Now That's How to Fold a Leaf - Animal Comedy - Animal Comedy, funny animals, animal gifs
Now That's How to Fold a Leaf. Share. Tweet. WhatsApp. Pin It. Email. grasshopper origami win folding leaf - See all captions. By penelopesdad. Explore Laura Valles's board "The Grasshopper and the Octopus" on Pinterest. | See more ideas Okay, this may be the best grumpy cat meme yet. o-o Grumpy . Patience, patience grasshopper, let the mailman come to you! Zeus leaves my lunch outside under the bushes sometimes--recently a dead rat.
As it is unique for each specie regardless the language, no misunderstanding will be possible! We will see now that some problems are possible if we use different languages… Here is the example between the english and the french language: Yes, that is easy! I Florian Bug Investigation and the C.
Other terms are used in english: The bush cricket or long-horned grasshopper refers to the katydid, the short-horned grasshopper is a grasshopper or a locust. Profiles of the suspects — What are their common points?
Thank you so much for your help Horacio! The Orthopteran family is composed approximately of 24, different species 1 of grasshoppers, katydids, locusts, crickets and some other members. These other members are the wetas and the mole-crickets. There are more than 11, species of grasshoppers; 6, of katydids; of crickets and 12 of locusts. All the different families of insects are defined by the characteristics of their wings.
The ability to jump Katydids, crickets, grasshoppers and locusts have in common their hind legs that allow them to jump. This capacity of high jumping is also useful for a safer take-off.
“The bug-investigation” – Locust, grasshopper, cricket or katydid?
They produce this sound by rubbering some different body parts together. For the cricket, it is commonly said that he is chirping. The transformation They all have an incomplete metamorphosis. Except the wings, the juvenile looks the same as the adult, they only grow in size. Establishing a facial composite — The physical differences If at first glance, they all look the same, there are a lot of little differences just in front of us!
The inspector needs to seek the clues in order to find the culprit. The antennas The easiest way to differentiate a caelifera from an ensifera is to take a look at the antennas: If they are short: It is a Caelifera, so a grasshopper or a locust. If they are long: It is an Ensifera, so a cricket or a katydid.
The ovipositor The female of the cricket and the katydid have a longer and more visible ovipositor than the grasshopper and the locust. The ovipositor is used for laying the eggs into the soil. The cerci We saw that the katydid and the cricket have both a long ovipositor. In order to differentiate them, you can take a look at the cerci, they are more visible on the cricket. The cerci are full of sensory cells that areimportant for their reproduction! The shape of the hind-legs We can also differentiate a cricket from a katydid by their hind legs.
This gene-centric view, as it is known, is the one you learnt in high school. It comes from Gregor Mendel and the work he did with peas in the s. Since then, and especially over the past 50 years, this notion has assumed the weight, solidity, and rootedness of an immovable object. But a number of biologists argue that we need to replace this gene-centric view with one that more heavily emphasises the role of more fluid, environmentally dependent factors such as gene expression and intra-genome complexity — that we need to see the gene less as an architect and more as a member of a collaborative remodelling and maintenance crew.
This revolt among historians recast leaders not as masters of history, as Tolstoy put it, but as servants. Thus the Russian Revolution exploded not because Marx and Lenin were so clever, but because fed-up peasants created an impatience and an agenda that Marx articulated and Lenin ultimately hijacked. Likewise, D-Day succeeded not because Eisenhower was brilliant but because US and British soldiers repeatedly improvised their way out of disastrously fluid situations.
Wray, West-Eberhard and company want to depose genes likewise. They want to cast genes not as the instigators of change, but as agents that institutionalise change rising from more dispersed and fluid forces.
This matters like hell to people like West-Eberhard and Wray. Need it concern the rest of us? We are rapidly entering a genomic age. A couple of years ago, for instance, I became one of what is now almost a half-million 23andMe customers, paying the genetic-profiling company to identify hundreds of genetic variants that I carry. Do I know how to make sense of them? Do they even make sense? Soon, it will be practical to buy my entire genome.
Will it tell me more? Will it make sense? Millions of people will face this puzzle. Yet we enter this genomic age with a view of genetics that, were we to apply it, say, to basketball, would reduce that complicated team sport to a game of one-on-one.
A view like that can be worse than no view. We need something more complex. We have a more complicated understanding of football than we do genetics and evolution. Nobody thinks just the quarterback wins the game. Mendel spent seven years breeding peas in a five-acre monastery garden in the town of Brno, now part of the Czech Republic. He crossed plants bearing wrinkled peas with those bearing smooth peas, producing 29, plants altogether.
When he was done and he had run the numbers, he had exposed the gene. This was the Holy Shit! And this conceptual gene, revealed in the tables and calculations of this math-friendly monk, seemed an agent of mathematical neatness. Inheritance appeared to work like algebra. Anything so math-friendly had to be driven by discrete integers.
