|
On July 20 2016 22:47 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are any of these DNA testing things legit? The ones about origin (80%this 10% that, etc..) not parentage.
If so, how legit? As far as I understand: Origin is statistically based and is nowdays legit enough. List of sampled loci are statistically more prevalent today in a given region, therefore the result displays that origin. Sounds legit enough and databases nowdays are good enough for this. Main confusion is in the interpretation of the % displayed. You are bound to have 50% DNA of each of your parents, but you may have 0% from one of your grandparents and 50% from another (1 in 8 million, but still true). Positives are valid, negatives aren't : if the test says 12% native american, there is almost certainly some native american ancestor. However, 12% does not mean 12% of the ancestors were native american and 0% does not mean you don't have any ancestry in a given country/region. Best case scenario, you get the origin of your current DNA (true often enough). Worst case ... 0% only indicates that you didn't inherit any DNA from those ancestors in the sample loci that were analyzed, but there may be DNA present from that origin outside of the sampling.
Yeah, confirming this. A colleague of mine did a study where they sequenced people that have lived in the same region of England/Wales/Scottland for 3 (I think?) generations, and then clustered them. It was pretty impressive. You could see the regions where they vikings went cluster together with the old viking blood, wales was kindof isolated from the rest of the island, and so was Scottland. Some of the Scottish island were really separate from all of the others. While most of England was pretty intermingled.
So that kind of resolution is pretty impressive, and shows that you also have the power to tell different countries from each other (depending on history of course, if the people are mixed you lose resolution). Telling continents, like chinese from japanese from native indian from african is ezpz. Not to mention neanderthal. Then if the commercial tests actually do their analysis properly and have up to date databases... That's a different question. There is no way for the customer to tell if the company is making crap up, so unlike my research colleague, there is little incentive for them to spend resources of getting really accurate results.
TLDR: you CAN do it well, but doesn't mean that every company actually does it well.
|
What is the stupidest question asked and answered so far?
|
I remember one guy asking how not to look like a crazy person in a pub because he wanted to go drinking alone and was worried people will think he's weird. The most serious answer was "punch the bartender to establish dominance" or something like that.
|
|
|
On July 21 2016 01:08 greenelve wrote:
What is the stupidest question asked and answered so far?
My personal favourite was the one about how to move all the water on the earth to the moon. 
|
On July 21 2016 01:08 greenelve wrote:
What is the stupidest question asked and answered so far?
On August 02 2015 15:13 Epishade wrote:
Can I place a phone call aboard the ISS to order pizza? Is it still free if it's not there in 30 minutes? Would my pizza be cold by the time they delivered? Could I warm it up by opening the box in space and pointing my pizza at the sun? What happens if I ordered extra cheese but when I open the box it looks like it's only a normal amount of cheese? Do I tip the delivery guy less? How much do you tip a delivery guy astronaut? Does Papa Johns have a delivery guy space program? What sort of training is required for a pizza delivery guy space program? Can anyone register? What if you're afraid of space but you're a Papa Johns delivery guy and Papa Johns just recently started their space delivery program but you're afraid to deliver pizza in space? Would you get fired? Are there laws in place to protect Papa Johns delivery guys who are afraid of space from getting drafted into a Papa Johns space delivery program? Are there places in law where you have to protect space delivery guys from aliens? Are there places at my in-laws for me to stay while I order pizza from Papa Johns? Is Papa John an alien?
On August 02 2015 20:16 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure people on the ISS can call people on Earth, at least sometimes, and they also have Internet access, at least sometimes.
However, most Pizza places have limits as to where they deliver Pizza to. I'd assume LEO is usually not in those limits.
As to space Pizza delivery, it would be incredibly expensive to use a person to deliver space Pizza. A much more sensible solution is to just send the box up, possibly with a money input slot, so the box only opens when people put in enough money for the Pizza.
Since you are in the US and working a minimum wage job, i doubt that there are any laws in place to protect you from anything. If they tell you to go to space and you don't want to, you get fired and they find another guy.
Space is international territory, thus i don't think there are a lot of laws to protect you against abduction by aliens if you are in space. There are some laws in space though, for example if you are a nuclear weapon you are not allowed to go to space.
