Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: At least we're not IIDB

Show Posts

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 - entropy

1
And yes I still think Obamagate / Hillarygate is going to be 10 times bigger than Watergate ...

Yeah, it'll be Earth-shattering when a retiree and a memoirist gets taken down.
I think it will be pretty interesting if they wind up in jail.

What do you imagine the indictment would be?
Keep in mind that he watches Hannity, so it could be any number of ridiculous things.  Seth Rich, Pizzagate etc etc etc.
2
Meanwhile, in the real world:

Quote
Donald Trump's banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president's campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.

Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump's biggest lender, was forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president and some of his family members, who are also Deutsche clients, after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information, according to multiple media reports. The news was first reported by Handelsblatt, the German newspaper.

The new revelation makes it clear that Mueller and his team are investigating the president's finances. Trump's son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner is also a client.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
3
Although I myself was able to convert former crop land to a sustainable agriculture model, I don't anticipate that being possible on a wide scale because it takes so darn much time and money to convert.

You have not demonstrated that you have converted former crop land to a sustainable agriculture model. 
Lol

I guess it is sort of amusing that someone who produces (or claims to produce) enough calories to support half a single man on 10 acres, and buys the rest from proceeds from a travelling sales job, thinks he has a "sustainable agriculture model".

In a bittersweet sort of way.
Yeah sorry.  I forgot.  It will only be sustainable when I produce 100 % of my food calories and achieve the ability to spin my own cotton for clothes and have my own iPhone factory and stop working for Sears ... and what else?  I forget.  Remind me please.
Reminder: no inputs.
Are Serfs an input.
4
Obviously we can't turn the clock back.   But ... what I want to do is move the minds of some landowners to do something different with their land, namely, all families to re-colonize it for the purpose of homesteading and feeding their families, but with a different (better) agricultural model than the early American homesteaders had.
And I want a solid gold toilet seat.
5
So, just to be clear, Dave, you want to seize all agricultural land then redistribute it.   Then, if the new landholders doesn't produce up to a certain agricultural output (presumably of food produced using agricultural methods approved by some central authority) then the land will be again be seized and given to someone else?   
The word "seized" makes it sound like Noriega and his goons swooping in with machine guns and setting up some huge bureaucratic beast.

No, no, no.

I'm talking about PHASING IN something new over several years through LOCAL COU TY LEGISLATION carefully reviewed and enacted by the people OF THE SAME LOCAL COUNTY.  And if enacted, enforced by the duly elected law enforcement / judicial branch of that local county.
Ok, so you convince your County to give this a try.  The County identifies some "under utilized" land.  The County approaches the current land owner and asks nicely for the land to be handed over for redistribution.   The landowner says "go fuck yourself."  What is your next course of action?
6
Dave is talking like this has never been tried before...   Two obvious problems:
1).  The seizing of property will have to be done by force.  
2).  It will lead to massive corruption
7
Seems like the easiest system would be to award use of a tract of land to an applicant for say 5 years and track "carrying capacity" ... that is, how many total animal units (AU) the land can support with no commercial feed inputs year by year. As long as the applicant achieves a certain baseline production, he can continue ... if not, then somebody else gets a shot.
Who's doing this "awarding"?
And who's seizing the property if the awardee fails to achieve "a certain baseline production"?
And who's assessing that production?

Dave
Dave
Dave
8
So, just to be clear, Dave, you want to seize all agricultural land then redistribute it.   Then, if the new landholders doesn't produce up to a certain agricultural output (presumably of food produced using agricultural methods approved by some central authority) then the land will be again be seized and given to someone else?   
9
Seems like the easiest system would be to award use of a tract of land to an applicant for say 5 years and track "carrying capacity" ... that is, how many total animal units (AU) the land can support with no commercial feed inputs year by year. As long as the applicant achieves a certain baseline production, he can continue ... if not, then somebody else gets shot.
FYP. 
10
Many operators say "my cows are 100% grass" but they are in fact not bc they consume a fair amount of grain while being milked twice a day.
Can we talk about workers owning the means of production instead?
13
Hmm ... interesting.  I had not heard of "super-capitalism."  Sounds interesting.  I certainly agree that producers (like me) should not have to sustain parasites (which are a high % in our society IMO)
Land ownership based on productive use definitely seems to be in line with your philosophy, Comrade.
14
Let's talk about Universal Land Access ... which I think is a much better idea than Universal Basic Income ...
What are your thoughts on Super-Capitalism?
15
...but you do seem to talk out your ass a lot about all kinds of topics about which I suspect you really have very little knowledge.  you should try to adopt a tone that doesn't sound so cock sure about every topic under the sun and maybe I would accept what you say more often.

