Slashdot Mirror

" ... to rational and independent individuals in modern civilization"

I'm not sure where the author is really coming from, but he seems to claim that modern individuals are (a) less herd-like, and (b) innovation was helped by drinking

The only reason we are less herd-like (and we still are very herd like in our thinking - just look at how certain topics are still taboo) is that our survival doesn't directly depend on acceptance by those around us. Sure, I might not have a job if I'm a douche-bag, but chances are I can still find a way to survive. On the other hand, getting kicked out of a prehistoric tribe meant you would pretty much have to hunt alone (assuming you ran away from the tribe before they butchered you), and you wouldn't survive for long.

Also, the reaction to alcohol varies by culture. You have this idea that people lose inhibition when they drink, but in some cultures they become more harmonious (less likely to cause trouble or act out - see here).

I'd say that the leaps and bounds in infrastructure and tech have allowed us to lead more solitary lives, which also means we have less inclination to conform. Now, if you can claim that a lot of innovation/changes was created under the influence (Windows 8 design? ;) ), that would be cool (I'm not an alcoholic, I'm just creative).

http://www.sirc.org/articles/intelligent_design.sh tml

England doesn't look any more "enlightened" than the rest of the world. Italy is practically fundie Roman Catholic. Russia has it's Catholic Orthodox. Ireland has their cultish Protestants or Roman Catholics. France has their muslims. As much as you like to believe it isn't so, Europe can be just as ass backwards as any other nation.

Let's blow some Karma!

To all the people who will be offended by the following, remember, if you read it and can understand it YOU ARE NOT A GORILLA and it doesn't apply to you. If you go and translate this into simplified sign language for Koko I am going to be somewhat upset at you and I really don't care what Koko thinks just as long as you are the one who pays for her bananas.

Yipppppppeeee! Now we can grant Gorillas human rights because the only thing that seperates humans from pond scum is that we are cute and that we use tools!!!! Kittens and Puppies are cute so we grant them half human rights, meaning that we don't eat them (Don't tell the Koreans or the Chinese about the not eating doggies thing they might get pissed). Mice are not cute so we can use them for scientific experiments! Gorillas are cute and use tools so we have to give them human rights! Now that we gave them human rights we have to come up with a politically correct name for Gorillas, I think Gorilla is too speciesist. Why don't we call them differently evolved intelligences (DEI). Next week we can sign the Americans with DEI act which requires that all jobs must offer free bananas and not discriminate based on your type of intelligence and that the only requirement for getting a job is that your species has been proven to use tools! We can register them to vote and use hand signals to teach them which party will offer them more bananas. One grunt is Republican, two grunts is Democrat, Eating a banana and/or parading around with an erection while female gorillas are present is considered a green party vote. Next we can pass the DEI human marriage act, give them gorilla reservations and pay them reperations in Bananas, to make amends for the 100s of years that the inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa have been hunting and eating them.

Remember folks. The above does not apply to you. YOU ARE NOT A GORILLA! If you think you are a gorilla please seek mental help immediately.

But seriously folks, Just say NO to bad memes like
deep ecology. Humans are special :).

Men ... accidents are usually associated with excess speed which has a higher percentage of fatalities.

The most interesting part of this particular study is on page 6, where they control for number of miles driven. Their data show that per mile driven, men produce fatalities at a 3:2 ratio to women. (It would be interesting to further control for the tendency in harsh driving conditions to select the man to drive.)

"This supports the suggestion by Storie (1977) that men are more at risk from accidents involving high speed while women are at more likely to be involved in accidents resulting from perceptual judgement errors."

Social Research Centre Study

Sure, when there's 2-3 of you regulraly going out it's easy to coordinate. Once you have 20-30 people in a group of friends, some of which are coming out on a given night, and some which aren't then it gets extremely tedious...

That's what peer-to-peer is for (seriously). You invite about five people and tell them to bring such-and-such along as well. They invite about five people and do the same thing. And so on...

People organise themselves into little sub-groups naturally, and generally speaking, you only have to deal with making sure your particular sub-group comes along, the rest is handled naturally with no effort.

It's the same for buying rounds - when there's about 25 of you, it doesn't turn into one giant round, the group spontaneously subdivides into subgroups without anybody actually thinking about it.

Err... I've just read that last paragraph and realised that it is quite possibly gibberish outside of the UK. Obligatory pub culture link.

(Thank you Samuel Clemens.) Well, fortunately, it seems as though a lot of people who use those doctored statistics often wind up hoist on their own petard. Looks like WorldCom's getting there, as was Child Find in an article in the Denver Post that won a Pulitzer Prize for reporters Griego and Kilzer.

There are some spectacularly bad examples in the posting above... I'm not sure anyone ever said there were a million homeless people. However, the widely-criticised (as to methodology) US census survey cited almost half a million, which you can add for yourself here. Also, as to the "statistics" quoted by the poster on sexual orientation, I know that as early as 1972 the University of Guelph's Veterinary and Agricultural Colleges were using the 10% figure in training films (one of which, my friend, a student in another department at the time, narrated) on animal breeding, and in Animal Days, the British naturalist Desmond Morris mentions something similar based on his work with ten-spined sticklebacks (1958). Similar figures seem to hold through all animal species.

The problem seems to be that too many of the general public fall for that same old Ad Verecundiam Fallacy. I think it's a lack of critical thinking skills.

And in this day and age, if a CEO doesn't qualify as an "improper authority"... --smirk--

This is kind of offtopic, but I just read a book called Bold Science: Seven Scientists Who Are Changing Our World. It talks about Venter's interesting background. Other scientists mentioned:

Susan Greenfield,

Geoffrey Marcy,

Polly Matzinger,

Saul Perlmutter,

Gretchen Daily, and

Carl Woese.