Agreed, small animals are better at using the snow to their advantage and surviving on what little food there is. However, during the last iceage, the large animals where dominant. The same can be said for polarbears, which are unusually large bears, and pinguins, which are unusually large birds, among others. So I cant agree that small animals are always better.
Using sticks to aquire food isnt new for chimps. They have always been using sticks to collect ants, for example. This is probably just an evolution of this. Some chimp tried to collect ants in a tree, but found it had killed some small animal instead, and realized that it was just as good as ants, if not better.
This is not to say, however, that humans might not be a source of inspiration. Not in the way that humans show the chimps how to do it, but maybe more in the lines that chimps observe humans hunting mammals for food, and realizing that it might be something they want to try.
It wouldnt suprise me if chimps in the wild, in the next five hundred years or so, manage to steal rifles from humans and learn to use them with some skill. Biologically, they have everything required, and it doesnt take that much intelligence to use a rifle, just experience. However, i think that if that happens, it wont be long till there are no wild chimps.
Oh come on, you make it sound like people are guaranteed a high paying job just because they know how to configure a router or install Ubuntu. Basically, thats what it would be about. Its not difficult, most geeks could do it. But if everyone knew and practiced these things, the internet would be a lot safer for everyone.
Thats a trend I've been seeing for many years. Intels marketing tries to convince us that we need faster processors, but for every year that passes, I see CPU's becoming less and less important to my computers general performance.
This kind of puts an end to that whole issue with consumers not being able to rely on MHz as a way of judging different CPU's performance: Why would should they care about the CPU speed, when its the amount of RAM that reallt matters most to them?
What makes you so sure about that? Only certain parts of europe and asia, which are historically densly populated areas, have actually made full use of its fertile land. There are still vast regions, mostly in the americas and africa, that are used very unefficiently, or not at all. The only thing lacking is economic incentive and stability: There just isnt money to be made for an argentinian farmer to switch from cattle to grain, and it might not be worthwhile for an african farmer to do the same if he knows that his corrupt government might suddenly decide that his farm belongs to them if he makes too much money.
These examples are exagerations and simplifications of course, but the point is that the issue of expanding agriculture is not about fertile land, but money. Now, if ethanol started competing with food for the arable lands, it would drive prices up, and suddenly there would be money to be made.
You can always bring in arguments about bio diversity and pollution from farming, and those are debateable issues, but the argument that there isnt enough fertile land for replacing oil with ethanol doesnt work. I read somewhere that an area of the size of china would be required for this. Well, if agriculture in africa and the americas was as efficient as in europe, that would actually be quite achievable.
No, I don't think this is dangerous, infact, this is very good for voters. When a is proposed but rejected, people know exactly who is for and who is against a certain proposal. They don't have to take anyones word for it. In this case for example, people could see that the democrats where positive to this, and thus voting for the democrats would make this bill pass. And apparently, chances are good that it will.
This is good for the people's right to power, and thus it is good for democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, small animals are better at using the snow to their advantage and surviving on what little food there is. However, during the last iceage, the large animals where dominant. The same can be said for polarbears, which are unusually large bears, and pinguins, which are unusually large birds, among others. So I cant agree that small animals are always better.
Yes, and sweden has launched many rockets, and scandinavia has obviously suffered through some very turbulent years recently because of this.
Using sticks to aquire food isnt new for chimps. They have always been using sticks to collect ants, for example. This is probably just an evolution of this. Some chimp tried to collect ants in a tree, but found it had killed some small animal instead, and realized that it was just as good as ants, if not better. This is not to say, however, that humans might not be a source of inspiration. Not in the way that humans show the chimps how to do it, but maybe more in the lines that chimps observe humans hunting mammals for food, and realizing that it might be something they want to try. It wouldnt suprise me if chimps in the wild, in the next five hundred years or so, manage to steal rifles from humans and learn to use them with some skill. Biologically, they have everything required, and it doesnt take that much intelligence to use a rifle, just experience. However, i think that if that happens, it wont be long till there are no wild chimps.
Oh come on, you make it sound like people are guaranteed a high paying job just because they know how to configure a router or install Ubuntu. Basically, thats what it would be about. Its not difficult, most geeks could do it. But if everyone knew and practiced these things, the internet would be a lot safer for everyone.
Thats a trend I've been seeing for many years. Intels marketing tries to convince us that we need faster processors, but for every year that passes, I see CPU's becoming less and less important to my computers general performance. This kind of puts an end to that whole issue with consumers not being able to rely on MHz as a way of judging different CPU's performance: Why would should they care about the CPU speed, when its the amount of RAM that reallt matters most to them?
What makes you so sure about that? Only certain parts of europe and asia, which are historically densly populated areas, have actually made full use of its fertile land. There are still vast regions, mostly in the americas and africa, that are used very unefficiently, or not at all. The only thing lacking is economic incentive and stability: There just isnt money to be made for an argentinian farmer to switch from cattle to grain, and it might not be worthwhile for an african farmer to do the same if he knows that his corrupt government might suddenly decide that his farm belongs to them if he makes too much money. These examples are exagerations and simplifications of course, but the point is that the issue of expanding agriculture is not about fertile land, but money. Now, if ethanol started competing with food for the arable lands, it would drive prices up, and suddenly there would be money to be made. You can always bring in arguments about bio diversity and pollution from farming, and those are debateable issues, but the argument that there isnt enough fertile land for replacing oil with ethanol doesnt work. I read somewhere that an area of the size of china would be required for this. Well, if agriculture in africa and the americas was as efficient as in europe, that would actually be quite achievable.
Well, they do that pretty well themselves, being self repairing and all, don't they?
No, I don't think this is dangerous, infact, this is very good for voters. When a is proposed but rejected, people know exactly who is for and who is against a certain proposal. They don't have to take anyones word for it. In this case for example, people could see that the democrats where positive to this, and thus voting for the democrats would make this bill pass. And apparently, chances are good that it will. This is good for the people's right to power, and thus it is good for democracy.