Something something "female genital mutilation"
16
This study forces us to re-examine what is meant by a phenotype.
Quote
This result corroborates the above observation that very few [protein coding] lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome, suggesting changes in non-coding regulatory sequences might play a more important role in the emergence of avian evolutionary innovations than the acquisition of novel protein-coding genes.
AND
Quote
CREs [Cis-regulatory elements] have an important evolutionary role. The coding regions of genes are often well conserved among organisms; yet different organisms display marked phenotypic diversity. It has been found that polymorphisms occurring within non-coding sequences have a profound effect on phenotype by altering gene expression

The non-coding regulatory sequences produce the myriad differences (phenotypes) between different types of birds.
And
Quote
very few [protein coding] lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome
I suggest that if "very few [protein coding] lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome", then very few changes were required in the evolution from bird ancestor to bird.
The non-coding regulatory sequences the study found, produce the myriad differences (phenotypes) between different types of birds.
If very few changes were required in the evolution from bird ancestor to bird then the ancestor must have been quite similar to the first birds.
This is a problem for the dino to bird theory since dinosaurs are completely different than birds.
Yes, all the dinosaur genomes we have sequenced clearly show that you are correct.
17
This study forces us to re-examine what is meant by a phenotype.
Quote
This result corroborates the above observation that very few [protein coding] lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome, suggesting changes in non-coding regulatory sequences might play a more important role in the emergence of avian evolutionary innovations than the acquisition of novel protein-coding genes.
AND
Quote
CREs [Cis-regulatory elements] have an important evolutionary role. The coding regions of genes are often well conserved among organisms; yet different organisms display marked phenotypic diversity. It has been found that polymorphisms occurring within non-coding sequences have a profound effect on phenotype by altering gene expression
Well, forces you to re-examine.   You're only about 30 years behind the times.   Just wait until you get to epigenetics!
18
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-regulatory_element
Quote
CREs [Cis-regulatory elements] have an important evolutionary role. The coding regions of genes are often well conserved among organisms; yet different organisms display marked phenotypic diversity. It has been found that polymorphisms occurring within non-coding sequences have a profound effect on phenotype by altering gene expression

For numerous reasons, including organizational maintenance, energy conservation, and generating phenotypic variance, it is important that genes are only expressed when they are needed.
Regulatory genes "have a profound effect on phenotype by altering gene expression". So the regulatory genes for birds "generate phenotypic variance".

And
Quote
very few [protein-coding] lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome
Quote
Unlike microevolutionary processes, little is known about the genetic basis of macroevolutionary processes. One of these magnificent examples is the transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds that has created numerous evolutionary innovations such as self-powered flight and its associated wings with flight feathers.

The (surprising) evidence explains the phenotypes, but does it explain the "numerous evolutionary innovations"?

From the study:
Quote
This result implies that innovation of protein-coding genes might not play a large role in the processes underlying the transitions from dinosaur to the bird lineage.

This result corroborates the above observation that very few lineage-specific genes emerged in the avian genome, suggesting changes in non-coding regulatory sequences might play a more important role in the emergence of avian evolutionary innovations than the acquisition of novel protein-coding genes.
Quote
The preferential targets of strong purifying selection are usually on protein-coding regions9, for example, 17.55% of HCEs lie within coding regions, some three-fold higher than the percentage of coding regions in whole genome (Fig. 1c). We were therefore surprised to observe, that the proportion of ASHCEs that lie within coding regions was ca. 50-fold lower (0.31%, Fig. 1c).
Notice that this is not 50% lower but 50 fold lower.
This is so far outside the usual that it calls for some kind of explanation.
If others here want a discussion why not start by offering up a possible explanation for this.
So no explanation as to why the avian situation is so outside the usual.

Whims of the Quantum Engineers?   :dunno:
19
Bluffy needs more rope.
Looks like just enough to me. 

Any more and he's back on his feet again, running around like nothing happened.
20
Quote from: David Hawkins
Folks, this is not rocket science!
What a horse's ass.
21
If the groom is happy ... and the bride is happy ... and they were according to the eyewitness account I read ... then yes ... woo hoo ... bravo ...

As for FGM, I've not read any accounts by any girls (that it was done to) being happy with that practice.  Have you?

Folks, this is not rocket science.
But, since you just learned of the practice yesterday...  Are you sure you're an authority on the subject already?
Quote
56 percent of Egyptian women agreed that it "important to continue female circumcision because of customs and tradition."
And these are women who have presumably undergone it themselves.  sauce

ETA:  similar example from Somalia where an estimated 98% of women have undergone this procedure in some form.

Quote
The findings showed that there was a strong support for the continuation of the practice among female discussants in Somali region, whereas male discussants from the same region and the majority of the participants from Harari region had a positive attitude toward the discontinuation of the practice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5065096/
22
It causes obvious harm you idiot.
Well, "obvious harm" from a Western perspective right?   In their culture they're doing the girls a favor.   And who are we to judge!

And marrying off barely pubescent girls to 75 year old men harms no one.  (Well, no one important anyway...)
23
I had already read both of those articles before you posted the links.

FGM  is bad. Period.

15 year old brides? In Maasai culture?  might be just fine in some groups. Might not be in other groups. I don't have enough information to know. I am pretty sure that biologically 15-year-old brides are ready for marriage. You guys believe that evolution knows best, right?
Are you sure FGM is bad?   I mean, who are we to judge the practices of another culture, right David?
24
you think you know more about this culture than the woman who was there for several months? Living with them?  pretty presumptuous don't you think?
I guess it was pretty presumptuous of me to differ with my South African relatives about apartheid, too.
After all: they lived there; I didn't.

Right Dave?
Be gentle!  Dave only learned about apartheid a couple days ago.

Awesome that Dave is a big fan of "Moral Relativism" when it suits him  (and allows for chasing underaged tail!)