It was beautiful work. This recognition was the Holy Shit! It seemed to explain everything. And it saved Darwin. Darwin had legitimised evolution by proposing for it a viable mechanism — natural selection, in which organisms with the most favourable traits survive and multiply at higher rates than do others. But he could not explain what created or altered traits. Genes created traits, and both would spread through a population if a gene created a trait that survived selection.
That much was clear by Naturally, some kinks remained, but more math-friendly biologists soon straightened those out. This took most of the middle part of the 20th century.
Biologists now call this decades-long project the modern evolutionary synthesis. And it was all about maths. Fisher, Haldane and Wright, working the complicated maths of how multiple genes interacted through time in a large population, showed that significant evolutionary change often revealed itself as many small changes yielded a large effect, just as a series of small nested equations within a long algebra equation could. The second kink was tougher. If organisms prospered by out-competing others, why did humans and some other animals help one another?
This might seem a non-mathy problem. Yet in the s, British biologist William Hamilton and American geneticist George Price, who was working in London at the time, solved it too with maths, devising formulas quantifying precisely how altruism could be selected for.
Some animals act generously, they explained, because doing so can aid others, such as their children, parents, siblings, cousins, grandchildren, or tribal mates, who share or might share some of their genes.
The closer the kin, the kinder the behaviour. With fancy maths, they argued that we should view any organism, including any human, as merely a sort of courier for genes and their traits. This flipped the usual thinking. It made the gene vital and the organism expendable.
Our genes did not exist for us. We existed for them. We served only to carry these chemical codes forward through time, like those messengers in old sword-and-sandal war movies who run non-stop for days to deliver data and then drop dead. This notion of the gene as the unit selected, and the organism as a kludged-up cart for carrying it through time, placed the gene smack at the centre of things. It granted the gene something like agency. At first, not even many academics paid this any heed.
This might be partly because people resist seeing themselves as donkey carts. Another reason was that neither Hamilton nor Williams were masterly communicators. But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: In his magnificent book The Selfish GeneDawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet.
These days, Dawkins makes the news so often for things like pointing out that a single college in Cambridge has won more Nobel Prizes than the entire Muslim world, that some might wonder how he ever became so celebrated. The Selfish Gene is how. To read The Selfish Gene is to be amazed, entertained, transported.
He replicates in prose the process he describes. He gives agency to chemical chains, logic to confounding behaviour. He takes an impossibly complex idea and makes it almost impossible to misunderstand. He reveals the gene as not just the centre of the cell but the centre of all life, agency, and behaviour.
Along with its beauty and other advantageous traits, it is amenable to maths and, at its core, wonderfully simple. As both conceptual framework and metaphor, the selfish-gene has helped us see the gene as it revealed itself over the 20th century.
But as a new age and new tools reveal a more complicated genome, the selfish-gene is blinding us. They do so even though they agree with most of what Dawkins says a gene does. In many cases, the other cogs drive the gene.
The gene, in short, just happens to be the biggest, most obvious part of the trait-making inheritance and evolutionary machine. But not the driver. It manifests a nested structure of games. And this is a decisive clue to how GIL could be true.
In the latter, each game is unrelated to the next except by having the same player. In fact there is not even a unified life: In the GIL-life, by contrast, the games are related in a particular way: Attaining the prelusory goal of one game becomes a constitutive rule of a higher-order game, so that playing the lower-order game becomes a lusory means of the higher-order game.
One plays the higher-order game by playing the lower-order game. This is just what Skepticus does in Flashback: And this nesting structure appears to avoid the horror vision that we reached above: Hurka might reply, however, that the person who plays nested games lacks a lusory attitude to the inner game. Lusory attitude entails adopting ends and rules just to make possible the activity of playing the game, but the nester does so in order to play a further game.
Thus the nester is a special kind of trifler. Either one must play games in life, or one must play the game of life, but one cannot do both. I will in fact go further, and show that utopians must be nesters.
I Can Has Cheezburger? - grasshopper - Funny Animals Online - Cheezburger
The professional, by contrast, plays to take home the winnings. But this seems to make the professional a kind of trifler, using the game to do something else. What distinguishes the professional from both the amateur and the trifler is the commitment to try to take home the winnings only by playing and winning. That is, the aim of taking home the winnings does not replace the lusory goal of winning, but turns that lusory goal into a constitutive rule of a second-order game whose lusory goal is taking home the winnings and whose lusory means is playing the first-order game.
One could have achieved this efficiently by cheating, or stealing the winnings, but instead one achieves the goal only by playing fair. This game—say, Professional Basketball rather than mere Basketball, or Professional Philosophy rather than mere Philosophy—may have its own rules of eligibility, pay scales, and so on. Thus the professional has a lusory attitude.