|
On July 20 2016 04:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:26 xM(Z wrote:first off, realize your argument is a paradox: MAD exists, but it really doesn't. second, understand MAD and read up on Fail-deadly Fail-deadly is a concept in nuclear military strategy that encourages deterrence by guaranteeing an immediate, automatic, and overwhelming response to an attack and Dead Hand. the nuclear response is automatic, triggered by sensors. @Kwark, his example bypasses all of the above so, in that straw-man-ish case, you subject yourself to the laws of physics (for every action there's a reaction) and push the god damn button. (your idea of "a right" is nonsensical/not (yet) properly defined; to your explanation/assumption, i don't see myself as being taken advantage off, i just do my duty; it's righteousness not spite. yin<->yang, light<->dark and all that; you can't have one without the other or, one triggers the response of the other). @Simberto: some of the above and my position is: the humanity that bombed me is way worse than a future humanity. i think of the children! + Show Spoiler +. hmm, if you look at all this discussion, the conclusion is that it seems to depend on what one puts his hopes: today or tomorrow. Not really. The question is whether you prefer humanity existing and you giving up a point to humanity not existing, but at least you were right and got your revenge. Also, i would be almost certain that no nation on earth has a system that launches a massive nuclear strike without a human being involved at some place. Things like Dead Hand are designed to circumvent the loss of soviet leadership, but there is still a person in charge that ultimately decides to launch. From Wikipedia on Dead Hand: Show nested quote +If that were the case, he [the Soviet leader] would flip on a system that would send a signal to a deep underground bunker in the shape of a globe where three duty officers sat. If there were real missiles and the Kremlin were hit and the Soviet leadership was wiped out, which is what they feared, those three guys in that deep underground bunker would have to decide whether to launch very small command rockets that would take off, fly across the huge vast territory of the Soviet Union and launch all their remaining missiles.
Now, the Soviets had once thought about creating a fully automatic system. Sort of a machine, a doomsday machine, that would launch without any human action at all. When they drew that blueprint up and looked at it, they thought, you know, this is absolutely crazy. I am still not certain that we talk about the same thing. You are constantly saying that the deterrence is needed for MAD to work. Noone disputes that. The second strike capability needs to be realistic, and you need to be convincing when you claim that you will indeed launch that second strike when attacked. No one disputes that. That is how MAD works, and everyone understands that. It is not a hard concept to grasp. The question is not about that. The question is, you are in a situation where MAD has failed. For whatever reason. The others HAVE launched their missiles. Your decision to launch now has no effect on your deterrence earlier due to causality. Before this happened, you did everything to ensure that everyone believed that you would launch. But the missiles are flying. At this point you have exactly two choices: a) launch your own, for revenge, and destroy humanity to ensure that the others don't win. You lose, the others lose, everyone loses, humanity gone. b) don't launch. You lose, the others win, you don't get revenge, your civilization is gone, but humanity endures.
come on man, how can you not get it by now?. MAD does not fail, i'll make sure MAD does not fail because MAD can not fail. i said 243234 times that i will destroy that other block and then even gave you actual reasons, not some feeling based crap you're assuming there.
you can't hate nor spite one that destroys half the planet; it's biologically impossible.
first, the imminent destruction of your block, will trigger in you the fight or flight response; then, after you sort that out, after you pick one that you assume will save you, the brain moves on to secondary emotions(hate, spite, fear), actions(throwing stones, building bunkers). the thing is, you'll never get passed the flight or fight response because none of those options will save you(the premise of this argument destroys even the hope that one of them will; you will know, have the certainty, that not even God will save you).
the word you want here is flabbergasted + Show Spoiler +astonished, amazed, stunned, overcome, overwhelmed, staggered, astounded, dazed, confounded, disconcerted, speechless, bowled over (informal), gobsmacked (Brit. slang), dumbfounded, nonplussed, lost for words, struck dumb, abashed, rendered speechless
|
United States44205 Posts
The purpose of MAD is not to destroy the other guy, it's for nobody to destroy the other guy. It's not a way of achieving mutually assured destruction, it's away of achieving survival through the threat of mutually assured destruction. So if one side launches then MAD has failed.
It's weird to me that you think the objective should be that everybody dies. Presumably for you a successful first strike would be somewhat of a disappointment, even if your side did it. And when they launch you think "good, okay, we're halfway there, now let's get the rest done".
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 01:14 JimmiC wrote:
That is true but for MAD to work everyone has to believe that if one side launches so will the other. Any doubt can create the willingness of one side to launch.
When complete annihilation is at stack it goes well beyond 'any doubt' before you attack into it.
