Somehow I don't think that dramatic descriptions of him cutting off the heads of police are going to help him much.

I would like to hear more about why they are stupid.

Also because when you are trying to pull data, instead of using a handful of codes that encapsulate all the stuff you are trying to study, you have to perhaps draw from a much wider pool. Say you are looking for all ankle fractures - do you now look for ankle fractures, tibial fractures, fibular fractures, injuries caused by giraffes, falls from a height greater than 6.7m but less than 9.5m, etc. There is much potential crossover and yet it may not be fully inclusive of all you want to study. If people who studied in one location tend to code injuries from reptiles, while from another they specify turtles and we see a difference between the two groups, is it because reptiles are different than turtles, or because they were all turtles but one group treats turtle injuries better than the other.

More information is not necessarily better. Case in point: Full body scans - we find more anomalies, but not necessarily more disease as that stone in your gallbladder may never have caused you problems, but now that it is known we are much more likely to want to take it out.

I think this will result in a lower signal to noise ratio.

However, from an epidemiological standpoint, having better information about the causes of health problems will allow better study of cause and effect relationships between wellness and disease, for example. Even if it is a pain to implement (there must be a code for that).

This should intuitively be true. However, making assumptions about a population based solely on someone's ability to find the proper code will not garner the response you are looking for. If I see someone for a twisted ankle (alligator-induced), a common cold, dirt in the eye of extraterrestrial origin, and insulin dependent type 2 diabetes, it is much easier for me to put down the common cold (and perhaps diabetes mellitus, though no specific sub-classification) because I see it all the time and remember it. Most current applications only provide spaces for 3 diagnoses anyhow. ICD 9 gives 780 for general symptoms, and people with much more exacting diagnoses are given this code because it is easy to remember and can be used for almost any situation.

Studies based on retrospective chart reviews often come up with bizarre correlations. Take autism and vaccinations, or acetaminophen and Type I diabetes for example.

I think this has little to do with it. Ultimately we have scientists with a very robust theory, evolution. We currently have a situation of significant selective pressure, as evidenced by the increased number of extinctions that have occurred in recent times. We also have a number of species that we think are at risk for extinction. We are merely trying to determine if our understanding of evolution is sufficient that we can take species which appear to be unable to deal with the selective pressure they are facing and turn them into species that are able. You do this by looking at the whole equation of habitat, predator-prey, population, etc. It is the logical next step - practical application of the theory.

In order to do this, you need to pick species that are doing poorly, but with favourable equations. Meaning that you put your resources into the ones that you think require fairly small changes to turn them around. The ones that have the odds stacked so far against them would be fascinating to succeed with, but would take a long time, and be subject to too many variables to clearly show the benefit resultant from your efforts.

Benefits from this application may eventually be there for those with deep pockets, once the basic science is hashed out. Not that there aren't a lot of bleeding hearts out there to fund the research, but they are most interested in the cute ones, the large ones, and the ones most like themselves (mammals, social structures, etc).

Personifying Nature only is there to create a god out of the mashup of rules that exist out there and create another moral entity, there is no such thing as natural when speaking of disease or predators. Invasive species are simply the ones better adapted to their current environment. This is nothing more than finding a complex machine and trying to figure out how it works.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. However, the moment Godwin's Law is mentioned, the probability equals 1.

Nah, it's just the heavy drinkers usually drive alone, and the non-drinkers are driving their family. So when the two collide on the road it's around a 1:5 mortality.

I disagree, While he certainly broke bread, there is no evidence that he did so with the purpose of putting ham, swiss cheese, peppered mayo, lettuce, cucumbers and tomato between the pieces. By the way, I own the copyright of this, and you now are not allowed to make one for yourself without paying me royalties.

I just googled Puppy juice. I don't think you meant Puppy juice.

The reason that they are considered indie is because the studios have opted to only invest in the large budget films that are reliably going to pull in more than they spend. If you only make a profit of 20% above your costs and that cost is $10mil then that's still a $2mil profit.

It primarily advertising. Multiple small budget films compete with each other, and if you are only using a budget of 2-3mil it makes no sense to spend 1mil on advertising, selling it to reviewers, and seeding the internet with rumours. Even if it does well it's small potatoes. Most are only recognized as jewels after they have spent their one week in the theatre and are replaced by the next.

However, big budget films will consistently draw a large proportion of the public even if it's garbage. Despite the previews which show every exciting/funny/entertaining moment in the movie and explain the entire plot in 15 seconds, the buzz will pull the majority of movie-going people in. If it's good, then the rest will see it too. Most will make back their investment and the rare few which are half-decent will fund many years of future investment.

If we keep telling people that, I can keep my own 0.3km2!

Great, now all we have to do is see if it responds to music, spray the insides of the Statue of Liberty with it, crank up the tunes and have her walk down the streets of New York.

They could even make a movie out of it! Or a sequel!

Just announced: Corey Hart has joined on as the lead promoter of the new "computational knowledge engine." In related news they have now renamed the engine to signify the merging of their separate talents.

"I believe that Wolfram Hart has the ability to become the Alpha and the Omega of internet informatics" said Hart in a midnight press conference.

Not everyone is celebrating this new turn of events, however. A man only identifying himself as Angel has come out in opposition to a company who openly support those that wear their sunglasses only at night.

What many people seem to forget is evolution is not all about solidifying change.

Perhaps us biologists are responsible for this, we continually focus on how evolution happens as a result of natural selection weeding out the weak genes from the code in favor of those most helpful to the existence of the species in question. This is important - survival of the fittest, the ability for those most adapted to their niche to carry on. However, if a species continually has pressure on its survival, to the point that only a very small, select group of the species can continue, any further insult or stress will threaten their extinction. Take the pandas, very cute yes, highly adapted to survive eating something that no other large animal does, but by only surviving on a select food source when that source (read: habitat) is gone so will they be.

The second part to evolution is variability. Part of our design (oops, did I use a bad word there?) is a faulty copying system. Like a book that randomly changes text, removing words, changing their order, writing whole sections backwards. Now some of these are neutral, blue vs brown eyes. Many to most of these changes are probably bad, they compromise our ability to fit in our environment perfectly. They lead to challenges like Down's Syndrome, or "weird" hiccups like androgen insensitivity syndrome. Some people's knees wear out early, others have no concept of morality. Many people in this world survive only because we support them to an "unnatural" degree. However, this does not make use weaker as a species. Instead it is an indication of our health, or rather the health of our habitat and the breadth of habitat we can survive in. If a stressor hits our planet many of these mutations may become an obstruction to procreation and be removed or reduced in the gene pool. However, the greater variability gives us the chance of a random mutation or series of mutations which may grant the species survival.

We have not sidestepped evolution. Rather than being forced to change, we are gaining ever greater variability. It's still evolution, just a different stage.