Well the one that made it an extinct species in less than 25 years is. We're also more prevalent than ever and could probably do it more efficiently now too.
or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
Unless they are much different than current pigeons, I think bridges and building are in more danger.
I have an S3 now and I'm planning on keeping it until it dies. Unless I can get a phone that has two days constant usage on a single battery charge, or uninterpretable signal. I don't see the point in spending $600 every year on a new phone for incremental changes. I probably would still be using my HTC HD2 if it hadn't died on me.
If only I had mod points left.
I've always been in the vein of those who have a strong affection for science, only surpassed by their affection for God. Good to see I'm not alone on this site, though I usually stay away from the subject when it's presented here.
I usually do too. As of now. I've been modded half insightful and half troll. Funny how even if you agree with people about what they believe in, they still get pissed if you don't also deny what they don't choose to believe.
Firstly, a lot of people do use their belief in God to harm others, from opposing gay marriage to the twin tower attack, belief has caused a lot of harm.
And a lot of people use their scientific knowledge to build weapons. Lots of weapons. And those weapons give people the ability to do many orders of magnitude more harm than they ever could have with out them.
Secondly, 'belief' in the Big Bang is different from belief in God, in that if a scientist discovered something which would make the Big Bang an unlikely explanation we'd all say 'oh, ok' and start believing the new hypothesis.
Not really. It would take decades to change our minds on the matter. The scientific community does not "turn on a dime". And rightly so. The theory of the Big Bang is like seeing the ripples in a still lake hours later and arguing if a fish or a duck made the initial splash. Both are possible, but it could have been a kid throwing a stone. The problem is worse than that though, as with the Big Bang the fish, the duck and lake all sprang from the original splash.
There are still people trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old...
WTF does that prove? There are people who think the earth is flat, that believe in the flying spaghetti monster, etc. "Scientists" once argued over Luminiferous aether. Until very recently (and probably still) there are deniers that the Higg's exists. Does that mean we should deny science too? No. It simply means sometimes people are wrong. That doesn't make the entire group we associate them with wrong.
Interesting side note, my iPhone capitalized Big Bang for me, but not God...
Well that must be the final evidence that God doesn't exist then.;-)
Yes, but what's the point of that? They're already believing in something that doesn't make any sort of rational sense, presenting them with further evidence isn't likely to do anything than cause your blood pressure to spike.
But believing in the Big Bang is logical? 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density (lots of rational sense to be found there). Where did it come from? What caused it to explode? If it was infinite, where's the rest of it? Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point. I'm fine with this as we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now. But it takes some faith to believe it, even if many people don't like to admit it.
Personally, I believe in god. I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll on/. However I don't know if he/she exits for sure. I can accept that god may have been an alien, was even created by the mass consciousnesses from the belief of enough people, or even some sort of reality dysfunction that is left over from the big bang itself. Regardless, most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other, so I don't really find this to be a bad thing. Generally it's power crazed nutjobs that pervert religions to commit acts of violence, which is a shame.
I really don't see how it's so hard to find a way to reconcile ones religious beliefs with their scientific ones. Anyhow, my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with what anyone believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If you want to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no apparent reason, I'm not here to argue with you. But I would also appreciate the same respect for my impossible to prove beliefs too.
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Didn't Hyundai and/or Kia just get dinged for over estimating mpg? In an article I read about it, it stated that the EPA only had enough funding/man power to test around 6% of the models of vehicles on the road. Because one model can have multiple variations, the manufacturers tend to give the best mpg rating to as many of them as they feel they can get away with. In some cases you can find the 4 cylinder mpg rating on the 6 cylinder models. One of the less frequently discussed factors in determining fuel economy is "coast-down". It's the time it takes for a car to go from 70 mph to 10 mph while in neutral. Aerodynamics and tire friction are what matters for this, and it needs to be applied to the stationary mpg test results. The problem is, is that there are very few test tracks that have a perfectly level straightaway that is long enough to test this.
Additionally, mileage standards, in the US (and probably the rest of the world have changed. A car that is rated at 30 mpg between 2008 and now would have been rated at 36 mpg using the methods used between 1984 and 2007, and 44 mpg using the 1977 to 1983 standards.
No other species has built as complex of a societal structure to compare with.
