But I'll still be willing to listen to reasonable follow-up experiments instead of dismissing out of hand. So we get to Martin Tajmar and his claims (also not peer reviewed, but at least it's at a conference). Tajmar is not the guy I'd choose as the most reputable source. He has a history of claims about...creative physics from poor experimental setups. That is, he claims to observe new physics, but people have consistently had a hard time reproducing his results. Go ahead and google the guy.
I did, and appearantly it was Martin Tajmar himself, who found the flaw in his gravitational gyroscope thesis, and published it: FiberOpticGyroscope Measurements Close to Rotating Liquid Helium. So whatever you think about the guy, a superficial Google result seems to put him at least as honest. If he makes a mistake, he is able to admit it.
I might have been one of the early adopters of the trend, getting my drivers license only at age 27, because I really didn't need it before.
Germany in 2013 net-exported 34 TWh of electrical energy (buying 38 TWh and selling 72 TWh). And it imported 0.1 TWh from Poland while exporting 4 TWh to Poland.
If they don't like the license I pick, then I'm not forcing them to use my code. It's a simple concept, really.
And it's only half of the concept, that's why it appears simple. People who don't use your code will not share their experiences with your, will never tell you about problems that could arise, about simple changes that might improve runtime performances, will not develop new uses for your code. One of the biggest reasons we have all that code sharing culture is because no single person is able to invent everything on her own. Yes, for a small project, it might work. But it will stay a small project for the rest of its life. By choosing the wrong license, you cut off a large part of the feedback loop that's necessary for any further development.
Yes, you can choose to have it that way. It's up to you. But then, your project will always be that obscure little hobbyist project which crawls slowly from version to version, if it crawls at all, and maybe even the most patient of your users will find a similar project, make the transition and enjoy faster responses on feedback, implementations of change requests, bug fixing and adaption to new use cases.
because there are no clear cut races of humans
Instead I was talking about arbitrary cutoffs where some genetic markers are allowed and others aren't, but they don't fit a racist agenda. You could for instance block off everyone missing both the immunoglobulin A allel and the immunoglobulin B allel, and then you allow access only to people with blood group 0. It would probably work, but your blood group is no indicator for the perceived race.
Those LEDs are pure status LEDs and have no other means than to tell you how the next input will be interpreted by the computer. They are meaningless without input from the keyboard, and are only considered in the context of input.
Otherways you would also have to consider a monitor an input device because it tells the graphics card what the possible and the optimal settings are. But here again, those information is solely used in context with the output of the graphics card, thus it is not considered input per se.
It's far away from wild guesses. Yes, you can do awful things that might appear to someone not looking closely like Statistics, but they really aren't. And you can draw conclusions from Statistics that are not really supported by the data, but again, it might look like Statistic, but it isn't.
Statistics are a very valuable tool for Science. Science is of course not just Statistics, it is much more. But Statistics have their uses in Science, and in many cases, there is no replacement. Thermodynamics for instance are purely Statistics.
- Selective breeding works only on the allels. Genes come in different expressions, called allels. Selective breeding chooses sets of allels. The actual genes remain the same. Thus you can revert most of the selective breeding by randomly crossbreeding different strands, and you get something pretty close to the original wild organism.
If you need an analogon, selective breeding is like changing the configuration file of a customable program.
- Hybrids are crossbred between different species of the same genus. Some are fertile, most are not. Many traditional agricultural crops are hybrids. In most cases, the genes of the species within a genus are pretty close to each other, thus a combination of them can yield an working organism, albeit not necessarily a fertile one, so you have to hybridize every generation of the agricultural crop from their respective species, or you have to use asexual reproduction. (An interesting case in point are apples. You can't actually breed a typical apple, the ability to do so has been lost at least 2500 years ago. All strands of apple you can buy at a grocery store are engrafted and asexually reproduced.)
The analogon would be using some program parts that were written for a different version of the same program.
GMO introduces genes from completely unrelated species into an organism. It can thus combine genes that have evolved in different species for more than 500 million years. You can add virus genes into plants, bacterial genes into vertebratae, monocotyledonous genes into dicotyledons.
An analogon would be cut and paste program code from completely different programming projects into your code and just hope it still compiles afterwards.
Thus, you are wrong. Planets (at least the above mentioned five) were discovered by about any culture we know of, and rightly assumed to be different from stars.