I think this one is my favourite(
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:10,
archived)
good thing he is deadand no longer spewing his infectious anti-science bile
(,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:35,
archived)
We have had a very healthy discussion on science today. gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:36,
archived)
The vast epithelial lining of the gut has its own branch of the immune system to protect the body from invasion.In his Perspective, Shanahan describes the components of this system--the intestinal epithelial cells and intraepithelial lymphocytes--and a new local paracrine network among them, mediated by thyrotropin-releasing hormone and thyroid-stimulating hormone and reported in this issue on p.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:25,
archived)
I believe I have addressed these questionsin my flamingo chart below.
(
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:08,
archived)
MAYBE WE CAN TYPE QUESTIONS INTO THE GOOGLE. gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:08,
archived)
The google wants no part of us my friend.In fact the whole web is tired of our demands.
( mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:10,
archived)
Then the whole web needs to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.I do not know why the google would reject us after so many years of servitude.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:12,
archived)
whose value proposition?The discussion of Yahoo and Google reminds me of a story that may indeed
be an urban legend, but I heard it in the Library of Congress, so it must
be authoritative even if untrue.
The Theodore Roosevelt presidential campaign had printed up a million
copies of a flier or brochure with a striking photo of the candidate on
it. Then somebody suddenly remembered -- "We never got permission of the
photographer! He'll charge us a fortune for this and we can't afford it!"
The crafty banker in the room (in this version, J.P. Morgan himself) said,
"Not to worry." He called up the photographer and said, "That's a very
fine photograph of Mr. Roosevelt you've taken. We're so impressed with it
that we're willing to put it on our campaign brochure without charging you
any fee at all for what will be fabulous publicity for you. We just need
you to go through the formality of signing a little copyright form: can I
put it in the mail to you?" The photographer was thrilled to agree.
Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown U.
(,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:17,
archived)
be an urban legend, but I heard it in the Library of Congress, so it must
be authoritative even if untrue.
The Theodore Roosevelt presidential campaign had printed up a million
copies of a flier or brochure with a striking photo of the candidate on
it. Then somebody suddenly remembered -- "We never got permission of the
photographer! He'll charge us a fortune for this and we can't afford it!"
The crafty banker in the room (in this version, J.P. Morgan himself) said,
"Not to worry." He called up the photographer and said, "That's a very
fine photograph of Mr. Roosevelt you've taken. We're so impressed with it
that we're willing to put it on our campaign brochure without charging you
any fee at all for what will be fabulous publicity for you. We just need
you to go through the formality of signing a little copyright form: can I
put it in the mail to you?" The photographer was thrilled to agree.
Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown U.
"Saying that cultural objects have value is like saying that telephones have conversations."
Brian Peter George St. John le Baptiste de la Salle Eno
(Brian Peter George St. John le Baptiste de la Salle Eno
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:21,
archived)
TELEPHONES HAVE CONVERSATIONS.THERE I SAID IT
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:23,
archived)
So my question is:how do these two facts bear on a study of the modals in a
corpus of non-reciprocal communication? Are the rules for non-spontaneous
inference much different than those of spontaneous inference? Also, how is
the process of utterance interpretation in a non-reciprocal communication
different from the case in normal reciprocal communication from the
viewpoint of relevance theory?
(corpus of non-reciprocal communication? Are the rules for non-spontaneous
inference much different than those of spontaneous inference? Also, how is
the process of utterance interpretation in a non-reciprocal communication
different from the case in normal reciprocal communication from the
viewpoint of relevance theory?
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:22,
archived)
FinallyI would like a hint as to the best reference to consult for looking up cognitive science terms, such as deduction, induction, etc. If anyone Knows of an online source (other than b3ta.com) please let me know.
( mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:26,
archived)
Cognitive Reflector:From Conversation Theory Pask developed what he called a "Cognitive Reflector". This is a virtual machine for selecting and executing concepts or topics from an entailment mesh shared by at least a pair of participants. It features an external modelling facility on which agreement between, say, a teacher and pupil may be shown by reproducing public descriptions of behaviour. We see this in essay and report writing or the "practicals" of science teaching.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:30,
archived)
The Law of Independent Assortment, also known as "Inheritance Law" or Mendel's Second Law,states that the inheritance pattern of one trait will not affect the inheritance pattern of another. While his experiments with mixing one trait always resulted in a 3:1 ratio (Fig. 1) between dominant and recessive phenotypes, his experiments with mixing two traits (dihybrid cross) showed 9:3:3:1 ratios (Fig. 2). But the 9:3:3:1 table shows that each of the two genes are independently inherited with a 3:1 ratio. Mendel concluded that different traits are inherited independently of each other, so that there is no relation, for example, between a cat's color and tail length. This is actually only true for genes that are not linked to each other.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:36,
archived)
The optimizer will take care of that.Good thread, too bad I'm late for it.
(
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 4:27,
archived)
there's another couple of them P(k+2) then P(k) is true for all k. Then there's:
If P(k) = P(k-1) and P(1)...P(k-2) happen to be true then P(k) is true for all k. Although this is more reduction ad nauseum rather than induction...I'm really fucking bored.
(,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 3:49,
archived)
If P(k) = P(k-1) and P(1)...P(k-2) happen to be true then P(k) is true for all k. Although this is more reduction ad nauseum rather than induction...I'm really fucking bored.
i bet data toddlers taste the same as all the rest of the toddlers.
postbear has metal knees,
Sun 27 Apr 2008, 5:32,
archived)