30 dB - quiet library
60 dB - typical conversation
85 dB - inside your car in city traffic
95 dB - subway train 200' away
105 dB - power mower a meter away
110 dB - rock concert
140 dB - gunshot

From here, for those like me who had to look this stuff up...

Have Woese and Goldenfeld a brilliant new idea? All they're saying, I think, is that "parent" and "child" are the appropriate units of selection only when genes are passed vertically: from parent to child. They're suggesting that horizontal gene transfer is underrated as a historical evolutionary force.

Agree or not, it hardly undermines Darwin. Genes weren't known in the 19th century. Darwin didn't have a clue about genes, so we're gonna knock him for being "wrong" about it? I mean, was Jesus wrong about genes, too? It's anachronistic silliness.

Science is fundamentally dynamic. Any science that hasn't progressed in 150 years ain't doing too well. (Dear creationists: stop calling us "Darwinists." We've moved on.) I mean, The Origin came out in 1859, for crying out loud! Darwin was more brilliant, more insightful, and rightly more famous than I'll ever be. But if we both had to take a biology test right now, I'd kill him.

That's because a mechanic isn't worried if her car breaks down - she knows how to fix it.

I don't think the saying means "people are hypocritical" but rather "people who know how to fix things don't worry as much if they break." If you're a security admin and you don't follow your own advice... do you know how to fix it if it breaks?

You know, you're making me think it is a silly definitional thing.

The usual way to add a point at infinity to the real numbers is the way I described - it's a way of forming the real projective line. The benefit is that you can define some operations with infinity, but the drawback is that you lose meaningful ordering in the number line. (That might be why the Riemann Sphere is a more useful object; the complex plane isn't ordered to begin with.)

If you want to retain ordering in the number line, then yes, you have to add two points at infinity. So maybe you're right, and the real projective line is a silly thing.

Plants react to death and damage, but so does a water balloon. Neither has a nervous system, so I don't worry too much about it. Yes, there is an element of "if it's not like me, then it can't suffer like me," but what else can you do? Assume, despite no evidence to the contrary, that grass can suffer? Then soccer is a monstrous sport!

Why draw the line at tomatoes? First, I don't really. I eat fish on occasion. There is no magical line. Second, it's easy for me to avoid eating cows, and I'm very confident that cattle can suffer. It's damn hard to avoid eating plants, and I'm not at all confident that plants can suffer. So not eating cattle is a better ethical bang for my buck.

Because plants can't suffer. It's not the killing that bothers me, it's the suffering.

I'd say capacity for suffering goes something like:
humans > cows > fish > bivalves > tomato plants > sand

FYI, the old 2 = 1 trick is:

a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
since a = b...
b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1 (!)

The secret is when you "cancel" (a-b) from both sides in step 4, you're dividing by zero (since a=b). Cute, but pretty old.

But +infinity and -infinity are the same point, in a way.

You can kinda wrap the number line into a circle. This pic should be somewhat self-explanatory on how to map the number line onto a circle. And you can probably see that the very top of the circle - the so-called "point at infinity" - is both +infinity and -infinity.

(See Riemann Sphere for a complex plane version of this.)

...or like cheaper hamburgers?

Sorry. As a vegetarian biologist, this is just an inconsistency that I see constantly. "How can you be vegetarian and use antibodies that came from lab rabbits in your research?!" Easy: the cost/benefit ratio is wildly different. I don't understand how McDonald's-eating folks complain about animal testing.

Shigeru Miyamoto made Nintendo what it is.

Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!" status only if they're somewhat surprising? If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?

I wonder the poll just measures how often folks write out the date, and most folks mess up about the same number of times before "oh yeah, it's 2010!" kicks in.

A receptionist, who's scheduling things all the time, might only need one morning at work to make the mental shift. But for me it's ~2 weeks, since I rarely find myself writing out the date.

I wonder if all folks mess up about the same number of times before "oh yeah, it's 2010!" kicks in, and the poll's really measuring how often you write out the date.

I imagine one morning at work is all it would take a receptionist, who's scheduling all the time. But for me it's ~2 weeks, since I rarely find myself writing out the date.

Tz-D-K is a root that means justice. That website just spelled out the letters. And Maimonides - aka Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon - is Rambam (in Hebrew: R-M-b-M). (I agree with you on the Mourner's Kaddish - that website is incorrect there.)

From Judaism 101: "... the nature of tzedakah is very different from the idea of charity. The word 'charity' suggests benevolence and generosity... The word 'tzedakah' is derived from the Hebrew root tzadei-dalet-kof, meaning justice or fairness. In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act..."

If tzedakah just meant charity, then American Jews would likely use the English word 'charity.' As a general rule, if a word finagles its way into a new language, it's either:
- a word children learn (mom, dad, grandma, etc)
- a concept that doesn't quite exist in the new language (tzedakah, schlemeil, machatunim)
- a restaurant trying to charge you more for food (aubergine, frites, a la carte) :)

And BTW, Maimonides' ladder traditionally lists the highest form of tzedakah as helping someone become self-sufficient. Double-blind giving is second.