Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Racist science (Score 1) 91

by shutdown -p now (#47441213) Attached to: Chimpanzee Intelligence Largely Determined By Genetics

Are you basically saying that science is a bad thing because it sometimes gives answers which are objectively valid, but which go against your core set of beliefs?

The funny thing with beliefs is that when they do not correspond to reality, they always lose in long term, every single time. If you pretend that gravity doesn't exist, it'll "work" right until the point you walk over the next pothole, while those who stick to objective view will just walk around. Science, in that sense, is a "religion" of objectivity, taking the world as it is rather than pretending that it is what you want it do be. That's what distinguishes it from any other belief system - the only belief inherent in it is that the world is objective and can be studied.

Comment: Re:Intelligence isn't always advantageous (Score 1) 91

by shutdown -p now (#47441199) Attached to: Chimpanzee Intelligence Largely Determined By Genetics

You missed the important part in GP's claim: "past some baseline number".

And that may actually well be true. There's one interesting tidbit that came out of anthropological studies: apparently, earliest homo sapiens sapiens had a better developed brain than we do. This implies, at least indirectly, that they were better at core cognitive tasks (such as pattern matching) that seem to be underlying what we think of as "intelligence". In other words, if you took such an early human and put him in a modern world, with proper nutrition, education etc, he'd likely beat most of the kids in the class.

But then it shrunk. And the reason why is, indeed, that brains are very expensive energy-wise. That's why few other species get it even remotely close to what we have - you basically need to have a very specific set of environmental conditions and random inherited traits to coincide to produce an environment which would cause natural selection for intelligence to that extent in the first place. On the other hand, once it gets a significant starting push, the benefits that it yields long-term are such that it becomes the single most important trait (as you rightly note, there are more humans in the world than bears - indeed, more humans than any other mammals). But there is still an upper cap defined by energy requirements, and apparently we have actually hit that cap thousands of years ago already, and then bounced back slightly.

Regarding passing on genes, it actually doesn't even require having any children to pass on genes. Another way is to ensure the survival and the passing of genes of your relatives - sure, they don't share 100% of them with you, but if they share 50%, and with your support they can have 5 kids where otherwise they'd have 2 and you'd have 2, you (or rather your genes) are statistically better off.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 416

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012

Well, I am happy that those things link to the things you want, but they aren't evidence of the things you SAY. Again, simple logic escapes you.

I am going to repeat that I am replying only in self-defense in public; otherwise I wouldn't give a damn about your fantasies. What you don't seem to realize is that even if what you linked to were actually some kind of actual, deliberate act of my own, it would only constitute an implication of an opinion. Again, you fail to understand the difference between reality and opinion, or even worse in this case: an implication of an opinion. This is a rather large failure, as I have been trying to tell you for several years now.

Quotes I may (or may not have) made about other people are their words, and I am not responsible for making them.

ALL evidence says you just don't get it. I honestly don't know whether it is your ego that won't let you get it, or some other reason, but you clearly don't get it. You have been doing all the things you have accused others of doing, and apparently even imagining they are doing.

That's called fantasy. And in my honest opinion, based on your real actions, I am beginning to think it's dangerous fantasy.


Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 416

First, the links you have provided (as so often has happened) have not linked to the things you assert.

Second, why again are you posting this in reply to a comment about something completely different?

You are cementing the fact that your whole set of rants is not about science, not about professionalism, not about what other people actually SAID, but about your ego and sense of offense at minor implications.

I'm not going to make accusations about your personality but some rather obvious categories come to mind.

And your refusal to give it up after you have been shown to be wrong lends yet more evidence.

I told you long ago that you should have given it up when you had a chance. By now it is far too late.

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 152

by Jane Q. Public (#47440695) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 416

Just for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE who may read this, I will clarify my comment above:

I have certainly claimed that some people who call themselves climate scientists have been telling bullshit lies. (Like the "97%" fabrication by Cook, et al.)

There have been a few other times when, in my opinion, other climate scientists were telling bullshit lies. As opposed to mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. You know the difference, and so do I.

I have no idea -- zero -- whether any of those people are "colleagues" of the guy who calls himself Khayman80. It's pretty hard to either affirm or deny something you just plain don't know.

I have also accused Khayman80 of telling lies, like the lie that I myself am a "pathological liar". (He has substituted other names at various times, but he has definitely aimed that one at me, Jane Q. Public, more than once.) He made the claim many times, yet he wasn't able to show even one instance in which I actually told a lie. Which means he has no reason to either say or believe that I am a "pathological liar", or even a liar at all. So his statements are false, and he knows them to be.

Comment: Re:So will there be criminal charges? (Score 1) 40

Because the word "Polynesian" means "many islands" in its Greek derivative. An apt description of a common people's who migrated bravely across miles of ocean to populate a host of islands.

Information easily obtained from the web also...

Unless it was a tongue in cheek which case a bad one.

Comment: Re:Dear Fed (Score 1) 158


For about the sixth time, in only about two weeks, I am prompted to remind people of this:

Just recently -- only a couple of months ago -- a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority over small low-altitude drones or models, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.

The ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the judge ruled on the basis that it was never Congress' intent to give FAA authority to do this, and his argument was very strong.

In the meantime, the FAA has seemed to be intent on regulating everything in sight, before the appeals court slaps them down... which it is extremely likely that it will do, since it is pretty clear that it wasn't, in fact, Congress' intent to give the FAA such authority.

In that way, they have been acting just like the EPA, apparently trying to usurp every possible authority they can before the 2014 elections. I have no other explanation for their sudden, intense attempts to pass further regulations.

Comment: Re:There's an "ick factor" but... (Score 1) 171

by Aqualung812 (#47440499) Attached to: Texas Town Turns To Treated Sewage For Drinking Water

Exactly. My town pulls drinking water from a river, then sends the sewage out a mile downstream.
The next town 10 miles to the south gets all of our sewage (somewhat treated), and does some treatment itself, then repeats the process.

My guess is that the "closed loop" system from TFA is actually cleaner than what I'm drinking, simply because they know they are dealing with something completely polluted to begin with and have to win the public on it.

Weekends were made for programming. - Karl Lehenbauer