iNow

Those banks were making those risky choices well before they were guaranteed bailouts from the government, so your assertion that moral hazard was a factor is an example of the post hoc propter hoc fallacy.... again.

Your ideology is not aligned with reality. Problems were a direct result of the market, and had been building for nearly a year before the crash of Lehman. Further, for you to say that things would have been better without intervention from the government with TARP shows just how profoundly your idea of "better" has escaped the realm of common sense and real world impact. You are burying your head in the sand of ideals, and your presentations are suffering accordingly. We don't live in a world of ideals, nor will a purely free market (such as that required for your ideas to work) EVER exist. So... can we all at least agree to argue based on reality, and not based on fantasy and wish thinking?

Here's the short answer. Your challenge is all based on a strawman. It's not about number of offspring alone. It's about the various approaches which lead to the successful passage of genes to future generations. Sometimes organisms will be successful with few offspring, and other times organisms will be successful only with many offspring. It truly is that simple. As a general rule, however, those with more offspring have a higher probability of propagating their genes into the future. The measure of success you cite is merely about "genetic representation" in the future. If organisms can successfully achieve a higher incidence of genetic representation by having fewer offspring, then that is what will generally be selected for. There is no "one right way." There's really no need for claims of double talk and charges of hollow reasoning. You're just arguing a strawman like all of the worthless pile of shit creationist trolls which have come before you.

So, now we can discuss the thread topic? Is the idea that... based on that quote... Einstein was a vegetarian or advocated it? I'm not sure that holds water.

I can't replicate. Works fine for me. Is it possible you are going to a new browser window, and your login credentials are not replicating? (The short answer is that this has nothing to do with the forum, and everything to do with your own computer and/or browser settings). May have something to do with your settings for cookies...

Does look sweet. Where was this? (I could google, but that wouldn't help the conversation)

Actually, we can see it, and we've detected new species. Just FYI. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12001839 Dung beetles provide an object lesson in the speed of natural selection ONE of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues is that you cannot see evolution in action right now. For microorganisms this is obviously untrue. The evolution of new viral diseases, such as AIDS, is one example. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another. But bacteria and viruses breed fast, so natural selection has time, within the span of a human life, to make a difference. For species with longer generations, examples are less numerous. But they do exist. A new one has just been published, appropriately, in Evolution. It concerns dung beetles. Harald Parzer and Armin Moczek, of Indiana University, have been studying a species called Onthophagus taurus. Or, rather, it was a species 50 years ago, but it is now heading rapidly towards becoming at least four of them. These are nifty, too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

This article may be more accessible for some: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091018141716.htm "It's extra nice now to be able to show precisely how selection has changed the genomes of these bacteria, step by step over tens of thousands of generations," Lenski said. Lenski's team periodically froze bacteria for later study, and technology has since developed to allow complete genetic sequencing. By the 20,000-generation midpoint, researchers discovered 45 mutations among surviving cells. Those mutations, according to Darwin's theory, should have conferred some advantage, and that's exactly what the researchers found. The results "beautifully emphasize the succession of mutational events that allowed these organisms to climb toward higher and higher efficiency in their environment," noted Dominique Schneider, a molecular geneticist at the Université Joseph Fourier in Grenoble, France. <more at the link>

Yes. You cannot state with any certainty whether a six or a one will appear. It could be either. There is clearly a higher probability of rolling a one (a five in six chance), but despite that difference in probability the outcome is still random (at least, according to the definition of "random" which I've always used).

No. IQ tests are very limited. You can still pursue your dreams. In fact, you should use that nonsense score as an additional motivation to prove just how capable you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

You call Darwin's work nonsense, and then have the audacity to call HIM deluded. Good stuff.

So, what did you want to discuss, exactly? This appears like a journal or blog entry more than a forum OP.

Well, I'll be darned.

Relevance?

It will likely be the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yeah, no kidding. It brings to mind an interesting psychological phenomenon, though. People generally don't like to think of themselves as bad people... We don't generally want to be portrayed in a negative light. However, the fact is that we've all been taught that racism is a bad thing. So, what usually happens is people try to distance themselves from such labels, even if it requires a complete separation from reality to do so... They will say, "I'm not racist, I just blah blah blah." The sad fact is that this shows the profound cognitive dissonance and irrationality which is required to be against the marriage of mixed race couples and simultaneously try to maintain the position that they are not, themselves, racist (or acting/thinking in a racist manner). I put forth a very similar argument in some of our recent gay marriage threads, whereby people would claim not to be homophobic or bigoted (because they knew that was negative and they don't like seeing themselves in a negative light), yet still opposed gay marriage without any reasonable or rational justification for doing so. Ain't the human mind grand?

If I'm not mistaken, the hair needs to be there already for shaving to have an impact. My recollection is that shaving cuts the existing hair and encourages faster and thicker growth from that follicle as the hair grows back. However, shaving a bald man's head isn't going to make him stop being bald.

Wrap your text in indent tags. So, this: Example of text wrapped in indent tags here. ... would render like this: Example of text wrapped in indent tags here. No. If this were a private business, then he could choose to serve or not serve anyone he wants. However, as a justice of the peace, he is a representative of the state and he must comply with constitutional protections and laws. If he were serving ice cream, not really a problem (legally, that is... obviously he's a bigoted moron no matter how you slice it). However, he is representing the state, and is granted the authority of providing marriage licenses. As such, he must comply the with rules and protocols of his position, and act in a manner which complies with the regulations surrounding that position. The key fact here is that it's not a private business which he owns, but him acting as an agent/official of the state.

Blackholes have mass... Usually lots of it... So much, in fact, that they are often explicitly labeled "supermassive."

Grandpa's post is FAR off-topic anyway. Let's move on, folks.

This is a dupe thread.

Hi DS, I'm unsure that I'm clear on what the issue here is. Are you referring to the way the forum software merges multiple consecutive posts? Like this... Watch... I'll submit another post immediately after this one. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs promised... Here is my next post. It is a new contribution, but to save on space and limit the craziness of multiple posts from the same person, the forum merges consecutive posts together. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow, if you're concerned about people not understanding what you are responding to, you can just quote the relevant bit like this: Are you sure? What exactly do you wish to see corrected?

I guess that's one way to increase your chances at a successful inspection.

DS, What you describe is not a vBulletin (or forum software) issue, and is much more likely PEBKAC in nature. If you have specific questions, people will gladly assist you and help, but it would be more appropriate to discuss over here so as not to derail/hijack this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=58