Wapsi Square Forum

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Twins?

The continued joy of fraternal twins in bi-racial couples. Just shows that skin color is such a small part of your genetic code and yet people make such a big deal about it.

Yup. They got an unusually-different set of superficial maternal genes in the meiosis shuffle (skin and hair color)... if I recall correctly their father is Caucasian and their mother is "mixed race". For them to have ended up with such different appearances is statistically uncommon, but not all that much so. The fact that they are "fraternal" (sororital?) twins makes it more striking... but the same thing could have happened if they'd been conceived and born a year or two apart.

Their overall body plans look very similar to my eye - height, weight, general bone structure and limb shape, even their postures. Much less variation there, than is present in many other families (sister/sister, or even fraternal twins).

I wondered whether they might be the result of two different (haploid) oocytes developing from the same first-stage (diploid) oocyte... if so they'd be guaranteed to have inherited disjoint sets of maternal genes. From what I can tell, though, this is rare or impossible in humans... only one fertile haploid oocyte comes out of the meiosis process, and the other three are "polar bodies" which won't survive.

Humans really aren't very different from one another, genetically. I recall reading a while ago that if you compare a couple of troups of some of our closer primate relatives (chimps, say) living 30 or 40 miles apart, you'll find more genetic variation between them than you'll find across most of the human race on the planet.

Several lines of research suggest that the entire human race, alive today, is descended from a population of no more than around 15,000 individuals, back around 70,000 years ago. There just hasn't been time for a really significant amount of non-superficial genetic variation to reappear after that bottleneck.

If you check out the other family photos in the article linked - i did link it, right? - someone had her hair straightened.

Really, i thought of Maggie, whose red hair is even curlier.

OWWWW!!!!!

Your car, I hope not?!?!?

If that is indeed a fuel filter showing just inside the torn-metal area, it's fortunate that the accident did not compromise that hose... otherwise there could have been a mondo double-plus-ungood fire.

It certainly looks like a fuel filter to me...

that filter and the hose attached to it look VERY new... it looks like he/she replaced the old filter and hoses, and bent the fender bits away from the suspiciously new looking tire as well, in order to be able to drive it, but didn't have enough money on hand to get the bodywork done right away, and has been driving it around like that for quite a bit... look at all the rust forming on practically all the exposed steel...

There's actually not a lot of rust there, comparatively speaking - it's a light layer, and it doesn't coverall the exposed metal yet.

(I didn't have the camera with me, and i took the pictures with my tablet - the camera would have showed detail better. Also, i discovered after i had transferred them to the computer, there was a fingerprint on the lens, resulting in somewhat-degraded images.)

All four tires were new - that's a nicely reclaimed 1951 Chevrolet Fleetline* (not "restored", as the grille bars on the original were chrome, and there was a hood ornament on the originals) - it had a "classic vehicle" plate that i wish i'd gotten a shot of, which i think may have reproduced the plates of its original year. I don't know how recent the work was, but the paint was just about perfect (where not gone).

I doubt that anyone who could manage that degree of work - or to buy one restored like that - would either not have the money to fix it or not have insured it properly. They may well be waiting for their insurer - or the other guy's insurer, more likely, i'd say - to cough up the dough.

Picture of a fully-restored '51 Fleetline:



* I didn't know that off the top of my head - i just spent twenty minutes googling like crazy to identify it. I did know that it was a '54 or older, though.

So there's this article on ZDNet, titled "Windows 10: Will your PC run it?"
 
Having installed the Tech Preview in a dual-boot configuration and poked at it just long enough to know it and i will never be chums, i made a comment:
 

fairportfan 5 hours ago wrote: Yes, my computer is capable of running Windows 10.

No, it will never run it (well, not as the "real" OS - i've got the Tech Preview on here in a dual-boot mode, but it's going soon.)

I plan to stick with Windows 7 until one of us expires.

And if W7 expires before i do, i will switch to Linux with W7 in a VM for the one or two apps i can't get to work in WINE or some emulator.

Got a reply:
 

Buster Friendly 1 hour ago wrote: @fairportfan There's always people dedicated to becoming obsolete. We see them a lot in the development world.

Just replied to him:
 

fairportfan just now wrote: @Buster Friendly @fairportfan There's always people dedicated to peeing in the soup to make it taste better. You see them a lot in the development world.

Windows 10 isn't quite as ugly as W8 but its mama still dresses it funny.

If he wants to play another hand, he knows where to find me.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:So there's this article on ZDNet, titled "Windows 10: Will your PC run it?"
 
Having installed the Tech Preview in a dual-boot configuration and poked at it just long enough to know it and i will never be chums, i made a comment:

Having read through the article, and followed up on appropriate links, it looks like my PC might not be able to run Win10, for lack of NX support.

I don't really care.

My laptop already runs Linux, and when I can afford a bigger hard drive for my main PC, it will also go to Linux, with Win7 in a VM for a few programs that won't run through Wine...

And I don't feel obsolete in the least...


Here is another interesting article. Admittedly, it is pure speculation on the part of the writer, but his arguments seem sound, to it may still turn out to be the way he predicts:
With the Windows 365 trademark, the Windows 10 subscription plan becomes apparent

Nice pics, by the way.

How did you manage to retain two colors, on the house with the flag? Was it done through software, or through the camera?

My camera only allows to pick one color to maintain, not two... (Waterproof, shockproof, Canon Powershot D10 - not the best, nor the most recent, but it suits me...)

lake_wrangler wrote:Nice pics, by the way.

How did you manage to retain two colors, on the house with the flag? Was it done through software, or through the camera?

My camera only allows to pick one color to maintain, not two... (Waterproof, shockproof, Canon Powershot D10 - not the best, nor the most recent, but it suits me...)

Only one colour, actually on the chimney, though there was enough similar tone in the dry leaves on the ground - note the nedles on the pine trees.

It's the camera - the Nikon D5300 i just bought allows me to select up to three colours to allow in an otherwise B&W shot.

I put them here wondering if anyone would spot it ... or ask me why i posted them with no context or comments.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Only one colour, actually on the chimney, though there was enough similar tone in the dry leaves on the ground - note the nedles on the pine trees.

I figured that the leaves and chimney were close enough in color to both appear, even if only one color was picked. I get the same kind of results, depending on how close some colors are, and there's even a setting to let you choose how closely a color has to match your selected color or not. That's why I asked specifically about the house picture, as far as picking more than one color was concerned.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:It's the camera - the Nikon D5300 i just bought allows me to select up to three colours to allow in an otherwise B&W shot.

Nice! Glad to see you are already trying out the new features.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:I put them here wondering if anyone would spot it ... or ask me why i posted them with no context or comments.

So... What do I win for figuring it out?

lake_wrangler wrote:So... What do I win for figuring it out?

Win?

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:So... What do I win for figuring it out?

Win?

"A laurel, and hearty handshake!"

Dave wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:So... What do I win for figuring it out?

Win?

"A laurel, and hearty handshake!"

Either that, or I actually didn't win anything, because those were not the actual questions he expected, or the reasons he put them up there without captions.

Dave wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:So... What do I win for figuring it out?

Win?

"A laurel, and hearty handshake!"

How did Sheriff Bart get involved?

Hansontoons wrote:How did Sheriff Bart get involved?

Just a Little good luck, I imagine.

Dave wrote:

Hansontoons wrote:How did Sheriff Bart get involved?

Just a Little good luck, I imagine.

As one who Brooks movies with Wilder action, this one was mostly Slim Pickens.