The link for the appetizer serving dish complete with toothpick holder that looks like a porcupine explicitly states that it is actually a different animal that it looks likes. Now that's some lazy reporting.
* Same-sex marriage
* Legalization of marijuana
* needle exchange programs
* anti-war sentiments
I've never heard a news source support any of these (though I have seen editorials, clearly labelled as such, take either side on all of those). If reporting on a story indicates a bias regarding the story itself, then the only choice you are left with is no reporting at all. The system we have is far from perfect, but its certainly better than that sort of fascism.
I wasn't quoting a journalist, but the actual scientists who worked on the project. The software was fed a problem for which science had no answer (specifically, a formula for cellular metabolism). It gave them one, which, worked. Biologists still don't have an explanation to go with the formula.
I couldn't find a more recent article, but at the end it mentions that this AI came up with a formula for cellular metabolism. It is my understanding that this formula has been tested to be valid, but no human scientists understands what the formula means yet.
You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...
Unless you also compare the jungle to, say, the Sahara.
On the Republican side, one plank states "We oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States." Make an argument for a race-based government. Go ahead, try.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but if they oppose the creation of four dimensional three headed goats with frog legs, it would be just as relevant. Well, I suppose someone might actually be working on a design for the goats.
It's true that it is internally self-consistent. That doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to matching the way the real world actually works. As many people have pointed out, it is similar to Marxism in this regard.
In network operations, priority is a very specific concept.
So you admit that you are arguing over semantics.
Most of us don't care which concept or method is used. We only care what the end result is. And the end result is they paid, and now their traffic gets there faster than the people who didn't pay.
It will be interesting to see the Republican controlled congress debate military funding for a problem they deny the existence of.
Bad analogy. An individual organism can exhibit social behavior, but it cannot evolve.
Evolution/adaptation does not occur within a single organism. If you include that in the definition, then a parent and child combined might be "life", but each of them separately would never qualify. That doesn't really make sense.
You could say the same thing about the data stored on an erased hard disk. The data isn't gone, it's just in an indeterminate state.
Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works.
That's not how logic works.
... there just not enough jobs for everyone...
You're conflating a specific unspecified job with a job in general.
Unless magically the number of specific unspecified jobs is larger than the number of jobs, I really don't think he is.
There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?
There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders. Given that, in what way is it useful to attribute difference to gender (or other grouping, for that matter)?