This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Martin.au
Pulling this forwardNo it's not. Textbook socialism would be where the government not only says who owns Which plot of land, but they make everyone share in the fruits of production equally whether they contributed to the labor of production or not. For example, all my production - raw milk, calf, baby lambs, baby goats - would be the property of the government to be distributed to those who need it as they saw fit.Call it socialism if you will, the fact remains that we need a system for allocating land that achieves multiple goals among them good stewardship of land, accessibility for people who are willing to produce food on that land, and so on. I can tell you that I myself will never agree to anyone situating themselves with me on my little 10 acres in my lifetime without an agreement in place for them to manage their portion of the land (I use 4 acres they use 4 acres?) using the principles of holistic managed grazing.It is textbook socialism.
In contrast to this, under my system, people who produce the food keep the food for themselves and their families.
They only lose access to the land if they drop below certain production criteria for a certain period of time.
So what I'm saying is that there are two fundamental constants...
1) land must not be allowed to degrade, but rather must be improved up to a certain level and then maintained at that level
2) land must always be used in a way that benefits Mankind in terms of food and housing and energy production and these things must be produced in a sustainable way.
So, where the tigers going to live?
Notice how easily President Xi conceded?Quote from: Sun Zi"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That was some 1500 years ago. Do you really think that the Chinese leaders are less clever now?
Yeah, if it comes to Trump style braggadocio vs Sun Tzu's stratagems I'll put my money on Sun Tzu.
I am a big fan of knowledge, but I cannot see how the widespread use of that particular knowledge, if it ever becomes practical, can end in anything other than badness. I've no idea how it could be prevented though.
was interesting - seems to have very little actually in common with the original book - reminded me much more of Ballard's 'The Crystal World' - which is not a bad thing, I think it went further than the book in some ways.
I think I'm going to have to watch this one again. Didn't mind it, but it also didn't grab me. Might be one that gets better on the second watch.
I watched "A Field in England". Worth watching. A weird film, a bit like Waiting for Goddo" or R&GAD but on mushrooms.
didn't know were else to post this
And a fuse?
The only thing that would help dave is for Dave to wake up one morning and discover that he he really is the messiah.
But how would he know. Would he just "believe"?
If that makes you feel better... Okay...
Thinking that you are deluded is slightly more comforting than thinking you are deliberately lying I guess.
But for fuck's sake, Dave, start observing reality before it's too late.
Think you might be being a bit optimistic there, Pingu.
Maybe Dave's had a farming mishap. That could explain the sudden spree of desperate posting in the other thread.
I'm done arguing about your misrepresentation - if that wording makes you feel better than the word "lie" - you misrepresented reality. Seems intentional to me, but whatever.Just wondering. Are you performing for an unseen YEC audience? Because for your audience here you are just fortifying all the bad things they already believe about you.
Something like that would go a long way towards explaining Dave's bizarrely high levels of desperation.
Fucking English. How does it work!!!
That's funny ... because I think you are an unclear writer and he is quite clear. I've done some thinking about your unclearness too .... the best comparison I have is to salespeople I've ridden with on sales calls who talk too much[/b]. There's this one woman who's new and they have sent her out with me twice on sales calls for me to train her and I hate doing it because she talks too much. She's very eager and she interrupts my nice flow I have going with some off the wall blurb that she's real excited about and just has to interrupt my flow and tell the customer. Now don't misunderstand ... I'm not saying that you post too much ... that would be Raffy. I'm talking about your explanations. To me there's often too much there and a lot of it is propaganda, instead of just bare facts and explanations of your points.
Fuck, there goes an irony meter!!!
I'm used to Dave's hubris and DK skills, but this thread is taking it to a new plane beyond my wildest imagination.
...Dave, please, for God's sake go to whoever was your philosophy teacher and demand double your money. They left you worse off than you were when you didn't know the word "subjective".Well sure ... the measurement (of how often they reproduce) is objective. No argument there.
You are conflating two roles Lenski plays. Lenski could control the environment and have anyone else make the observations. In fact, I would be a bit surprised if he were the one making observations - that's what grad students are for. The fact is, anyone could fill that role; if they performed the same steps, they would get the same outcome. The measurement is objective.
What's subjective is whether this makes them "more fit" or not. And THAT depends on the environment.
Bluffy, the environment those bacteria are in is the environment that Lenski is saying the acquired mutations are beneficial in. That's the point.
One could say that any mutation is deleterious if you put the organism into an environment in which it's deleterious. Despite that mutation may be completely beneficial in every other environment.
This, what passes for reasoning in your mind, is ludicrous. It is the epitome of sucking at science. I think the only more ludicrous sucking at science statement I've ever seen was Stoopeed Spurt's Eye Beams.
Hahahah. That was epic. I remember that.
What a bluffoon. What a totally bogus, utterly militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy bluffoon. I'm almost surprised you haven't been committed for your own safety. But, hey, this is rural Misery.
Wow. This thread is a greatest hits from Dave as he carefully ties his snare to the strongest, springiest tree in the forest.
I take it this thread was "marketed" as a review of Noble's paper, but then either Dave wasn't able to review it because that would require two neurons to rub together, or he started reading it and decided he didn't like the outcome, and now Dave is on a hit and run trolling spree?
And Dave rolls out another sales pitch.
I sense another Pingu pwnage in development.
I can see Dave carefully tying the snare around his own
foot testicles now
I can see Dave carefully tying the snare around his own
Came here to read the "review".
I am disappoint.
I am disappoint.
Given your propensity for 'failing to read', how are you going to write a review?
I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person - can't remember who - that asked if gene duplication fit my definition.Are copying errors as I have defined them (i e accidental changes during copying that are not fixed by error correction mechanisms) necessary to produce long lineages.Are the mutations caused by the biological processes of horizontal gene transfer considered "errors"? Transduction, transformation and conjugation all have an inherent randomness to them. Genes get knocked out when bits of DNA recombine into the genome. Odd bits of DNA end up being accidentally packaged in phages, or transferred during conjugation. It's not like "copying a file from one biological computer to another" like you seem to imagine.
Are there systems in place within cells to prevent transduction, transformation and conjugation? Or to revert sequences back to their original state should one of these event "slip past" the prevention system and actually happen?
Yabbut, Hawkins is a fruitcake.