Citation needed. I've seen this argument before and I've never seen any real analysis to back up the assertion. Mostly it sounds simply like puffery on our part when we claim this. Complexity is a difficult thing to measure. We have some unique abilities and out societal structure is indeed complex but we barely understand the societal structure of most other animals so it really is difficult to make comparisons that are meaningful.
Perhaps you could pull your head out of your ass for just a minute or two? If you take a look around and still feel a citation is required, I suggest you leave your computer behind when you return your head to its normal rectal location.
Do animals build prisons to hold and torture fellow animals?
There are species of shrimp that keep live starfish alive for months while eating them. Komodo dragons kill with a toxic bite that takes days to die from.
Do animals build concentration camp to hold and kill millions of it's own kind?
No, but pack animals banish members to die of starvation or be killed by others. No other species has built as complex of a societal structure to compare with. So we simply don't know. Most social animals probably wouldn't bother with prisons to begin with, they'd simply kill or banish any drain on the pack or herd, or leave them behind to die. Humans typically don't do this. We take care of our elderly and sick.
Do animals build nuclear bombs to destroy fellow animals far away?
Of course not, they're too fucking stupid to do so. Do animals donate blood or perform surgery so save other members? Do they donate organs to save each others lives? Did they start the Peace Corps? Or donate time to Habitat for Humanity? Have they started shelters to care for homeless humans? Do carnivores and omnivores ever choose to be vegetarians? Have they invented vaccines for chronic illnesses? If they had nuclear weapons to use against their enemies, you can bet your ass there are many species who would.
Animals might be more aggressive, but they sure as fuck aren't as evil as humans...
I'm not sure about evil, as animals don't really think in those terms as far as I can tell. but I would guess that more great ape physical confrontations per incident that end in death than do humans. There are probably less fights over mating in the human world than in the animals. As far as "evil" have you ever seen a cat play with its quarry after it's injured it? Or a Trigger fish eat the eyes of another fish and let it swim aimlessly before eating it? There is plenty of cruelty in the animal kingdom. Don't think for a second that humans are alone in this.
It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.
A hockey stick certainly would fit in an overhead bin, at least on any aircraft larger than the Embraer/CRJ types used by commuter and express operators.
The maximum size carry-on bag for most airlines is 45 linear inches (the total of the height, width, and depth of the bag). Anything larger should be checked.
No oversize packages or luggage can be stowed onboard.
So while the TSA may allow it through the checkpoint, the airline should not allow it as carry-on and it should be gate checked. Unless a hockey stick is less than 45 inches. I can't say I really know for sure. But this This site indicates the smallest Junior size is 46 inches.
Have they shown that the black hole is rotating near c, or just that the accretion disk is rotating near c at the event horizon? The accretion disk and the black hole are not necessarily spinning in sync. If they mean the accretion disk, then, like DUH: if it wasn't rotating near c, it would fall straight in and there wouldn't be a disk.
I realize this is/., but did you not even read the first sentence of the summary?
Astronomers have directly measured the spin of a black hole for the first time
It's not that someone has discovered or theorized about it. They actually measured it. Which I find to be pretty damn interesting.
As I get older, I find the little details of my life slip away from my memory after years and decades pass. I find myself wishing I had a way to record at least sound and video of my entire life. It would be nice to be able to go back and see what I was like when I was younger without the fog of memory clouding my view of the past. It would be cool to share with my boy friend and future kids how I was when I was younger
So are you talking about showing your kids this archive when they are older? Or are you talking about kids you've yet to have? I ask because if you are still young enough to have kids and are already forgetting so much you may want to seek professional help. Or are you more concerned with how getting older changes your perspective on things? If so, then you could simply do what people have done for hundreds of years (or longer), start keeping a journal. Or do a frequent video journal or something.
That being said, I'd like to do this too. That way I can replay what I said to my wife to finally prove to her that what she thinks she heard is not what I said. Or so I can know once an for all if I'm nuts and my memory has gotten even worse than I thought.
In 2009, an al-quaida agent attempted (unsuccessfully) to assassinate a Saudi prince with an ass bomb. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber were very successful -- not at blowing up a plane but at allowing the TSA to implement even dumber and more invasive security measures.
I'd say the crotch and shoe bombers were more successful than if they had blown up
As pointed out in the article, and in numerous studies, American Southerners experience a high rise in testosterone when they feel their honor has been violated. In other words, Southerners, especially men, place a higher emphasis on honor and have stronger reactions when insulted. Numerous studies have confirmed this.