But this solution does not yet fully distinguish professionals from triflers. While the players themselves might be doing their best, the coach is playing a long game, for instance to manage a path to the World Series. This game- winning but championship-sacrificing coach plays Baseball to the exclusion of Baseball Season. The Badminton teams, for their part, were playing Olympic Badminton Tournament to the exclusion of Badminton.
But most coaches who play third-stringers in meaningless games or blowouts contrast with both of these. Such coaches normally remain committed to the lusory goal of the short game.
Though they play the third- stringers, they are not attempting to lose, but, like the golfer with a handicap, putting themselves under certain restrictions, and then trying to win in spite of them. In a well-constructed nested game, the inner and outer games enhance one another.
The activity of playing an inner game is thus not instrumental to the outer game, but partly constitutive of it. In order to play poker one must instrumentally locate a deck of cards and some currency with which to bet. But in order to play poker one must constitutively play each hand. Nesting turns out to be a constitutive rule of a GIL-life—that is, a life that is itself a game, constructed in a mutually reinforcing way out of plays of inner games.Grasshopper World, up-close and personal
Yet GIL is impossible unless we can answer an obvious question: But what is the highest-order or outermost prelusory goal? One obvious idea is that the prelusory goal of life is death, and hence its lusory goal is dying. It would be possible to die efficiently.
But if we set ourselves constitutive rules requiring us to die inefficiently, in order that we may live, then living is intrinsically valuable. Importantly, inefficiency is not the same as slowness;38 just as the best chess match is not the longest one, mere extension of life is not always an improvement.
Be it chess or life, the best game realizes the optimal balance between trying and achieving; its constitutive rules make the lusory goal—checkmate, or a good death—into our crowning achievement, and the playing into a worthwhile challenge.
If the prelusory goal of life is death,40 we seem to have discovered the lusory goal— dying—and the lusory attitude, which is pursuing death inefficiently just so that one can live.
Yet unlike, say, Monopoly, life does not come with predetermined rules. There is, then, no single best life. Nonetheless, whatever further rules one hangs on it, there seems to be something of a required skeleton: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality," in Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers Cambridge, UK: Must Immortality Be Meaningless?
Insofar as one pursues death while observing these rules just in order to live, life is a game and living is intrinsically valuable. But there are two problems. First, in most games even if the lusory goal is arbitrary we at least understand ourselves to be pursuing it. And under normal circumstances, although inefficiency is built into the constitutive rules, we work to maximize efficiency within those rules.
Yet we do not approach death this way: It could perhaps be argued that we should approach death this way; but that seems a tall order. A second problem is perhaps even more serious because it denies whether such a life would have any value at all, even if we could bring ourselves to want it. The problem is that, for all we have said, each of us might be playing his or her own one-player game. Once our game ends it is nothing.
We fade into oblivion, our lives spent pursuing the tiniest of tiny goals—our own death. We are back to annihilation. Death is not the End This time, though, we have reached annihilation for a different reason. The problem this time stems from the basic fact that the best games have more than one player. On its own, the current interpretation—in which each of us has adopted death as our ultimate goal—is a solipsistic game. Both Sneaks and Drags play games that have more people than players; other people become devices or spectators rather than fellow players.
Consequently, sneaks and drags play games that are only as big as themselves, games that have no value for anyone else and so necessarily vanish when the sole player stops playing. To be clear, Sneaks and Drags are not loners or recluses. They live among others. But they do not play with others. Rather, they use others, playing games that have more people than players. In the role-playing games that Suits uses as examples here, the best games are those where others feed good lines because doing so is the way to get the best lines back, and thereby gain opportunities to keep on giving and getting better lines.
As a result, their own role- performance is unsatisfying even to themselves. The open-game interpretation of the ideal of existence is compatible with the constitutive rules laid out above, but adds a third: By ending the book 44 Ibid. Such timing would be irrelevant on the closed-game interpretation. On the open-game interpretation, however, death is a move in the game.
It need not be sought for its own sake, but it may and indeed should be chosen when it is the best move available. This solves the first problem confronting the closed-game interpretation, namely, that we do not pursue death as a goal. And the idea of life as an open, multi-player game solves the second problem: In rejecting the closed-game interpretation, the open-game interpretation also gives new significance to the model of Utopia.
The Grasshopper introduces it as a means of representing the individual ideal more clearly by magnification. But more importantly, Utopia presents the inherent sociality of an ideal whose purpose is both reciprocal throughout and conceived as contributing to a larger common project.
Indeed, if anything, the magnification distorts the ideal in a way that brings back WL. The distortion has to do with reciprocity. A homebuilder needs a crew; a business administrator needs a staff; a jurist needs legislators.