Yes, and that reason is religion. Hate to deliver that line but it's verifiably true.
The fact is that a lot of cultures -- PNG tribes, Ancient Greece and Rome, African tribes, native Americans, China, Thailand, Ejypt, etc -- had thriving homosexual integration with mainstream life, which was then summarily removed when the cultures were introduced to religion X that preaches against homosexuality (usually Christianity).
Homosexuality occurs quite frequently for something that you'd think would be rooted out by evolution; it's also recently been theorised that homosexuals have a certain edge in a competitive tribal environment (no link from work sorry), which explains the frequency.
The homosexual taboo is a relatively recent development. Many ancient cultures practiced it openly and it was often seen to be as perfectly normal as a relationship between a man and a woman.
What evidence is this, exactly? All I know of is theories, hypothesis, evidence and common sense that the opposite is true.
Further more, consider this. Imagine tomorrow, science stopped. We just suddenly find out we've learned everything there is to know and our technological achievements plataeu. Give us a million years and we'll still have found a way to colonise or tap resources across the entire solar system. Hell, give us enough time and inclination and we'll eventually make it to other solar systems using current technology and theory and find a massive amount of different ways to employ said technology in ever increasing complexity... for example, massive engineering projects like space elevators (a short term example) or even ridiculously complex things like an interplanetary network of "roads".
Of course that's all moot as some of the most insane scientific discoveries are so far off as to be deemed near impossible; ie. looking beyond the event horizon of black holes, intergalactic travel, faster-than-light travel, a true understanding of quantum physics and its merging with general relativity, techniques for "editing"/forced evolving of the human genome, perfect AI, clinical immortality, transferred or shared consciousness,... need I go on?
... it's just suddenly dawned to me that you may be trolling:(. In which case, well done. But I'll post this anyway with the assumption that you're not.
The earth's been around for 4 billion years or so.
Of that four billion, we've been around for less than a million of them.
Of that million years, known civilisation has been around for around 10,000.
Of those 10,000 years, half of our technological advancement has been in the last 100~.
What if we evolved a million years earlier? That's a drop in the bucket in terms of the earth's age and we could easily see it happening. But what we couldn't see is, if we did evolve a million years earlier, what technological state we'd be in today. We can't accurately forsee 100 years in the future let alone 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or 100,000 years... and a full million years' worth of technological advancement at ridiculously fast rates -- the technological singularity would have been reached if it does exist -- and most probably self-guided evolution/special modification. Would we even use radio waves on any level at all, let alone for communication?
And that's just us. Our sun is one of the younger ones in the galaxy -- the universe. If we can't fathom were we'd be in a million years, imagine an alien race that achieved sentience a billion years ago. Unfathomable. Maybe they do have contact with us -- and view us as kin to fungus growing on rocks.
My point is, assuming the number of sentient species in the galaxy being in the hundreds of thousands, the chance of any two of these species being anywhere near each other on the technological scale -- and I'm using the term "near" very loosely -- would be damn near infinitely small. If we do stumble across life elsewhere in the galaxy, they'll probably either so advanced as to be beyond our comprehension, or so primitive as to be not worth much more than a footnote in a wiki... "Planetoid X263369 shows promising chances of forming cell-like life in the next million years."
You know how in every Sci Fi there's at least one super advanced, even handed, beautiful, wise and ancient species that every other species looks to for guidance and arse-kissing?
If this paper is wrong and there's no other life as capable as us in this galaxy... then we're that species. Well, we will be, in thousands/millions of years time, when everybody else has caught up to the space faring stage. So the next time you watch StarGate and see some awesome new so-ridiculously-advanced-and-mysterious race, you can nudge your friend and nod knowingly at the TV; "See those guys? Yup. That's us in a million years."
/drools about wearing a space-toga and arguing philosophy with space-adventurers
In my case, I never owned the 2006 corvette. Maybe I'd have hated it, maybe I'd have liked it, but I skipped the model entirely. All I know is that the 2008 model makes for a fine car.
John, there's this thing called an opinion. You have one, I have one, everyone has one. In your case, your opinion is that Win7's visual footprint is arse. This gives you a negative view of Win7. The important thing to take away from this is the "you" in the last sentence.
Other people however, have their own opinion. An analogy would be like two cars; both can be the same model, but that doesn't mean they're the same car. These other people can have their own, unique opinion, and since these opinions are not tied to yours, they may be different to yours.
This is where it gets a bit confusing, stay with me. So everyone, including you, has a separate opinion to each other. Yours is that Win7 is arse. Other people however, could look at Win7, like the experience, and form a positive opinion of Win7 -- even as you are simultanously deriding it! An analogy would be like the aformentioned two cars driving on separate streets, despite the fact that they are both cars. Sorry if I'm not getting this across too well.
Hmm, that might have come across as slightly condescending.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, I just realised I still have a Minsc quote in my age-old sig.
Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes!
Give me a pole of sufficient size and I can break into anything
Sloppy. If you're going to direct a troll at me at least do some research into where I'm from!
Yes, and that reason is religion. Hate to deliver that line but it's verifiably true.
The fact is that a lot of cultures -- PNG tribes, Ancient Greece and Rome, African tribes, native Americans, China, Thailand, Ejypt, etc -- had thriving homosexual integration with mainstream life, which was then summarily removed when the cultures were introduced to religion X that preaches against homosexuality (usually Christianity).