I must have missed that statement in the article, as I didn't see it. Still, I'd be curious to know exactly where they spoke to people in both locations. Was it NYC vs. BFE Arkansas? or was it comparable sized cities? It would be interesting to know. Still, I'm not sure how being an honorable person is a bad thing.
why would you study a bunch of primitive, gun-loving hillbilly rednecks?
You seem to be thinking of southerners, not Americans...
You seem to not know what he fuck you are talking about. I've lived up and down the east coast most of my life. I can tell you that parts of northern Pennsylvania and, even more so, northern New York are every bit as "back woods" as anyplace you can find in the "south". Other than the accents I dare you to find a difference between someone from back woods upstate NY and someone from anywhere in the south.
Even so, they are both a subset of the American population.
Wait, are they trying to discourage bad spelling and grammar, or encourage it?
No Kidding. An electric shock would make so much more sense. You could increase the voltage every time the user repeated a mistake. They'd either learn to spell, give up on writing, or to be really twitchy when they write.
I'm so confused about this. I suppose NK has done more physical harm to other humans than the corporate entities that have been able to abuse the DMCA. So I suppose it's a victory, but it feels like a Pyrrhic one.
Slashdot Mirror
The last Pyrenean ibex (also called a bucardo) died in 2000
...yet there's a media panic if the supply of Twinkies looks like it's in danger.
Priorities, people.
Holy shit! I didn't know about this. So we've finally hunted the Twinkies into extinction? How may breeding pairs of Twinkies are left?
Are its natural predators still around
Well the one that made it an extinct species in less than 25 years is. We're also more prevalent than ever and could probably do it more efficiently now too.
or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
Unless they are much different than current pigeons, I think bridges and building are in more danger.
Damn mistyping and spell check. Oh well. Next time I'll look for a phone with an ineffable signal.
This is Samsung & Android.
If you want innovative, you'll have to go with Apple. /ohsnap
Yes, innovations like not having to hold the phone a certain way to make calls? /ohsnap
What's the point in a wireless device with an uninterpretable signal?
No dropped calls.
I have an S3 now and I'm planning on keeping it until it dies. Unless I can get a phone that has two days constant usage on a single battery charge, or uninterpretable signal. I don't see the point in spending $600 every year on a new phone for incremental changes. I probably would still be using my HTC HD2 if it hadn't died on me.
So this here I came up with just now: If you want war, accuse others of warmongering and attack them.
I don't think you are the first to come up with that.
If only I had mod points left. I've always been in the vein of those who have a strong affection for science, only surpassed by their affection for God. Good to see I'm not alone on this site, though I usually stay away from the subject when it's presented here.
I usually do too. As of now. I've been modded half insightful and half troll. Funny how even if you agree with people about what they believe in, they still get pissed if you don't also deny what they don't choose to believe.
Two points:
Firstly, a lot of people do use their belief in God to harm others, from opposing gay marriage to the twin tower attack, belief has caused a lot of harm.
And a lot of people use their scientific knowledge to build weapons. Lots of weapons. And those weapons give people the ability to do many orders of magnitude more harm than they ever could have with out them.
Secondly, 'belief' in the Big Bang is different from belief in God, in that if a scientist discovered something which would make the Big Bang an unlikely explanation we'd all say 'oh, ok' and start believing the new hypothesis.
Not really. It would take decades to change our minds on the matter. The scientific community does not "turn on a dime". And rightly so. The theory of the Big Bang is like seeing the ripples in a still lake hours later and arguing if a fish or a duck made the initial splash. Both are possible, but it could have been a kid throwing a stone. The problem is worse than that though, as with the Big Bang the fish, the duck and lake all sprang from the original splash.
There are still people trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old...
WTF does that prove? There are people who think the earth is flat, that believe in the flying spaghetti monster, etc. "Scientists" once argued over Luminiferous aether. Until very recently (and probably still) there are deniers that the Higg's exists. Does that mean we should deny science too? No. It simply means sometimes people are wrong. That doesn't make the entire group we associate them with wrong.
Interesting side note, my iPhone capitalized Big Bang for me, but not God...
Well that must be the final evidence that God doesn't exist then. ;-)
Yes, but what's the point of that? They're already believing in something that doesn't make any sort of rational sense, presenting them with further evidence isn't likely to do anything than cause your blood pressure to spike.
