Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


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 - VoxRat

1
I AM in favor of some sort of universal land access system  whereby poor people could be guaranteed access to a certain amount of land
Who would do this guaranteeing?
Quote
and given training in some food production system similar to mine.
Or - better yet! - some food production system already demonstrated to feed more than a fraction of one person per 10 acres!
Such as?

How to feed 10,000 people from food grown on 3 acres in the city

Quote
Will Allen is proving that city farms work -- big time. He's not conjuring up theories; everything that he is teaching in cities across the country he learned over the course of 20 years with his hands in the dirt, a little money in his pocket and a survivalist's smarts for innovating.

He grows food in ways that few have seen before -- and he grows it sustainably. Allen's 3-acre farm sits in the poorest part of Milwaukee and now feeds 10,000 people a year. It brought him a MacArthur grant and his neighbors good, healthy eating. The story is in Allen's book The Good Food Revolution: Growing Healthy Food, People and Communities.
2
To me, the answer for ANY scheme - whether you wanna talk about a Universal Basic Income or Universal Land Access or what have you - is to ADMINISTER IT LOCALLY.  In my case, take the authority away from the state and the feds and put it in the hands of the COUNTY. 
So the county - excuse me, COUNTY - government is going to organize and guarantee this land redistribution scheme.

I don't see what could possibly go wrong!
3
I AM in favor of some sort of universal land access system  whereby poor people could be guaranteed access to a certain amount of land
Who would do this guaranteeing?
Quote
and given training in some food production system similar to mine.
Or - better yet! - some food production system already demonstrated to feed more than a fraction of one person per 10 acres!
4
I think I see a slow dawning here of a recognition that the polytomy is indeed a problem for the dinosaur to bird theory...

The huge polytomy is Euparaves.
This is your made-up word for some collection of clades within coelurosauria, right?
< yes, but...>
5
I think I see a slow dawning here of a recognition that the polytomy is indeed a problem for the dinosaur to bird theory...

The huge polytomy is Euparaves.
This is your made-up word for some collection of clades within coelurosauria, right?
8
Quote
... huge polytomy ...
... huge polytomy ... 
... huge polytomy  ...
... huge polytomy ...
... The polytomy  ...
... huge polytomy ...
::)  Life is full of huge polytomies, "Socrates".
Get over it. 
9
Yabbut then why doesn't it say Vice President Mike Pence?
10

Yeah, not takin' that bet.




If I were a regular twitter-user, or a modern-day teenager with an IQ > 50, would it be obvious to me why this tweet, dated 13 Jan 2010, is headed "Governor Mike Pence", despite the fact that he wasn't governor until 2013?  :confused:
11
wtf, Europe?

Quote
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Wednesday that courts may consider vaccines to be the cause of an illness, even in the absence of scientific evidence confirming a link.
12
Science / Re: early tetrapods got weird
Ooooh!
Nature, even!

:notworthy:
13
Red state or not, centrist or populist, seasoned pol or newbie...
Whatever.

I am disheartened beyond words that this race was even close after five months of the escalating shit-show in Washington.  :sadcheer:

< heavy sigh > 
14
If you have a point you wish to make, rather than intimate, then do so. Fucking get on with it you miserable fuck.
Dave, Dave, Dave!
Not gonna happen.
Not getting around to making a point, and endlessly intimating that there is one, is "Socrates"'s whole raison d'ĂȘtre.
Just sit back and enjoy the show.
15
"Socrates" appears to be talking to himself.

Here you go, dave, in terms even an uneducated B&B owner can understand:

We see a group of children. Just by looking at them, we can make out some resemblance between some of them, but we cannot use it to define specific relationships between them. Some may be brothers/sisters, other cousins, others more distantly related, but we can just not tell for sure.
What we can tell for sure, however, is that they're all human children (and not, say, puppies or kittens).

That "node" has a quite high support.

Gettit?

Of course you do. You're just pretending.

And as we all know, it is not possible to have a discussion with someone who is pretending.
The thing is...
There might be all kinds of uncertainty about who those kids' great-grandparents were.
Most of us, in fact, are pretty fuzzy about exactly who was who, going back just a handful of generations.
But we can be extremely certain that we are all Homo sapiens.
16
Non sequitur.

And...
If something is in the publication- Supplementary or otherwise- it is MORE than just "acknowledged".
17
He's waiting for you to identify some "problem" or "mistake".

We all are.
18
" pretending not to understand it or pretending it is not a problem".
I understand perfectly.
It is not a problem for me.
19
You are mistaken.
No one is ignoring that.
20
And it attains a value of 65 probably only because dinosaurs share archosaur symplesiomorphic characters with Euparaves. And support value calculations use characters and not synapomorphies.
So why does the coelurosauria node "attain" a value of 94 with "Euparaves" included?

Not that I expect you to grow the balls to address that.

End of the line.
Worth repeating.
21
Another interesting thread ...

"Socrates"'s idea of an "interesting thread" is one where he makes unsupported pronouncements and declines to engage in any discussion of them.

What a laugh.
22
To this point I have not been mentioning the absurdly low Bremer support values because you have not even been able to take in the resampling test results (bootstrap, jackknife) and the huge polytomy they produce.

Every time we look at the published material and the statistical tests, they contradict the dinosaur to bird hypothesis.
Nothing you have written here contradicts the "dinosaur to bird hypothesis".
This would be blindingly obvious if you were ever to muster the courage to actually engage in discussion.
Like, for instance, explaining why you think anything you have written points to such a contradiction.
But you won't.
Which is why this thread does not belong in a Science discussion forum.
23
To this point I have not been mentioning the absurdly low Bremer support values because you have not even been able to take in the resampling test results (bootstrap, jackknife) and the huge polytomy they produce.
Who is "you" ?

(Note that threads get moved, not just on the basis of whether there's something "scientific" in them, but also on the basis of the ability or willingness of participants to engage in discussion.)
25
Quote
...
...
...
...
...
Well it does not look like anyone will come along. It takes bravery to acknowledge what is right in front of you when others are pretending not to see it. Oh well. At least folks acknowledged the existence of the huge polytomy, so that is something.
Well, Socks...
As you know, when the student is ready, The Teacher will appear.
It appears these students are just not ready.  :(
The Teacher appears to be squandering his precious time.
Have you checked in with Yann lately?
Perhaps he's finally ready.  :dunno: