DrW
-
Posts
1,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DrW
-
-
2 minutes ago, Simon said:
I like this idea a lot.
Would it still be considered the Luttje Lage if you substituted a different kind of beer or cordial, or does Luttje Lage translate to those specific ingredients?
Lüttje Lage is very specific. Even the beer (which is low-alcohol, 2.5-3.0%, brown and pretty "malty") is only used for this drink.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Blue is a primary color.
So is yellow.
So is red.
Green is a secondary color.
You're into the tertiary colors and beyond.
I think you need to visit your color codes first before AI 😆:
Things are actually more complicated. It depends whether you consider paints and pigments in art or for printing, or work with lights as in a projector. From Wikipedia:
"RYB is a subtractive color model used in art and applied design in which red, yellow, and blue pigments are considered primary colors. The RYB color model relates specifically to color in the form of paint and pigment application in art and design. Other common color models include the light model (RGB) and the paint, pigment and ink CMY color model, which is much more accurate in terms of color gamut and intensity compared to the traditional RYB color model, the latter emerging in conjunction with the CMYK color model in the printing industry. This model was used for printing by Jacob Christoph Le Blon in 1725 and called it Coloritto or harmony of colouring,[8] stating that the primitive (primary) colors are yellow, red and blue, while the secondary are orange, green and purple or violet."
-
1
-
-
And these are experts at work...
-
1
-
-
In and around the German city of Hannover, where I grew up, we have a very unusual way to consume beer, called the Lüttje Lage. You have two glasses, a larger one (still pretty small) with 0.1 liter (about 4 fl. oz.) of a brown beer, and a shot glass with 1/10 of the volume of "korn" (grain brandy). What makes this combination so special is that you drink the beer while the korn is flowing in your beer glass. Sounds complicated, but do not fret - there are many instructions to be found on the internet.
https://www.luettjelage.com/tutorial
What I found especially interesting is that they have instructions in languages of countries not allowing the use of alcohol.
One advantage I see from drinking this way - it is difficult to get really drunk. Once your coordination is compromised, you will spill most of the drink.
Amy specific traditions in your location?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:
Wasn't he the drummer for The Police?
No, wrong Copeland, but it seems he became a televangelist...
Kenneth Copeland
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
I don’t still live in WNY, but I follow the Bandits as closely as I do the Sabres and only slightly less intensely as I do the Bil,
Point of clarification: the top pro indoor league of lacrosse is considered to be completely on par with the top pro outdoor league. This isn’t the case for gridiron football or soccer, but it is for lacrosse!
The top indoor league is Buffalo’s National Lacrosse League (NLL), while the top outdoor league is the Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) which starts in two weeks. Many of the world’s top lacrosse players play in both leagues. Most of the Bandits’ offense, for example, also play together for the Carolina Chaos in the PLL (yet another Carolina/Buffalo pro sports connection…LOL…).
Canadians and Indigenous peoples prefer the more physical indoor/box version of lacrosse, while Americans tend to prefer the outdoor/field version. The indoor version resembles ice hockey in style of play, with elements of strategy that are also seen in basketball. The outdoor version resembles soccer too much in pace, which is why I personally think the NLL will eventually overtake the PLL to become the undisputed top version of professional lacrosse in North America.
Thank you for your detailed explanation. It does not affect my preference for the outdoor version of lacrosse (which seems to align with the fact that I also love watching soccer).
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, muppy said:
I have read that Germans allow infants to drink beer. It's a cultural thing. I personally wouldn't go that far. But a wee sip wouldn't hurt I guess.
PROST
I had to Google that means cheers- SALUD in german
Some might do, especially in Southern Germany. However, it is not a general custom. I had my first beer with 16 or 17 on our high school class trip to (at that time) West Berlin.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Einstein said:
Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations.
In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate.
Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain.
This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothingIn this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
I would suggest to return to Butker's speech.
-
17 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:
Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.
While I may not agree with their stance, for the NFL the two situations are different. In the "far worse" cases the player is accused of a crime or behavior generally condemned by society. Thus, there is no need for the NFL to confirm "We do not tolerate violence against women" or "Rape is a capital crime". However, in Butker's case there was the (admittedly, very remote) possiblity that the NFL would like women to stay home and serve their husbands wings, pizza and beer during a game. Thus, they had to state their point of view on this issue.
-
13 hours ago, Einstein said:
You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument:
1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors.
2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems.I had really intended to stop responding to "intelligent design" viewpoints, as this discussion is mostly useless. However, can you please explain to me how you see this as a "zero-sum argument"? Solution 2 just requires time, of which there was plenty. Solution 1 needs an "intelligent creator". Don't you see how this complicates everything? Did he/she organize everything as it is today from the beginning, or are they still working on it today?
Going back to my example of the Orkney sheep. Had they always been designed to live on seaweed and they just had to be brought into the right environment? Otherwise, how did their digestive system adapt?
And please do not tell me that you accept evolution as response to immediate environmental changes (the Orkney sheep, adapting in a few decades), but reject it as a long-term solution.
-
1
-
-
As I probably explained before, because of my German heritage, I am rooting for the Mavericks in the NBA (Dirk) and the Oilers in the NHL (Leon; although I would be much happier if the Sabres ever reached this level). Chance had it that during the recent weeks their games alternated from day to day. Today was the first time both teams played an important game on the same day, even starting on the same time.
As I find hockey more interesting basketball, my original plan had been to watch the Oilers and occasionally have a look at the Mavs. However, it turned out that the Oilers were handling the Canucks easily (at least tonight), while the OKC-Mavs game turned into a real nail biter. Thus, most of my time I spent on the NBA game. In the end, both "my" teams won.
For the NBA conference finals: "Go Luka!!"; for the NHL playoffs: "Go Leon and the Oilers!! Repeat today's performance, and you will get past the Canucks!"
And a nugget from ESPN:
Draisaitl became just the fourth player in NHL history to record 60 assists in 60 playoffs games and the third in league history to get to 100 points — behind Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Einstein said:
You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument:
1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors.
2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems.But the debate is ultimately philosophical rather than empirical. Both perspectives are anchored in fundamentally different epistemological frameworks. The evolutionary paradigm relies on an iterative process of mutation, selection, and genetic drift over geological timescales. Yet, it does not inherently disprove the notion of an intelligent designer. In fact, in ways it can give more evidence for one.
When I was studying for the MCAT I was absolutely amazed at the vast amount of information that the scientific community spouts as fact but is actually simply theory.
Let me thank you for the detailed response to my post. And please forgive me - I will not respond to most of your points because whatever I say will not change your mind. Just an anecdote: When I was looking for a tenure-track assistant professor position 20 years ago, one of the possibilities was Baylor, possibly the largest Christian university in the country. I looked up their web site, and the first hit in my research area of biochemistry was a biology professor who taught microbiology lab. In his syllabus he clearly stated (I paraphrase here, because that was 20 years ago): To be successful in this class, you have to accept the principle of evolution.
One thing that made me curious: Do you have examples of MCAT questions you found problematic?
-
6 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:
I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs. But, I've always found it baffling to try and comprehend why intelligent people, who know how a body works, who know that a mother can make milk specifically designed for a baby directly after birth, or to heal a sick child can't at the very least fathom intelligent design.
Sorry, for me it is just the other way around. There is neither a part of a cell nor a biochemical reaction in an organism that could not have generated by evolution. One factor adherents to intelligent design generally overlook is time. Nature had millions of years of testing what works and (much more frequently) what does not work. And please do not tell me that you believe the World was created just about 4000 BC. There is NO scientific fact supporting this notion.
But let's go back to evolution vs intelligent design. I am a biochemist working on an enzyme called ATP synthase. It converts electrochemical energy stored in a proton gradient (imagine the water behind the Hoover dam that would like to escape the dam) into chemical energy in form of a molecule called ATP (imagine gas for your car). For a long time, it was not known how the enzyme would do that - the intermediate is mechanical energy. The protons flowing down the gradient (i.e. the water down the Hoover dam) powers the rotation of a part of the enzyme (like a turbine) which then allows the synthesis of ATP (the generation of gas).
As you can see, the mechanism of the enzyme is pretty complicated. In fact, Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" gives it as example of intelligent design, as there seemed to be no precedent of an enzyme where a part of it rotates to facilitate a chemical reaction on the other protein subunits surrounding the central protein in ring-like fashion. Well, it turns out that there are much simpler enzymes using the same basic mechanism. DNA helicases unwind DNA that occupies the center of the protein ring; some protein transporters use the center of the ring for substrate transport. Thus, evolution could have easily taken these simpler proteins as precursors to ATP synthase.
A much more recent example. There is a breed of sheep on one of the British Orkney Islands that had been confined to an area close to the sea for a number of decades. They "learned" to live on seaweed as main food source. Seaweed is very low on copper, an essential mineral. Thus, their digestive system had to adapt to extract copper more efficiently. How do you think that happened? (Interestingly, it is now dangerous for these sheep to feed on regular grass, as they take up too much copper which is toxic.)
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:
I don't watch indoor but I've watched some college lax (Maryland) the past few years. Just saw them beat Duke today to make it to the semi's next weekend. It's a fun sport to watch even though I'm not 100% on all the rules. I think our local indoor team is relocating off Long Island, but that's a non-issue for me.
Same here. I like to watch outdoor lacrosse, but IMHO it does not translate well to indoors. The same applies to a number of sports. Indoor soccer is an atrocity, unless you need a sport for your kids in winter. Perhaps someone can come up with ideas for indoor polo - that would be a hoot.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Augie said:
I’m good, I just don’t click on all the links put up here. I’m pretty darn confident in what he told me, but it’s now just a fine memory while he’s expecting his second child.
I hope everything goes well for mom and the baby (and the dad, of course).
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Augie said:
Get your tenses right. Do you have the link for the month my son was taking the class? He’s in his 30’s now. If it had been my other son, I might question it. I made a point of saying I was referring to the past. But sure, you feel free to try to make a point.
Please do not get upset - you got this all wrong. I was in no way insinuating that you were incorrect. I was actually more concerned about the accuracy of the web site.
-
In his final home game for the Bundesliga side Borussia Dortmund, Marco Reus (who had also been playing for the German national team) bought beer for everyone of drinking age in the stadium (total attendance 81,000). By the way, Reus is considering a move to US Major League Soccer.
-
On 5/16/2024 at 4:16 PM, Augie said:
I’m not arguing this because I don’t know the facts, but when my son was taking his driver classes and test in Florida he said you can change lanes on a left hand turn. NOT on a right hand turn, but on a left turn yes. I was mildly surprised, but he’s a smart young guy and he was sure that was the case at that time in Florida.
I only mention it now because we in a small neighborhood at the bottom of that diagram with one small lane in and another going out. The cars coming south almost ALL turn right (like 90%+), it’s the major traffic pattern, especially busy during rush hour. I get a green light with left arrow pulling out, and they have right turn on red….but they just keep going and turn right like I’m not there, usually allowing me the one inside lane going left. The problem is, there are shops and restaurants in a small strip center in the top left corner I go to. THAT is what pisses me off when driving!
I mean, other than just being in Atlanta in the first place…..
…
According to
https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques/making-right-and-left-turns/
it depends on the state if you can change lanes on a left turn. According to the web site, FL does not allow it.
-
2 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:
It's intentional because the number of stay-at-home Mothers is three times greater than Fathers. I added Fathers here because I wasnt directly quoting Butker, only attempting to explain the lie that is told to people across the world. As far as me using so much detail, you can choose not to read it.
First, let me clarify a misunderstanding. I was serious and not mocking you when I thanked you for the detail; I truly appreciated it.
Second, see the bolded. How do you know about Butker's reasoning behind ignoring stay-at-home dads? Is it possible that he does not see being a stay-at-home dad as an appropriate role for a man?
-
1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said:
...
What I took from Harrison's speech was if there were women in the graduating class who felt like they were torn between the societal norm of graduating college and having a career, and a feeling their calling was to stay at home and nurture their children and their household, that they shouldn't bend to the societal norm. The lie he was referring to is the thought that women have to be exactly like men, which to me is anti-feminist. That if you're a stay at home Mother or Father for that matter, that you are not as successful as someone who works a 9-5. The truth is, someone who stays at home and raises a child is worth as much, if not more than someone who brings home the paycheck. Our society completely ignores the fact that women and men are biologically different, both physically and emotionally. Thats the lie. The same people pointing to science in some instances, like to ignore it in this instance. Is it an absolute, no.
...
Thank you for explaining your thoughts in so much detail. It also shows that sometimes/often we hear what we want to hear and not what was actually said (this applies to both sides in this issue). You added a few words (highlighted) that I could not find in Butker's speech. Where does he address the stay-at-home dads? From the context it is clear that this omission is not an oversight; it is intentional.
-
44 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Why does that qualify him as a commencement speaker at a prominent engineering school?
He got a degree in industrial engineering. He also owns a business. Just looking at his credentials on paper, there could be worse choices.
-
6 hours ago, Beck Water said:
Why Georgia Tech would pick a football kicker is a better question.
He might be their only alumnus with a Superbowl ring.
-
In the end, everybody or every couple has to decide what is best for them, and going with Mr. Butker's suggestions is not always optimal. My wife and I both have a career in science and still managed to successfully raise two kids. On the other side, my sister had planned to return to teaching geography after her second child. Sadly, the child was severely handicapped, and she and her husband decided that he would continue working because he had a high-ranking position as a mathematician, while she would be saying at home.
On the other side, several years ago I was awarded a rather large research grant by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Looking for a scientist to help me running the lab, I put an ad in Science, one of the leading journals. I got about 400 responses, but only two came close to what I expected. I hired one of them, a postdoc from Armenia, Nelli. It was a full success. We have published more than five papers based on her work. Her husband is a carpenter (an excellent one, judging by the work he did for us), and is supporting her for every step in her career, although, admittedly, initially it was not easy for him to give up the role as the major breadwinner as suggested by Armenian customs. Nelli is now an associate professor at Penn State; her daughter graduated from college, her son is still in high school.
-
8 hours ago, gomper said:
Tailgating. Here in the Southtowns, it's almost a sport. I travel on the many country roads out here and people love to ride on your bumper until they can pass. I'm going a bit over the limit. I guess your time is more important than mine.
The other day I was driving out of Springville. SPD is notorious for setting up there. It goes from 45 to 55 and they patrol the 45 stretch. Most people know this and wait the two miles to get up to 55. Not the idiot in the pickup behind me. He blows past me going 70 and we approach a blind curve and almost hit head on with a vehicle traveling the other way. Never in my life did I wish they were on patrol that day more. If pickup bro wound up in a ditch, that's on him. But don't take anyone else with you because of your stupidity.
This is where on the Autobahn in Germany you use your high beam, flashing them on and off. Even if takes a minute, eventually the slow driver will notice you and let you pass.
Green things
in Off the Wall
Posted
Interesting article. No, these people might indeed see something we can't. You have three types of “cone cells” in the retina that each respond to a different bandwidth of light. The color of an object depends on the particular combination of those signals. However, each type of cone cell has a distinct wavelength where the response is maximal. This means that the whole light spectrum is not covered uniformly. If you have a forth type of cone cell with yet another optimal wavelength, you will perceive colors differently.
BTW, I like the pic in the BBC article where somebody arranged their books on the shelf by color.