Skye

Change in genetic variation can be brought about be mutation, which generates new variation, and natural selection, which selects which of these variations shall propagate. The rate of change is able to happen much faster with natural selection. The rate of mutation is generally fairly stable. The rate at which natural selection can change the genetic variation in a population is highly variable, and there's essentially no limit to it. So under conditions which don't favour any individuals within the population, natural selection will have no effect and mutation will be the driving force of change in genetic variability. Under conditions that greatly favour the survival and reproduction of certain individuals natural selection will become the driving force.

And a reptile?

I'd take them both because, yes, I'm just that mean.

I think alot of it came down to the willingness to pay. The Oklahoma bombing was terrible but it wasn't such a definitive moment as 9/11, or more precisely a transformative moment. The post-Cold War world of benign hegemony was subsumed by the War on Terror. Such an important moment was naturally accompanied by a sort of veneration of the dead and the destroyed buildings.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to al Qaeda in Iraq now. Zarqawi was an extremist within the jihad movement, he was as much anti-Shia as anything, and I think most realised that the beheadings were a strategic blunder. This could see Osama gain more influence over the way the insurgency is carried out in Iraq, perhaps with a lessening of the sectarian violence, as Osama or Zawahiri (I forget) criticised Zarqawi for killing muslims.

Yes, but this is probably all politics, unfortunately. (Edited to be less silly)

It's one moral principle, but there are others for me, eg. aesthetics. I didn't like to see the golden mosque destroyed because it was a beautiful building.

I normally answer life, the universe and everything with curses.

Just to be clear, have all illegal immigrants violated a part of criminal law?

Well the global infection rate is supposedly steady. My point was that this is an infection rate, so the 'epidemic' (pandemic) hasn't necessarily peaked.

He claims that a UN report says the infection rate is steady.

I think it's pharyngula.org

I don't believe you can draw comparison between the physical and metaphysical aspects of anthropocentrism for much the same reason (I presume) as you said can't base an ethical system on evolution, i.e. there's a fundamental philosophical divide between the physical and metaphysical.

I was talking to a friend the other day who said her physiology lecturer would pull a dog's one out his pocket when he gave lectures on bones. Seemed a little strange.

IMM, the problem is that I can say all that matters is species membership and that's that. This is the problem with ethics, it's al based on axioms, which we don't all agreee upon.

It's amazing how fast bacteria evolve, the amount of change that's possible over such a short period of time, and yet there's still such similarities to us biochemically.

They could well call themselves mujahideen since the word is putty in their hands anyway. There's rich kids and poor kids. The people in control have largely been the rich kids, surprising approximately no-one.

What you need is a super-intelligent dog, and luckily enough I'm selling super-intelligent dogs. Don't be put off by their lack of responsiveness, they've all done BA's, read too much Foucault and are busy deconstructing your sentences in light of the man-dog power relationship. Send me money, I send you dogs!

I think most jihadists feel that they are defending their culture and religion from outside Western influence. This started with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who have influenced many other terrorist groups. Zawahiri was the head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood before merging with bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda itself grew out of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. So overall I think the mindset is largely defensive and reactive. It shouldn't be too surprising that the majority of attacks are in Muslim countries, in essense trying to free or purify the land. These themes come up repeated in terrorist propaganda, and it's presumably what their members are responding to.

Yeah, crap is life too then, and they are full of life.

Classically, I like Paganini's caprices. Sinatra's Monique is quite a beautiful song, and has a bit of a funeral march feel which is weird for a love song. They used to castrate people to get a voice like Billy Corgan's cover of Landslide. And Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah is quite nice.

There's 23 of them, and the cost probably includes support which is often the majority of the cost of military procurements. They are still pricey though.

He writes balanced analysese, but then concludes that in all cases the US is left better off. I don't think that the US is in a better situation with Iran for example. I think the US would be better off with Iraq the way it was (cynically that is, idealistically it's better now). Pakistan is neither here nor there for me, supporting a military dictator isn't great even if he reciprocates that support. Lebanon is better, but don't forget the political mainstreaming of Hezbollah. Syria is probably the same but only because it really couldn't get much worse. Libya is definately much better, and Afghanistan is better, though there's still alot of unresolved issues.

I can't see things being better from the US perspective. The US is engaged in two wars and an unpredictable country is probably trying to get nukes. There's been good but it impacts less directly on the US. I don't really disagree with the country analysis, perhaps a little in weight and tone, but I take a different conclusion. Then again alot of this was precipitated by 9/11 so it's not a simple comparison.

Start running to work. Run 1 mph faster each day and in two months you'll be able to keep up with freeway traffic.