Homosexuality occurs quite frequently for something that you'd think would be rooted out by evolution; it's also recently been theorised that homosexuals have a certain edge in a competitive tribal environment (no link from work sorry), which explains the frequency.
yeah
Both are predated by judaism (technically they're also both offshoots of judaism).
The homosexual taboo is a relatively recent development. Many ancient cultures practiced it openly and it was often seen to be as perfectly normal as a relationship between a man and a woman.
the day that a news source posts a full uncensored clip of the incident is the day society has truly moved on from the arbitrary taboos of old.
Of course it'd also be the day that such an incident would merit only a footnote in an "odd stuff" newspaper section.
Good answer
a bit of a double-entendre
That word doesn't quite mean what you think it does ;)
Out of curiosity, just how many servers were in that second group? .
You should use "snow". It's New Zealand English for snow.
I would like to meet MsDomainController.
What evidence is this, exactly? All I know of is theories, hypothesis, evidence and common sense that the opposite is true.
... need I go on?
... it's just suddenly dawned to me that you may be trolling :(. In which case, well done. But I'll post this anyway with the assumption that you're not.
Further more, consider this. Imagine tomorrow, science stopped. We just suddenly find out we've learned everything there is to know and our technological achievements plataeu. Give us a million years and we'll still have found a way to colonise or tap resources across the entire solar system. Hell, give us enough time and inclination and we'll eventually make it to other solar systems using current technology and theory and find a massive amount of different ways to employ said technology in ever increasing complexity... for example, massive engineering projects like space elevators (a short term example) or even ridiculously complex things like an interplanetary network of "roads".
Of course that's all moot as some of the most insane scientific discoveries are so far off as to be deemed near impossible; ie. looking beyond the event horizon of black holes, intergalactic travel, faster-than-light travel, a true understanding of quantum physics and its merging with general relativity, techniques for "editing"/forced evolving of the human genome, perfect AI, clinical immortality, transferred or shared consciousness,
It's a sixy word. :)
The earth's been around for 4 billion years or so.
Of that four billion, we've been around for less than a million of them.
Of that million years, known civilisation has been around for around 10,000.
Of those 10,000 years, half of our technological advancement has been in the last 100~.
What if we evolved a million years earlier? That's a drop in the bucket in terms of the earth's age and we could easily see it happening. But what we couldn't see is, if we did evolve a million years earlier, what technological state we'd be in today. We can't accurately forsee 100 years in the future let alone 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or 100,000 years... and a full million years' worth of technological advancement at ridiculously fast rates -- the technological singularity would have been reached if it does exist -- and most probably self-guided evolution/special modification. Would we even use radio waves on any level at all, let alone for communication?
And that's just us. Our sun is one of the younger ones in the galaxy -- the universe. If we can't fathom were we'd be in a million years, imagine an alien race that achieved sentience a billion years ago. Unfathomable. Maybe they do have contact with us -- and view us as kin to fungus growing on rocks.
My point is, assuming the number of sentient species in the galaxy being in the hundreds of thousands, the chance of any two of these species being anywhere near each other on the technological scale -- and I'm using the term "near" very loosely -- would be damn near infinitely small. If we do stumble across life elsewhere in the galaxy, they'll probably either so advanced as to be beyond our comprehension, or so primitive as to be not worth much more than a footnote in a wiki... "Planetoid X263369 shows promising chances of forming cell-like life in the next million years."
You know how in every Sci Fi there's at least one super advanced, even handed, beautiful, wise and ancient species that every other species looks to for guidance and arse-kissing?
/drools about wearing a space-toga and arguing philosophy with space-adventurers
If this paper is wrong and there's no other life as capable as us in this galaxy... then we're that species. Well, we will be, in thousands/millions of years time, when everybody else has caught up to the space faring stage. So the next time you watch StarGate and see some awesome new so-ridiculously-advanced-and-mysterious race, you can nudge your friend and nod knowingly at the TV; "See those guys? Yup. That's us in a million years."
They'll scrounge for your coffee beans then charge $50 for a cartridge. At least it'll be enviro friendly :P
You think they were wiped out by cylon cave men? Were they made of sharpened flint too?
Blizzard's writing team deserves mega props. The execution could use some work though.
Shield of Voluptuous Maidenhood
In my case, I never owned the 2006 corvette. Maybe I'd have hated it, maybe I'd have liked it, but I skipped the model entirely. All I know is that the 2008 model makes for a fine car.
Well John, -- can I call you John?
John, there's this thing called an opinion. You have one, I have one, everyone has one. In your case, your opinion is that Win7's visual footprint is arse. This gives you a negative view of Win7. The important thing to take away from this is the "you" in the last sentence.
Other people however, have their own opinion. An analogy would be like two cars; both can be the same model, but that doesn't mean they're the same car. These other people can have their own, unique opinion, and since these opinions are not tied to yours, they may be different to yours.
This is where it gets a bit confusing, stay with me. So everyone, including you, has a separate opinion to each other. Yours is that Win7 is arse. Other people however, could look at Win7, like the experience, and form a positive opinion of Win7 -- even as you are simultanously deriding it! An analogy would be like the aformentioned two cars driving on separate streets, despite the fact that they are both cars. Sorry if I'm not getting this across too well.
Hmm, that might have come across as slightly condescending.
There are anecdotes of Win7 running on hardware with 256mb and even 128mb of RAM (with the OS only pushing it in the latter's case).