would consider art, in order to gauge their commitment to free expression. He was motivated to do this because 5 years earlier he'd had a painting (Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2#/media/File:Duchamp_-_Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg), which eventually became his most famous) removed from exhibit after an unfavorable response.
Still BULLSHIT.The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.
And that's bullshit.
No, it really is not. Fountain was originally submitted in 1917 for a Paris exhibition of the Société des Artistes Indépendants (Society of Independent Artists). Duchamp himself said the purpose of the piece was to test the boundaries of what the museum directors would consider art, in order to gauge their commitment to free expression. He was motivated to do this because 5 years earlier he'd had a painting (Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2#/media/File:Duchamp_-_Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg), which eventually became his most famous) removed from exhibit after an unfavorable response.
Still BULLSHIT.The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.
And that's bullshit.
No, it really is not. Fountain was originally submitted in 1917 for a Paris exhibition of the Société des Artistes Indépendants (Society of Independent Artists). Duchamp himself said the purpose of the piece was to test the boundaries of what the museum directors would consider art, in order to gauge their commitment to free expression. He was motivated to do this because 5 years earlier he'd had a painting (Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2#/media/File:Duchamp_-_Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg), which eventually became his most famous) removed from exhibit after an unfavorable response.
Not only do I agree that it's bullshit, but I think Duchamp himself would agree.
It was intended as an insult and a deliberate affront, and, had it not been for the critics at the time, would have been dismissed and forgotten as such.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3671180/Duchamps-Fountain-The-practical-joke-that-launched-an-artistic-revolution.html
What's your evidence it was intended as an insult? Who are you to speak on behalf of Marcel Duchamp? Duchamp himself said he submitted it under a pseudonym because he did not want his established reputation to affect their judgment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3671180/Duchamps-Fountain-The-practical-joke-that-launched-an-artistic-revolution.html
What's your evidence it was intended as an insult? Who are you to speak on behalf of Marcel Duchamp? Duchamp himself said he submitted it under a pseudonym because he did not want his established reputation to affect their judgment.
(https://i.imgur.com/tyswBBR.jpg)I believe that’s a riff from the New Testament, but I can’t sure chapter and verse.
Mr. Rogers?
j/kMr. Rogers?
Please hand over your nerd badge.
Dude, it's Carl fuckin' Sagan.I watched "Cosmos" the first time through. I knew it was Carl, the pizza guy confirmed it.
Come on now.
Wow, you guys really think a lot about skin color.Just because you choose to ignore the fact that "it was aliens" hypotheses always seem to be most popular with things built outside of Europe doesn't mean we think an excessive amount about skin color.
Wow, you guys really think a lot about skin color.
Just because you choose to ignore the fact that "it was aliens" hypotheses always seem to be most popular with things built outside of Europe doesn't mean we think an excessive amount about skin color.
It may just mean you choose to ignore too much.
This is Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, one of the most important pieces in the history of art. The point of this piece is to settle a debate about the definition of art by proving the theory that any object, even mundane, unmodified found objects, can be art if they're presented as art.
It's generally accepted among artists and collectors, that the highest purpose of art is to elicit opinions and invite discussion. When Duchamp turned a urinal on its side and presented it in the context of an art piece, that elicited very strong opinions and invited vigorous discussion. Hence, the urinal serves the same basic purpose as some fine object explicitly created for the same purpose. Because the juxtaposed object is functionally indistinguishable from art, it is art.
The fact that we're still posting photos, and discussing and debating this piece over 100 years later, is proof that Duchamp was correct.
Wow, you guys really think a lot about skin color.
Just because you choose to ignore the fact that "it was aliens" hypotheses always seem to be most popular with things built outside of Europe doesn't mean we think an excessive amount about skin color.
It may just mean you choose to ignore too much.
Yeah, that's the point of the joke.
ET intervention is usually invoked to explain the sacred structures of ancient "primitive cultures" who lacked the sophisticated intellectual achievements of the Europeans. As if those cultures were just too stupid to have figured out how to stack big rocks.
Stonehenge is the only European structure that regularly gets attributed to aliens.
The Pickle comes in second, right?
Stonehenge is the only European structure that regularly gets attributed to aliens.
Stonehenge is the only European structure that regularly gets attributed to aliens.
The Pickle comes in second, right?
The Pickle.
Stonehenge is the only European structure that regularly gets attributed to aliens.
The Pickle comes in second, right?
I don't get it.
The Pickle.
(https://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/08/Foster-Partners-gherkin31.jpg)
The Pickle.
(https://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/08/Foster-Partners-gherkin31.jpg)
https://squirrelmunk.com/2017/11/26/the-elements-of-good-butt-plug-design/ (NSFW)
I have to admit, it's a cool-looking building.Jane Foster had a date there when Thor was off-planet. (It's complicated.)
Jane Foster had a date there when Thor was off-planet. (It's complicated.)
It's certainly not the most important thing to know these days. ;)Jane Foster had a date there when Thor was off-planet. (It's complicated.)
Sorry, I'm not well-versed on the MCU lore.
It's certainly not the most important thing to know these days. ;)Jane Foster had a date there when Thor was off-planet. (It's complicated.)
Sorry, I'm not well-versed on the MCU lore.
Yeah, "Thor: Dark World."It's certainly not the most important thing to know these days. ;)Jane Foster had a date there when Thor was off-planet. (It's complicated.)
Sorry, I'm not well-versed on the MCU lore.
Was that the second one? With the big finale at Greenwich? That little joke they put in on the London Underground during the last act is so bad I can't watch the film... it's even worse than the London Underground scene from Skyfall...
Interesting PBS video on thorium salt reactors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElulEJruhRQ
(https://i.redd.it/0kvz7p5l1f131.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pOWKOOB.jpg)All of that could be also said about politics. Except canvasing has a much better success rate.