I guess saying "it comes from" a virus is a mistake. The right wording would be "we share 7% of our genetic code with a virus". It may well be that useful parts of host's genetic code are integrated into a virus, and that parts of the code originate from a common ancestor from prehistoric times. This would be indistinguishable from code that originates from a virus and got absorbed into human genome.
My point is, how can they say with any certainty that 8% is the number? How do they have any idea what actually came from a virus, and what just happens to match?
The building blocks of each aren't really that much different. How do we know the code for building protein X that is used for part of the virus's wall actually came from it, and doesn't just happen to match the code for building protein Y that is used somewhere in our cells for similar purpose?
The article then goes on to make an association between a virus that only infects brains cells, and this process of DNA transfer. How is the new viral DNA transferred to offspring if it only infects neurons??
First off, to everyone who knows me: This wasn't my story submission
OK, now that's out of the way, I suffer from a related, but not quite so bad situation: I'm pretty much the only Erik Trimble on the Internet (that's not true, but close enough). Google me, and 90% of the first 100 returns point to me, in some way or not (FYI - the MySpace page for "leathercladdemon" isn't me. Really.) There's nothing bad there, it's just that my life has evolved, and having absolutely all of it retained and searchable over the past 20 years allows people to draw incorrect assumptions about me.
This is all the privacy problems that the current young generations seem to be completely oblivious to, and that pundits like to ignore. People's perceptions of you matter, as much as we'd like to think otherwise. That doesn't mean it has to rule your life, but to think that such perceptions don't matter is foolish. The problem with retaining all this data out in the open is that it seriously harms the ability of people to change. And we want people to change. Lots of Very Bad Things happen to society if we forbid people (either legally, or de facto) from changing their paths in life. For just a minor example, look at what being convicted of anything does to one's entire life. It's not good to have complete personal transparency.
I don't have a solution. At least not a simple one. But it needs to understood by everyone that it IS a problem.
You are seriously mistaken. UFO stands for "unidentified flying object" -- with the most salient characteristic being "unidentified". Although UFO sightings are often associated with (assumed) extraterrestrial phenomena, this is not necessary for the label. An unidentified object in the sky is still a UFO regardless of origin (and typically will no longer be considered a UFO when identified, even if alien/extraterrestrial).
Whoah, hold on there cowboy. Since when is it "child abuse" to NOT expose a child to sexually charged issues, PARTICULARLY without the parent's consent?
"Sexually charged issues"? Is that what you're calling it these days? I understand your viewpoint, but I reject it. Preventing children from getting access to actual pornography is one thing. Preventing them from getting good information is entirely another. In between there lies an enormous grey area which yes, often requires assistance from the courts to untangle. But the simple reality is that there are a lot of kids out there who are trapped in situations out of their control who need access to information which this bill makes it illegal to share with them. Would you want the heterosexual male child of [say] a lesbian couple to be denied access information about "normal" family structure? Because arguably it could make it illegal to host content about "disambiguation" of passages in the bible relating to homosexuality by a religious organization.
When it comes to use electrons to see cloaked items, there is science fiction and computer game presidence. In Alien vs Predator, the switching to Electric vision, the Alien can easily see a cloaked Predator.
Greed and hoarding behaviors are not relegated only to survival situations.
Can I just be the first to say..."WoW!"
To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily, 2 hours of gym daily, 1 hour of sex daily, and reading the article hours before it was posted to
Homer didn't have to invest thousands or even millions of dollars in special effects or recording studios in order to "write" the Odyssey and Shakespeare wasn't worried about people showing up to his plays with video cameras. Honestly, I don't understand how pirates say artists and the entertainment industry just "doesn't get" how technology has changed the world and then use defenses like that.
It's simple, there's stealing a good or service, and there's paying for it. Pirating is stealing. People need to just be honest: They're stealing because technology makes it easy and safe.
Actually if you read TFA, the long-pondered question of why humans only use 1-15% of their brain is largely a matter of power consumption, and the reason for the abundance of dormant neurons is for greater potential diversity of thought.
"While accounting for just 2 percent of our body weight, the human brain devours 20 percent of the calories that we eat."
"The brain achieves optimal energy efficiency by firing no more than 1 to 15 percent—and often just 1 percent—of its neurons at a time."
That seems to indicate that a human brain would burn more calories than the rest of the body if it were "always on".
Being a hypoglycemia sufferer, I can attest to the severe limitations of brain activity when deprived of sugar. Before being diagnosed I underwent tunnel vision and black-outs, not to mention the typical mood swings, shakiness, cold sensations, etc.
Never has my nickname been more appropriate...