CharonY

I think you have a rather romantic view. Famines were rampant, even in highly developed civilizations. Heck, a couple of posts back Ireland was mentioned and that was not that long ago. You have to remember that these are partially industrialized nations, early 20th and 19th century Europe is probably a better comparison. One aspect of colonization was that it was believed that people had not enough space because the population growth was not under control. Birth control (on a wider basis) is really a thing that happened in very very recent times. However, if you believe it is easily accessible, you are also mistaken. Do you believe that a government that does not provide clean water for its people will provide condoms for free? Here is a random article on this issue My link And this for those that know that they can prevent birth and diseases with condoms. And this is what I mean with education. It is not only reading or writing (though in the long run it will be a necessity), but about knowing ones options (and providing those). In addition you have to remember that many of the poorest countries are an odd mix in which the modern clashes with traditional living styles. Growing villages and cities make certain traditional styles obsolete, certain modernization efforts that have changed nomads to sedentary styles which providing the proper means to do so, the list goes on. Your premise is a beneficial, government in a well-informed population. But in many of the poorest countries it is not the case (note that it is not Africa per se, there stable and wealthy nations around, we are talking about the war-infested).

Thank you. This puts your posts into a certain context. I do not think I have anything to add to the discussion at this point. Except maybe to advise you to look up actual data and recheck your own opinion before using them as facts. For instance in this study by Sardinha et al (PEDIATRICS Vol. 122 No. 3September 1, 2008 pp. e728 -e736 ) most measures would place boys and girls at age 9-10 equally with boys slightly stronger in certain bone measurements, for example. What you may confuse is that the onset for puberty is earlier in females and the maturation process is faster.

The current status by WHO is "potentially carcinogenic". This means that the studies are inconclusive (i.e. they cannot state whether it is safe beyond any reasonable doubt) and requires more looking into. However, there is also not enough evidence to issue any warning. To my knowledge there is only one single study which studied long-term effects (10 years). There no link was found, but it was hypothesized that theoretically for heavy users there may be a slightly increased risk (which was likely the reason for the stance of the WHO). One limiting factor is that cell phones are not that long in massive use yet and that the effects are likely not acute and may have long time delay before manifestation. There is no easy answer, but chances are that the risks are relatively mild relative to other common potential health risks.

Was a proper blank used?

So far I do not see any evidence for your assertions. I.e. that there is a anti-boy sexism. (I really have a hard time to see how it is anti-boy when only females are allowed to torture females). Let me ask you something. Let us say girls are more protected from harm. Therefore they are not allowed to interact with society outside the immediate family. Is that pro-girl or anti-girl sexism in your eyes?

Instinctive? I am not suggesting that. Unless, you think that early 20th century (and earlier) family planning in Europe was instinctual. But there are several issues here, lack of wide-spread education being one of them. Wide-spread family planning is a relatively modern invention. Also practically, what would be the alternative if they do not have free access to birth control? Abstinence because there may be a bad harvest next year? Again, lack of education, lack of access to information and lack of means to do anything against it make planning virtually impossible. And well, we see how well abstinence educations works even in well-educated societies in which food is abundant.

The split was to answer the question whether females are really preferentially treated (or rather girls) since this was the premise of one of the posters. I think this premise is being questioned as most societies would be characterized as male dominated. Before that is established assuming that it is connected to rape is a little bit premature. However, the overall discussion regarding gender dominance, societal biases and rape can easily continue in the main thread, I think. If specific elements have to be clarified, it may be good to split it again to clear up some premises. Clearly we are talking about a rather complex subject in which many factors may or may not contribute. I think it is a good idea to clear up whether a given situation really exists, before moving on to find associations. Edit: crossposted with swansont

The context here is statics. The calculations of stability is based on well-established mechanical frame work. Just stating a value without that context is meaningless. Yes. But what? Potential of what? And which way around is the correct association? I.e. geniuses have an easy time with IQ test hence they usually have high IQs. But then IQ may still be a lousy predictor because you can get a high score without being a genius. Or is it a cut-of? Maybe chances of being genius is lower at IQ below, say, 120 but does not scale with higher values?

A number of eukaryotic cells take up ATP actively. I am less sure regarding prokaryotes.

Thanks, I was not aware of that. Appears to be somewhat newish (in the glacial time frame of the EU). I only remember that I was quite dismayed to learn that Germany (despite all the restrictions for firearms) did not have central register.

Just to clarify, we are talking about preferential behavior in pre-puberty kids? I would like to see examples and/or evidence, please. The list provided is too random to be of any use. What may be the case is that, on average, corporal punishment rates for boys are higher than for girls. But it is should also be noted that society does indeed treat them differently, boys are often encouraged to be more active and may thus result in behavior that is more likely to be punished. Adolescence. 1994 Fall;29(115):543-61.Straus MA, Kantor GK. However, girls are more likely to be sexually abused.

Looks like a random blurp copied from somwhere.

This may be true if they had actually had access to all this information and planned it deliberately. Or even had a choice to do anything about it. Did the government fail? To a large amount, yes. It is true that emergency help does not help in the long run. In the long run a commitment to build infrastructure, introduce a standard of living where people can start to thing about anything instead of just surviving the day, or even worse, decide which of their kids they should allow to starve first. And then leverage that to create a decent educational system. But I suppose it would take much more money than just throw some food at them every now and then and ignore them the rest of the time.

A kind of amusing take on this overall issue. My link

The link between marriage and life expectancy is kind of complicated. In a study it was found that males with younger wives benefitted most (in terms of life expectancy). Strangely, the inverse appears to be the case for women. Press release Also it appears that the gap in life expectancy between married and unmarried males has diminished (but I would have to dig out that data). IIRC children had no influence (i.e. no difference between married couples with and without children).

Mathematical treatment of data is essential. However, one cannot simply throw numbers around. An important part of statistics is the proper use of these values. An important part of each science is to define in which context each measurement is valid and informative. Context is everything.

I am not sure, are there EU-wide gun regulations?

ATP itself does not contain Mg. However, ATP that is found in complexes often contains Mg- but not covalently bound.

To be fair, depending on the position up and including postdoc the cv is not terribly important to some extent. If it does not stick out in bad way and if you have demonstrated the required technical skill, you have shot for an interview. Considering that there are usually not that many candidates (though numbers have been rising, most likely for economic reasons) the interview is usually the deciding factor. In short, transcripts are mostly overrated.

This is highly disputable even if you only look at the revenue. Link (also the other graphs are quite nice). The point is that the revenue only makes sense as part of GDP as Capn implied. Since the 50s the revenues were consistently between 15-20% of GDP certainly there are no increasing trends or peaks.

In my opinion it is never too late to get an education or learn things you are interested in. A science career , however, is a completely different thing. It depends on so many (often hardly or non controllable) factors, that it is really hard to predict whether it will work out or not. It may help to check out, what kind of science careers are out there, what they in reality consist of (i.e. not the idealized version) and if you really want that.

For some reasons I think that is brilliant.

Here is the thing. Communistic ideals are to human behavior and can therefore not be implemented in any practical way. The only way to realize it would probably be enforcing, which is a contradiction in itself as communism is envisioned not to have a regulatory government in its final phase. As such it is a contradiction in itself. And waitrufo, I think I see what you mean now. Although I would argue that they even started to try before they failed. The first step would to give up power after a revolution. That kind of never happened.

I have to add that I find the lack of expertise in throat singing on this forum highly deplorable.

You should check wiki pages and similar, they give nice overviews. A central element is the flow of information from Protein to RNA to Protein. DNA is the bluepring, from which a part is "copied (transcribed)" to form the RNA and that RNA (termed mRNA) is used as a blueprint to make proteins. Proteins are the workers in a cell responsible for most processes. In reality things are more complicated, of course. There are feedback systems from proteins and RNA that regulate RNA transcription, for instance. A basic thing to remember is that DNA does not really change (except for chemical modification and a few other exceptions). I.e. RNA or proteins generally do not change DNA sequences, but rather the area and frequency that a specific area is used to transcribe RNA, for instance.