|
On July 20 2016 21:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 00:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2016 23:26 Simberto wrote:On July 19 2016 23:13 JimmiC wrote:
I believe the prevailing wisdom is that if one person fires a nuke then another will fire theirs and so on and so forth. Basically everywhere is allied with someone who has nukes so it would be hard to fire one and not have some one retaliate. As for a study on how many it would take for global annihilation, I have not read one but it would be interesting. Yes, but the scenario is not the one talked about there. The question there was originally: There are two blocks, both of which have the nuclear capacity to annihilate the other. You see the other guy launching. There is nothing to stop the missiles. You are now dead, and your civilisation destroyed. Do you launch yours to also destroy the other guy? Not talking about the pregame, where you want to make the other guy not launch with the threat of also annihilating them. The situation is done. The missiles have been launched. Do you destroy the remaining half of humanity out of revenge, or do you not do that and give humanity a chance, even if it is the people that destroyed and murdered you. Edit: And now the question is "Even if you don't launch, are the nukes the other guy used to destroy you enough to also destroy their civilization through effects like global radiation and nuclear winter?" I was responding to just the bold part. But yeah you do launch and you have to make it clear to everyone that you would. Because that's MAD the whole point of having nukes is that you are willing to use them, so people don't use theirs on you. Edit: Or was the Bold part saying that if you obliterate half the planet then the nuclear fallout would create a nuclear winter that would destroy the world anyways? I'm thinking that was the question now, and that is why he was asking for a study on how many nukes to destroy the planet. So in closing I guess I'm useless The weapon is meaningless. Imagine a planet with two main groups. One group initiates plans to wipe out half the planet. Do you, in response, guarantee that 100% of the planet is dead or do you allow the 50% that killed you to live. You will be dead regardless. Everyone you know and love will be dead, regardless. Only the people you hate and despise will live. Only the people whose culture you hate and despise will live. Do you wipe out humanity because of your prejudice and need for vengeance, or do you allow those you hate to live in order for humanity to live? That is the actual question.
Would launch,without hesitation. But the question is completely irrelevant since 100% destruction is impossible.
In reality both sides will survive,pushed back 50 years in time but they will rebuild.
And that's why you have to launch,the war isn't over when one side has launched. It has only just begun.
|
Thank God pmh will never find himself near the red button.
|
On July 22 2016 00:29 KwarK wrote:
The purpose of MAD is not to destroy the other guy, it's for nobody to destroy the other guy. It's not a way of achieving mutually assured destruction, it's away of achieving survival through the threat of mutually assured destruction. So if one side launches then MAD has failed.
It's weird to me that you think the objective should be that everybody dies. Presumably for you a successful first strike would be somewhat of a disappointment, even if your side did it. And when they launch you think "good, okay, we're halfway there, now let's get the rest done".
understand that to you, the only scenario in which MAD does not fail is when both sides launch their weapons simultaneously+ Show Spoiler +(or no one launches but that makes the conversation rather pointless)
everybody dies is not the objective but the consequence of a single strike regardless of whom fires it; if my side does it, i expect to die soon after.
how can you entrust the future of humanity to a genocidal maniac who shot first?; i'll take my chance with evolution.
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 03:01 JimmiC wrote:
How much does superman weigh?
225 pounds.
|
United States44205 Posts
On July 22 2016 02:49 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 00:29 KwarK wrote:
The purpose of MAD is not to destroy the other guy, it's for nobody to destroy the other guy. It's not a way of achieving mutually assured destruction, it's away of achieving survival through the threat of mutually assured destruction. So if one side launches then MAD has failed.
It's weird to me that you think the objective should be that everybody dies. Presumably for you a successful first strike would be somewhat of a disappointment, even if your side did it. And when they launch you think "good, okay, we're halfway there, now let's get the rest done". understand that to you, the only scenario in which MAD does not fail is when both sides launch their weapons simultaneously + Show Spoiler +(or no one launches but that makes the conversation rather pointless) , right?. now realize that that never happens, someone always shoots first so gratz to you for having a pointless MAD. everybody dies is not the objective but the consequence of a single strike regardless of whom fires it; if my side does it, i expect to die soon after. how can you entrust the future of humanity to a genocidal maniac who shot first?; i'll take my chance with evolution.
How is nobody firing pointless? I don't understand any part of where you're coming from. To me the entire purpose of MAD is to make war so futile that it doesn't happen. Success is no war. MAD has failed if a war happens. Like how are you not getting this? No war is like the entire thing, the entire point. MAD is a state of peace enforced by the threat of war. If the state of peace no longer exists then the MAD no longer exists. The only scenario in which MAD does not fail is called peace.
MAD succeeded since the Soviet's got their hands on nukes and it outlasted the Soviet Union. It succeeded by making war so terrible that no war happened until eventually one of the two combatants tired of the struggle.
|
On July 22 2016 03:02 ZigguratOfUr wrote:225 pounds.
Googling about this is a rabbit hole of how can Superman only weigh 225 lbs if he is dense enough to stop bullets and lots of theory crafting around him actively adjusting his weight to avoid showing that he is one dense mofo.
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 JimmiC wrote:
Yes I feel like he should also be super heavy because he's so dense, but people are always picking him up to either save him or beat him up after the kryptonite. Also he tends to make huge craters whenever he falls from the sky or space.
Things do tend to make craters when they fall from space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