But believing in the Big Bang is logical? 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density (lots of rational sense to be found there). Where did it come from? What caused it to explode? If it was infinite, where's the rest of it? Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point. I'm fine with this as we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now. But it takes some faith to believe it, even if many people don't like to admit it.
Personally, I believe in god. I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll on /. However I don't know if he/she exits for sure. I can accept that god may have been an alien, was even created by the mass consciousnesses from the belief of enough people, or even some sort of reality dysfunction that is left over from the big bang itself. Regardless, most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other, so I don't really find this to be a bad thing. Generally it's power crazed nutjobs that pervert religions to commit acts of violence, which is a shame.
I really don't see how it's so hard to find a way to reconcile ones religious beliefs with their scientific ones. Anyhow, my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with what anyone believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If you want to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no apparent reason, I'm not here to argue with you. But I would also appreciate the same respect for my impossible to prove beliefs too.
Am I surprised that the fucktard editor is Timothy?
Is that a trick question?
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Didn't Hyundai and/or Kia just get dinged for over estimating mpg? In an article I read about it, it stated that the EPA only had enough funding/man power to test around 6% of the models of vehicles on the road. Because one model can have multiple variations, the manufacturers tend to give the best mpg rating to as many of them as they feel they can get away with. In some cases you can find the 4 cylinder mpg rating on the 6 cylinder models. One of the less frequently discussed factors in determining fuel economy is "coast-down". It's the time it takes for a car to go from 70 mph to 10 mph while in neutral. Aerodynamics and tire friction are what matters for this, and it needs to be applied to the stationary mpg test results. The problem is, is that there are very few test tracks that have a perfectly level straightaway that is long enough to test this.
Additionally, mileage standards, in the US (and probably the rest of the world have changed. A car that is rated at 30 mpg between 2008 and now would have been rated at 36 mpg using the methods used between 1984 and 2007, and 44 mpg using the 1977 to 1983 standards.
No other species has built as complex of a societal structure to compare with.
Citation needed. I've seen this argument before and I've never seen any real analysis to back up the assertion. Mostly it sounds simply like puffery on our part when we claim this. Complexity is a difficult thing to measure. We have some unique abilities and out societal structure is indeed complex but we barely understand the societal structure of most other animals so it really is difficult to make comparisons that are meaningful.
Perhaps you could pull your head out of your ass for just a minute or two? If you take a look around and still feel a citation is required, I suggest you leave your computer behind when you return your head to its normal rectal location.
Do animals build prisons to hold and torture fellow animals?
There are species of shrimp that keep live starfish alive for months while eating them. Komodo dragons kill with a toxic bite that takes days to die from.
Do animals build concentration camp to hold and kill millions of it's own kind?
No, but pack animals banish members to die of starvation or be killed by others. No other species has built as complex of a societal structure to compare with. So we simply don't know. Most social animals probably wouldn't bother with prisons to begin with, they'd simply kill or banish any drain on the pack or herd, or leave them behind to die. Humans typically don't do this. We take care of our elderly and sick.
Do animals build nuclear bombs to destroy fellow animals far away?
Of course not, they're too fucking stupid to do so. Do animals donate blood or perform surgery so save other members? Do they donate organs to save each others lives? Did they start the Peace Corps? Or donate time to Habitat for Humanity? Have they started shelters to care for homeless humans? Do carnivores and omnivores ever choose to be vegetarians? Have they invented vaccines for chronic illnesses? If they had nuclear weapons to use against their enemies, you can bet your ass there are many species who would.
Animals might be more aggressive, but they sure as fuck aren't as evil as humans...
I'm not sure about evil, as animals don't really think in those terms as far as I can tell. but I would guess that more great ape physical confrontations per incident that end in death than do humans. There are probably less fights over mating in the human world than in the animals. As far as "evil" have you ever seen a cat play with its quarry after it's injured it? Or a Trigger fish eat the eyes of another fish and let it swim aimlessly before eating it? There is plenty of cruelty in the animal kingdom. Don't think for a second that humans are alone in this.
It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.
A hockey stick certainly would fit in an overhead bin, at least on any aircraft larger than the Embraer/CRJ types used by commuter and express operators.
