MonDie

bold text added by me It disgusts me to think people would hide their symptoms to keep their guns. It's suspected that fewer men are diagnosed with BPD only because they're more likely to go to jail than mental health facilities. I would rather give a gun to someone who's been admitted, perhaps after willingly confessing their symptoms, than to a potential criminal.

You feel for them? It seems very selfish IMO.

I added the part about coping strategies after your response. Could the admission restriction prevent gun owners from seeking mental help for fear that they'll be admitted and lose their guns?

Really? We can restrict felons and those who've been admitted from owning guns, but we can't create cost barriers for those who can't be completely trusted to handle a gun safely?What about knowledge barriers? We could waive the insurance requirement for those who show excellence on tests of gun safety and effective coping strategies. The study material can be freely available online. This would address the Dunning-Kruger issue.

I find it absurd that we charge people money for being suicidal. Besides, gun insurance assumes we can put a price on someone's life like we would a car.

*Fart*...

You guys are good stalkers. I'm not finding these pictures.

There were 202 swimming pool drownings of children in one summer, but how many are there per year? Doing the math from iNow's link, there are 20*0.06*365 or 438 deaths of children by guns per year. At least in terms of child deaths, which are particularly undesireable, swimming pools constitute as much as half as many deaths. But a closer analysis might provide a per-pool vs per-gun comparison. On the other, I would expect injuries from pools to be quite low. Aside from the 6% who die, how many gun victims are permanently maimed?

I was just reading research on the Dunning-Kruger effect and found a gun related example. It is study 3. Dig in. Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?report=classic

My final paragraph got completely minced during correcting. It's actually .75*.5*.25 = .09375 .5 that the parent carrying the allele is the one selected for breeding. Perhaps you can counteract the inbreeding with health promoting techniques. For example try to breed the healthiest picks of the litter. Be equally watchful for potentially recessive traits that are harmful to health, and avoid inbreeding those alleles.

It looks wrong to me.

Only 9%, but the ratio is still the highest. The only affiliation that comes close is Latter Day Saints. Who knew mormons were such a privileged group.

I assumed one pup per mating. I should have said per offspring instead of per mating. Each parent has 46 chromosomes, adding to 92. Each offspring inherits 46 of these 92, 23 from mother and 23 from father. 46 is half of 92 so each offspring inherits half of the parental gene pool, and doesn't inherit the other half. When comparing the genome of another offspring to its sibling, there is thus 50/50 odds that any particular chromosome will also have been inherited by its sibling, assuming they have the same mother and same father. If either parent carries a recessive mutation, then each offspring has a .50 chance of inheriting it. If it inherits it, it is a hybrid, and crossing it with another hybrid such as the paremt that carried the allele would be a monohybrid cross. CORRECTION: It is actually .25 since there is a .5 chance of being a hybrid for each progenitor, making it .25 chance of a monohybrid cross. This is unavoidable since yoy don't know which parent originally carried the mutation. The monohybrid cross has a .25 chance of producing a recessive homozygote. The chance of both events happening is thus .5 .25 times .25, which comes to .125 .0625. When you mate an offspring to parent, the resultant offspring is 75% similar to each parent. That means .75*.0.625 when you mate the daughter/grandchild to its father/grandfather. Inbreeding isn't necessarily desireable however since it will result in more spontaneous abortions... plus ethics.

The funny thing is I was just reading about how The Bible is anti-capitalism since capitalism is predicated on and embraces the desire for riches and material wealth, which Jesus decries as wicked.

If you can keep them monogamous, then siblings will also be (on average) 50% similar. Father-daughter mating assumes the father carries the mutation, which you do not know. You can't do father-daughter matings anyway unless you know the father. Each cross is an independent event, and the probability of a recessive allele (if it exists) becoming homozygous is one-in-eight for each cross. There is a 0.5 chance the offspring inherited the mutation, in which case it will be a monohybrid cross, which has a 0.25 chance of producing a homozygote. 0.5*0.25 comes to 0.125 per cross. The complementary event of not getting a homozygote thus has a 1-0.125 or 0.875 chance. The odds of not getting a homozygote in two tries is thus 0.875^2; three tries 0.875^3; etc. The longer you stick with one breeding group, the smaller odds you have of finding a recessive mutation per mating. From the above it can be derived that the odds drop by 12.5% each mating. To demonstrate, the difference between 1-.875^2 and 1-.875^3 is only 87.5% of the difference between 1-.875 and 1-.875^2, and even though those numbers assume that there is one and only one recessive mutation present in the breeding group, the rule is universally true. to the title *allele variants

My baby carrots left water in the plastic bag which now sits on my desk. Trying to split the big bubble into consecutive smaller bubbles by poking the bag.

I'm trying to extrapolate the vale of 0^0 from examples involving variable exponents. The number of days is the exponent. I'm always trolling.

Interesting. On each day, each infected infects x-1 more people, resulting in x infected for each infected the day prior. On day zero only 1 is infected. If x=1 the disease is not infectious. If x=0 the disease cures itself the next day, but it should still hold that there's 1 infected on day zero, thus 0^0=1. Now x is the amount of radioisotope at start. The isotope remaining is x*(1/2^d) where d is the number of half lives passed. bad example.

It's hard to think of real life situations that demonstrate variable exponents. Whether it's area of a square, volume of a cube or Pythagorean theorem, the exponent is not variable.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate clairvoyance. In theory everything you "see" is actually brain activity. I would ask whether dreams, like ordinary sensations, can also be an indirect conduit for other information. I don't know. Psychoanalysis is predicated on the idea of a subconscious.

I thought quantum cryptography sounded cool. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography The five pages are too long for me, but it's a trusted tech site. http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/09/quantum-cryptography-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow/

I concede. He doesn't even show the learnedness of someone who was once an enthusiastic learner. But we have to explain how he got his position at Lagos in the first place.

What is the frequency span anyway? Wikipedia says radio is three thousand to three hundred billion Hz. Forget it. I need a 2 week break from SFN.

The article said "shorter-frequency". It appears to be a mix up of lower-frequency and shorter-wavelength, which have opposite meanings! lol

That's the thing. Bipolar people don't have elevated IQ, and severe mania can involve thought disorders. However mania and hypomania often involve an increased energy level, reduced need for sleep, increased goal-oriented behavior, and delusional over-confidence (grandiosity). This could be why many bipolar patients were over-achievers at one time.