Yes, but it doesn't meet the dimensions required to qualify as carry on. According to the FAA website:
The maximum size carry-on bag for most airlines is 45 linear inches (the total of the height, width, and depth of the bag). Anything larger should be checked. No oversize packages or luggage can be stowed onboard.
So while the TSA may allow it through the checkpoint, the airline should not allow it as carry-on and it should be gate checked. Unless a hockey stick is less than 45 inches. I can't say I really know for sure. But this This site indicates the smallest Junior size is 46 inches.
Have they shown that the black hole is rotating near c, or just that the accretion disk is rotating near c at the event horizon? The accretion disk and the black hole are not necessarily spinning in sync. If they mean the accretion disk, then, like DUH: if it wasn't rotating near c, it would fall straight in and there wouldn't be a disk.
I realize this is /., but did you not even read the first sentence of the summary?
Astronomers have directly measured the spin of a black hole for the first time
It's not that someone has discovered or theorized about it. They actually measured it. Which I find to be pretty damn interesting.
But likely we'd just be unhappy about it either way.
That sounds like a true compromise to me. ;-)
As I get older, I find the little details of my life slip away from my memory after years and decades pass. I find myself wishing I had a way to record at least sound and video of my entire life. It would be nice to be able to go back and see what I was like when I was younger without the fog of memory clouding my view of the past. It would be cool to share with my boy friend and future kids how I was when I was younger
So are you talking about showing your kids this archive when they are older? Or are you talking about kids you've yet to have? I ask because if you are still young enough to have kids and are already forgetting so much you may want to seek professional help. Or are you more concerned with how getting older changes your perspective on things? If so, then you could simply do what people have done for hundreds of years (or longer), start keeping a journal. Or do a frequent video journal or something.
That being said, I'd like to do this too. That way I can replay what I said to my wife to finally prove to her that what she thinks she heard is not what I said. Or so I can know once an for all if I'm nuts and my memory has gotten even worse than I thought.
In 2009, an al-quaida agent attempted (unsuccessfully) to assassinate a Saudi prince with an ass bomb. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber were very successful -- not at blowing up a plane but at allowing the TSA to implement even dumber and more invasive security measures.
I'd say the crotch and shoe bombers were more successful than if they had blown up
As pointed out in the article, and in numerous studies, American Southerners experience a high rise in testosterone when they feel their honor has been violated. In other words, Southerners, especially men, place a higher emphasis on honor and have stronger reactions when insulted. Numerous studies have confirmed this.
I must have missed that statement in the article, as I didn't see it. Still, I'd be curious to know exactly where they spoke to people in both locations. Was it NYC vs. BFE Arkansas? or was it comparable sized cities? It would be interesting to know. Still, I'm not sure how being an honorable person is a bad thing.
why would you study a bunch of primitive, gun-loving hillbilly rednecks?
You seem to be thinking of southerners, not Americans...
You seem to not know what he fuck you are talking about. I've lived up and down the east coast most of my life. I can tell you that parts of northern Pennsylvania and, even more so, northern New York are every bit as "back woods" as anyplace you can find in the "south". Other than the accents I dare you to find a difference between someone from back woods upstate NY and someone from anywhere in the south.
Even so, they are both a subset of the American population.
If it were an animal, could you not breed it?
No. In the case of Glofish, no you cannot bred them.
Does the owner of Secretariat get to say a stud descended from Secretariat can't be bred?
Apparently there are different rules for genetically modified organisms vs. natural bloodlines.
Living things can not be ruled as if they were widgets.
It appears that if they are GM they can be. I don't agree with it, but apparently the US legal system feels differently.
Wait, are they trying to discourage bad spelling and grammar, or encourage it?
No Kidding. An electric shock would make so much more sense. You could increase the voltage every time the user repeated a mistake. They'd either learn to spell, give up on writing, or to be really twitchy when they write.
I claim North Korea for the MPAA!
I'm so confused about this. I suppose NK has done more physical harm to other humans than the corporate entities that have been able to abuse the DMCA. So I suppose it's a victory, but it feels like a Pyrrhic one.
Cut a mail slot in your door and install a flap. Then all your mail will be in your home, just like the rest of your stuff.
That only works in an area that has door to door delivery.
More than an hour? Talk about white people problems.
So only Caucasians have curbside delivery? Everyone else gets their mail delivered directly to their door?